User talk:Ariadacapo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Salu, Ariadacapo. You filed the deletion request for the NASA F-8 photo. If you find a picture that is already on Commons you can just tag it with "duplicate" (use double template brackets "{" before and after). The deletion request is for problems with the license or its content. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I just did. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
...Didn’t work
I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I did not mean that the duplicate applies to this case, anymore, as I altered the size of the picture to avoid the duplicate. I just wanted to give you the advice, that, if you'll find another picture that is the same as another - apart from size - that you can use the duplicate. However, if you want to upload a new file, for example the NASA F-8 photo, but it already exists, you can upload a new version of the file, like now 10 MB instead of 200 KB, like I did with the other NASA F-8 photo. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain, Cobatfor. I hope I didn’t cause too much disturbance. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Zenit rocket leaving the Sea Launch mobile pad.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Zenit rocket leaving the Sea Launch mobile pad.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Huntster (t @ c) 11:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have to tag this file as a copyvio, but the original Flickr uploader had no right to license it as he did. Trust me, I scoured the net a while back for useful images of the Sea Launch vessels, and what's here on Commons is all there is that's actually free. Even photos by Steve Jurvetson, whom I love to pull images from, aren't always appropriately licensed on his Flickr stream :) Huntster (t @ c) 11:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hunster for correcting me. I was so happy to find this beautiful picture that I didn’t hear the "too good to be true" bell in my head, even as I wondered how involved a photographer must have been to be on the boat. Thank you also for reverting the Sea Launch article modification accordingly. I’ll be more careful from now on. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it much...if you have any questions about the legitimacy of an image, just ask on my talk page. I'm pretty good at detecting things like this. Huntster (t @ c) 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 9280826af18f59ded117f69b7ad00bc8[edit]

Note de service. Getting started with a TUSC account.

Airfoil schematic[edit]

Hi Olivier, please take a look at perhaps you can make the image What would btw also be useful is an image of the profiles of only rotors (airplane and helicopter/autogiro rotors). Perhaps that different profiles need to be made depending on the number of blades (not sure on this) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File move[edit]

I see you've requested a move for File:Transonic Vapor F-16 02.jpg. This image corresponds with File:Transonic Vapor F-16 01.jpg. Can you request a move for this one also, and I'll move both? INeverCry 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did. Thank you for your vigilance and maintenance efforts... I deeply appreciate the administrators’ and filemovers’ quiet work. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and ditto for your work. INeverCry 20:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Runway Visual Range illustrations[edit]

Hi, two days ago I got a message from you concerning pictures licensing violation. I contacted once again the owner of those pictures: and put the email conversation public (with deleted contacts) on discussion pages of those three pictures. Is that enough or should I do more to prevent their deletion? Thank you very much for an answer. Cs wikipedro (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Noticeboard[edit]

Hi, I (very belatedly) replied to you at COM:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Skip Stewart and Patty Wagstaff.jpg (and others) of Skip Stewart. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Files to be deleted[edit]

Refering to the message that you left on my talk page. I actually moved them from Wikipedia Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human...The deletion will in no way be an inconvenience but I will take that as lessons for my future contribs to commons. 8bit-dynamiclist.gif Talk to Me. Email Me. 13:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Stephenwanjau, thanks for the heads up. I don’t think that there is much to be learned, nor that this is an important problem overall. I simply see this as a benign, good-faith copyright violation that was not easy to spot. All the best in your future contributions! Ariadacapo (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


I missed the message you left on my talk on the 7th and just noticed it as I was doing some archiving. Thank you for the kind words. INeverCry 00:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded to you, Ariadacapo, in recognition of your extraordinry scrutiny, precision, and community service.

Thank you for everything you do to make Wikimedia Commons a better place.

Senator2029 08:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

wheee! Thank you =) Ariadacapo (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

added translation "Werkspoor Diesel", as you requested years ago[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo. I've translated the dutch description of File:Werkspoor aanzicht.jpg into English, as you requested more than two years ago on its talk page. I've also added a French translation to the file info page. Considering that my French is just as bad as that of Google translate, would you please be so kind to review the French translation? Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Jahoe (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oooh that’s fantastic! Thank you so much! I’m heading to the translation now =) Ariadacapo (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you too Ariadacapo. :) I'll see if I can find some more on this cute little engine, like where it was deployed and what happened to its three brothers. More pictures perhaps. Since most pumping stations are much smaller and fully electric, it can't be that difficult to find, two or three possible location spring to mind already. I'll post here if I find something, but I'm a slow runner myself, so please be patient. Regards, Jahoe (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
But I need a little clue in identifying. The engine is 6 cyl. 4 stroke; do I see that correct? Jahoe (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Most likely yes, judging by the mechanisms on top. I’m not an expert though. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for now, I'll be back. :) Jahoe (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 32e029ab7e60614ae3d2a01568514c58[edit]

