User talk:Dual Freq

Archives Archive 1

File:USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes.jpg

File:USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

108.184.8.239 16:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

File:RC-135S Cobra Ball landing at Travis Air Force Base (200523-F-UI914-0249).jpg

Hi there, you updated this image to say it's a TC-135, but this suggests it was converted from a TC to an RC in 2016, and the photograph was taken in 2020. How would you suggest this and the aircraft's category be handled? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an odd one. It is missing that 'cheek' pod that all the other RC-135's have, Hard to believe it could have a recon capability with no obvious antennas on the outside. This article says it is to be a NC-135, the platform used to test equipment for the RC-135 fleet. I'm not sure where the dossier page gets the conversion info from. It's pretty clear though that it is not a Cobra Ball though. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

How important is it that deletions leave a clear deletion log entry...

I have two heads-up, from you, Dual Freq, on User talk:Geo Swan, advising me that File:Canada 3000 - Airbus A310 (50498124406).jpg and File:Canada 3000 Airlines Airbus A310-304; C-GRYV, August 2001 (8487840892).jpg had been marked as possible copyright violations.

Administrator Yann's deletion log entry for File:Canada 3000 - Airbus A310 (50498124406).jpg said the flickr contributor had explicitly said that while the image was from his collection, he had not taken the photo.

Well, I checked https://www.flickr.com/photos/148888746@N08/50498124406/ %208487840892 Its description does not say that.

That is confusing. It puzzled me.

On further investigation I realized the flickr contributor had uploaded this image twice, and that only the description at https://www.flickr.com/photos/aero_icarus/8487840892 said it was not his image.

I suggest that, ideally, in the interests of leaving non-confusing deletion log entries, 50498124406 should have been deleted as a duplicate. Its deletion log should have said it was a duplicate.

Then 8487840892 should have been deleted, with a deletion log entry saying it is a copyright violation. Maybe that would have been slightly more work. Maybe that would have required the deletion of a redirect, but, I suggest, it would have left a clearer deletion log.

So, how important is it that deletions leave a clear deletion log entry? Geo Swan (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it was confusing. The second one was not a direct duplicate, it was modified for rotation, scratch removal, etc. So I don't know that it should have been deleted as a duplicate. Both linked the same source image with an unknown photographer and unknown copyright status. The copyvio template askes for the original source of the copyright violation, so that's what I put in. I marked them both for deletion because the original photographer's intent is not known. Many of Aero Icarus' "not my shot" slide scans ended up on commons and there are a few left to delete. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know how close two images have to be, to be considered duplicates. Doesn't the wording say that if the two images are, forgetting the exact wording, but essentially indistinguishable to the naked eye, they should be considered duplicates, even if they are of different resolutions?

So, am I understanding you correctly? If we have two essentially identical images, with one highly visible difference - one has had its rotation corrected, and the other one has not yet had its rotation corrected, so it has a screwy rotation - are you saying they are not duplicates? Scratch that. I see now. The flickr contributor uploaded the image a second time because, they said thay applied, "color adjustment, image rotat[ation], remove noise, dust & scratches." Even so, they appear naked eye indistinguishable, to me.

What about when the two images have the same dimensions, but one is a lot smaller than the other? When I use my own tools to crop an image, on my own computer, I often find the cropped image's size goes way up. I've attributed that to the original image having had a lot smarter compression algorithm applied to it. I think this means, if there are two images, most of us can't tell whether the smaller image may not be the superior image. I notice images with identical dimensions, but wildly different sizes, in images that are in the public domain, due to age, that can be found on multiple museums, or reasonable equivalent.

When there are two very similar images that differ only in that one had a distracting border trimmed, I do not consider them duplicates.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Copyright Holder of the photo passed away

Hello

I want to upload another photo of OO-SJB (involved in SN548) to Wikipedia page. But copyright holder, Guy Van de Merckt died in 2009. So who will hold the copyright, or will it expire ?

Best Regards Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

70 years after the author's death it becomes public domain. Rights to photos would pass to the person's heir, I believe. Commons:First steps/License selection, Commons:Licensing. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)