Trying to work around a bug in my TUSC account

Top views of aircraft[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you created Category:Aerial photographs of aircraft, and other related categories. Several of the sub-categories of (Views of aircraft) appear to be poorly defined and poorly located in the hierarchy. I suggest the following hierarchy: (Plan views of aircraft) is level 1, then at level 2 is (Bottom views of aircraft) and (Top views of aircraft), with (Top down plan views of aircraft) converted to a redirect to (Top views of aircraft). Below (Top views of aircraft), at level 3 is (Aerial photographs of aircraft). This assumes that (Aerial photographs of aircraft) are all top views, (ie directly above the subjects) and ignores oblique views, but perhaps that can be ignored for now ? I welcome your comments before making any changes.PeterWD (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello PeterWD, first thank you for your tireless work categorizing images. Bits of your work regularly show up in my watchlist and it’s always a good thing! =)
I don’t think that Aerial photographs of aircraft should go below Top views of aircraft. It contains many great photos which just would not fit. I agree with all your other proposals.
In time I would like to turn Views of aircraft into something much more useful, perhaps something that would look like:
  • Views of aircraft (or "aircraft by situation"?)
    • Aircraft taxiing
    • Aircraft in hangars
    • Aircraft taking off
    • Aircraft in flight
      • Aerial photos of aircraft in flight
    • Aircraft in crosswind
    • Aircraft on aircraft carriers
    • etc.
This would be an interesting alternative to our current aircraft type/registration-based approach to categorizing aviation photos. I’m not sure where to start with this, nor that it would be a popular idea. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your carefully considered response, and your kind words. I have just made the first few changes, without including (Aerial photographs of aircraft). I can now see that the sub-cat of that (... in flight) should not come under plan views, but perhaps that can be later diffused into a lower level plan view sub-cat that could also be under (Top views of aircraft). One of the principles I sometimes employ in aircraft recognition is to place images in a category even when I am not 100% sure of my identification, then I and other people can see them in context and decide to keep or discard the categorization for such images. I find that the same principle of trying out an idea is also useful for new or existing categories. In your suggested hierarchy, yesterday I added (Crosswinds in aviation), but I generally ignore (Aircraft in flight) as a mostly irrelevant category, otherwise perhaps we would have to categorize all other aircraft images under (Aircraft on the ground)?? Personally, I don't regard (Aircraft landings) or (Starts in aviation) [ugh] to be very important, being so numerous and sometimes difficult to differentiate between each. Feel free to tweak my identification or categorization (usually made with minimal time-consuming discussion or consensus) - I'm not easily offended.PeterWD (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A400M at Paris Air Show categories[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo, you just made some changes to the category structure of the A400M aircraft at PAS this year. These changes would, in my opinion, only make sense if there was only one A400M aircraft at PAS, but there were three different aircraft there. F-WWMQ was on static all the time, F-WWMZ flew the display on June 19 and F-WWMS flew the display on June 20. Leaving Category:Airbus A400M at Paris Air Show 2013 only as a subcat of Category:F-WWMQ (aircraft) makes no sense to me for that reason. It should either be a subcat of A400M directly or there should be three different Paris Air Show Categories for each one of the aircraft, or a different structure that I missed. I'd be interested in what your opinion is regarding that. Thanks, — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 11:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Julian, thank you for the note. I only saw one A400M there so I (wrongly) assumed only one aircraft had been seen there. Indeed, my edits make no sense! Sorry! I am undoing this right now. Please let me know if I forget something. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks for the fast response. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fluid machinery[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo, I've declined your request for a speedy delete of Category:Fluid machinery, first off we never delete categories which are populated, and this was my initial reason for declining. However looking at those sub-categories, the category is not just of machines that are powered by fluids or transmitted by fluids but devices that move fluids and use fluids, e.g. Category:Blowers, the category may need renaming and its contents re-organising, but I think for the moment it should be kept.--KTo288 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the content was clearly turbomachinery, so I moved it there. Some content remains, however, that isn't. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Eclipse Concept Jet - Oshkosh Air Show 2007 - 002.jpg[edit]

Sorry, my error. --JotaCartas (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and no need to apologize! Keep up the good work,
Ariadacapo (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Files related to helicopter flight mechanics[edit]

Hi, I don't understand your warning here, and I am not sure why my recent uploads were deleted, as no reason was given, and no records of uploads/deletions can be found. Please respond at my talk page, thank you. TGCP (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. I heed your word, and will make a better effort. TGCP (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Since you are interested in rotorcraft functions, the "new" Helicopter Flying Handbook has updated diagrams which I would like to upload (not the photos acknowledged in the preface), but now I want to be extra careful about it. I have asked FAA, but so far no answer. TGCP (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Ha! I just do not know about this one (beautiful document, great find, by the way!). I could not find any copyright statement, either. Probably the best would be to ask more knowledgeable people, at the Copyright Village Pump or in the Wikiproject Aviation. Sorry that I can provide no help here... Ariadacapo (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I asked at the IRC, and they said to ask FAA, so I did - and we may wait for a looong time... Even if they reply to me by email, it would be difficult to use that email as validation. Someone might be bold and upload anyway, but probably not me. If you want drag specified, here is a calculated curve in Figure 26, page 14. TGCP (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
FAA heli-manual 4forces
I thought text was missing from arrows in your Heli-manual edit File:FAA heli-manual 4forces.svg , so I uploaded a new version - now I can't even undo my own edit ?? It says Undo has already been done. I don't know how to use Inkscape properly, so I hope you and others will continue to rectify my uploads. TGCP (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello TGCP, uploads are not reverted the same way as page (wikitext) edits. To revert to a previous file version, you need to scroll down the description page and revert and use the links in the file history table.
I just uploaded a new version of the file. Inkscape is not very hard to use but there are very often issues with fonts on the Wikimedia software, which prevent text rendering on Commons even though it is in the file. The easiest way is usually to delete and re-type the text from scratch in Inkscape, using simple fonts such as "Nimbus Roman 9L" or "Nimbus Sans". I hope this helps! Feel free to experiment! Ariadacapo (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
It has now been deleted due to lack of OTRS. As it is FAA material, it should non-controversial to upload it again, with FAA stamp and without OTRS stamp. I don't have it, do you? TGCP (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, TGCP. I have looked into the issue with the help of OTRS volunteers and the file is now restored. I apologize on behalf of Commons that we went too fast here! Ariadacapo (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I think it was your upload, as I can't process .svg correctly. I don't fully understand the OTRS process, but it seems from that discussion that most ordinary files from the FAA manual are allowed on Commons - will the next uploads require OTRS or can they be uploaded with just the FAA template? TGCP (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi TGCP, yes, I think the consensus is very clear, that you can upload any files from that document without an OTRS proofcheck, as well as any other file produced by the FAA (not merely hosted or commissioned by them). Simply slap the {{PD-USGov-FAA}} template onto them. In case there is a problem, give me notice and I’ll do my best to help. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Cockpit windows of a Boeing 787 (1).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cockpit windows of a Boeing 787 (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.


Attaching many categories to a media file makes that file more reachable for public reach and makes that more searchable for people especially for students of all types. So I do attach more categories to files to make it people friendly/reachable. Orgio89 (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And your deleting of valid clear meaningful categories is clearly certain vandalism act!! Do not delete valid good categories please learn from others!! Orgio89 (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Since your primary language is french, in english speaking world Green Technology, Green Energy, Green car are clear valid public terms that newspapers, tv and other press use them. So those categories are clearly acceptable in public encyclopedia like WP. Orgio89 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Go to Commons:Categories. Read. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:LiquidOxygen.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:LiquidOxygen.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ( This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:LiquidOxygen.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Diannaa (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Categorization of my curve of the sphere drag vs Reynolds[edit]

NASA drawing
New file

Thanks, dear Ariadacapo, for your contribution on my curve (after the equations of Clift, Grace and Weber). May be is it the place to say that I realised that work because the curve after the NASA is quite false (see the irregularity of the ordinates !). Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you for the great work creating this diagram. I think the NASA-based file is quite alright -- it is clearly a sketch, intended to show the overall trend. Your file goes beyond that and provides a numerical description of the phenomenon, which is a great contribution (we had no such freely licensed file). Keep up the good work! Feel free to ask me for help if you need (also in French :-) -- Ariadacapo (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The overall trend ! Well, it is possible... But look at the 0.1 ordinate ! In French, one will say "Ça frise la forfaiture !".
I just write (in French, it's OK for you !) 54 pages on the sphere Cd (with almost as many pictures). I'll publish it in a few days. I'll try to found my own user-page (I thought I did it in French some years ago). Friendly Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ariadacapo ! I just published my text on the Cd of the sphere (in French, as you know)! The address is : . In some days this .doc will be converted in .pdf, but I have not personally the software to do it... Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ariadacapo ! I wonder if it will not be useful to publish in the Wikipedia Commons the following picture (after Prandtl, 1904) :,prandtl_1904,colorized.png
and its French version :,prandtl_1904,colorise.png
I only colourized the sketch of the great man ! Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bernard de Go Mars, good work on the report =) I skimmed through it and it looks like an interesting read. By the way, it’s spelled Stokes without a "c" (I know because I have made that mistake, and others much worse that I shall not reveal =)
Publishing the diagram would be a great thing. I recommend that you upload an "original version" separately from your colorized version, so that users may choose which one they like best and adapt them according to their needs. If you need, here is a high-resolution version (this is my favorite diagram in all fluid mechanics, and I’ve been using it for some time). In English one would write "lower pressure/higher pressure" rather than "less/more pressure". Don’t hesitate to ask if you need help.
By the way, you did a fine job explaining the concept and particularities of the boundary layer -- it’s not an easy task. Keep it up! Ariadacapo (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't upload the original version, because I am not sure I got one really free of copyrights (this sketch, in the NACA report, is in bad definition). May be, if you have got one (the one you show is very nice), you can upload it by yourself. Concerning my colourization, it brings enough qualities so that I can say it is "my own work" (with a help of Ludwig).
The purpose of that kind of colourization is nothing but to facilitate the comments of the teachers or the contributors, in our case !
Thank you for Higher/Lower pressure, and also for Stokes !
>>>>>>>>>>>you did a fine job explaining the concept and particularities of the boundary layer<<<<<<<<<<<<< I do simplified a lot, but the problem is hard to explain, especially for me... With thanks, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
When I thing to the problem of copyright, I am not sure I can upload my colorization. What do you feel about it ? Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Décollement de la couche limite pour Wikipédia
I just uploaded my own picture : . I'm afraid I made a new mistake with the name of the file (it would gain not to have any accent ! By the way, do the categories Reynolds and Boundary layer exist ? How would you translate the French expressions of this picture in English ? Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bernard de Go Mars, sorry for losing track of this conversation.
I have just worked on the categories of your upload. Category:Boundary Layer does not exist but Category:Boundary layer does. If you use the HotCat gadget (to be enabled in your preferences panel) it will auto-suggest/auto-complete category names.
By the way, this file does not belong to Category:Reynolds number since it does not depict or represent the concept of the Reynolds number (see COM:OVERCAT)
There is also no issue with the accents in the filename. You can link to it like so: File:Décollement de la couche limite pour Wikipédia.png.
As for the copyright restriction on Prandtl’s drawing, there is none anymore. It was published in 1904 so it can be uploaded with a PD-old copyright tag (see en:WP:PD for how to determine whether a work is in the public domain or not). Best, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Hawk T1 Aircraft High Above RAF Valley with Benevolent Fund Logo MOD 45150071.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Hawk T1 Aircraft High Above RAF Valley with Benevolent Fund Logo MOD 45150071.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hawk T1 Aircraft High Above RAF Valley with Benevolent Fund Logo MOD 45150071.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s - DF-ST-90-05759.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s - DF-ST-90-05759.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s - DF-ST-90-05759.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Interlanguage link edits[edit]

Hello, I noticed with this edit you made, you removed the interlanguage link citing provision by Wikidata. However, Wikidata did not yet have the association in its database, so this link was not redundant and your removal effectively just disassociated the two. I've gone ahead and added the association to the Wikidata page, but thought I should mention this in case there are other similar edits you made. Thanks! djr13 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Djr13, thank you for the heads up. This was indeed a mistake. I am behind a slow Internet connection, so I deal with many edits at once on Commons. On this one, I must have lost track and forgot to make the Wikidata edit also. I will be more careful. Good that you let me know! Greetings, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC).


Could you please explain, how this file could be user's own work? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This file is (allegedly and believably) a scan by the user of a drawing published in 1797 in the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is why the "source" field says "Encyclopædia Britannica Third Edition ({{own}} scan)". Is it the licensing (obviously erroneous as this is PD-old) that you are questioning? Ariadacapo (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Sukhoi Superjet 100 at Paris Air Show 2013 (2).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sukhoi Superjet 100 at Paris Air Show 2013 (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Arbeitsweise Zweitakt.gif[edit]

Wziąłem z niemieckiej Wikipedi. Był na stornie z 2004 roku. Nie mogę sprawdzić jej opisu ponieważ aktualnie storna ta odwołuje się do Commons. Topory (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok dziękuję! Skontaktuję pierwotnego autora do omówienia licencji. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Email re Wikipedia[edit]

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Category redirect for manufactures rename?[edit]

Re: Category:Airbus Helicopters AS350 Ecureuil Redirecting a category in response to a manufacturer renaming a product line seems awkward to me. The aircraft is what it was when it was built and other sources do not change the name. It is also awkward for users who may have an accurate name for a particular aircraft but no knowledge or interest in the product line history. In my view this could better be handled with subcategories, especially in cases where the manufacturor has changed over time as well. Dankarl (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dankar, I made the edits in good faith because I felt it is much less awkward this way. In my view, when the aircraft design does not change, the name does not matter much. Keeping all the names seems confusing, e.g. it would be hard to know where one given aircraft would fit in a tree such as Eurocopter EC 225 Super Puma 2Eurocopter EC225 Super PumaAirbus Helicopters EC225 Super PumaAirbus Helicopters H225 Super Puma 2. We should probably discuss this at Commons:WikiProject Aviation, do you want to open a discussion there? Thanks for your patience. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is that each iteration get its own subcategory, likewise the B, C suffixes. This would be overly cumbersome for a small category but we have lots of images in this case. Do you know other examples either way?Dankarl (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have just opened a thread at the WikiProject Aviation to discuss this. I look forward to your input and that of others there. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour Ariadacapo[edit]

HELP  !!!!!

comment mdofier mon logo {{User:Royonx/Credits}}

c' est mon parrai Phymouss qui me l'a dessine il y a longtemps longtemps je ne le trouve plus ...

je Voudrais enlever la Mention Dr et enlever l adresse mail ''

avec l age tout devient difficile !

Merci pour votre aide +++ (message non signé par User:Royonx)

La réponse est très simple : il vous suffit d’éditer la page User:Royonx/Credits (et sa traduction User:Royonx/Credits-fr). Lorsque vous utilisez le code {{User:Royonx/Credits}}, vous incluez directement le contenu de ces pages (c’est ce qu’on appelle une transclusion en anglais)
J’en profite pour remarquer que la condition "Vous êtes libre d'utiliser cette photo sous réserve de me mentionner et de respecter les termes de la licence." est redondante : les termes de la licence contraignent explicitement les ré-utilisateurs à vous mentionner. Il est inutile de rajouter des contraintes "à la main" : vous risquez de rendre la situation légale bancale ou contradictoire. Dernière remarque, le "j’apprécierai" est au conditionnel, il doit donc prendre un "s". Bonne continuation ! Ariadacapo (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Advice[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo

I see you have been checking files and usage and wondered if I could ask you a question?

I would like to use some images/photo's that have been uploaded to Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons for a text book. when looking at the licences it says the images are in the public domain and can be used to copy, distribute, print etc. does this mean that I can use them provided I have accredited the author on the page in the book and then put them in the accreditation listing under the licence in the back of the book without seeking individual permission unless of course it states that I should?

Many thanks Bev's Book (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Bev's Book

Hello Bev's Book,
Not all images on Wikimedia Commons are in the public domain. The license and the conditions for re-use are stated on each file page. For example, File:Knitting wales slip stitch.png is published under a CC-BY license which makes attribution of the author a mandatory condition for re-use. For CC-BY-SA images, you additionally have to maintain the license under which the file is published. Public domain images can be re-used without attribution at all. Read carefully the text and explanations associated with each license.
Nevertheless, whichever the case, you can re-use any image on Wikimedia Commons without asking for permission. All you have to do is abide to the terms of the license. If your publisher requires written permission, educate them about free licenses. It is good practice, but nor mandatory, to inform the authors of files that you re-use. You may contact the authors to negotiate different license terms (perhaps for a fee) or higher file resolutions.
The bulk of this information is explained on the page Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. If you have doubts or questions, don’t hesitate to ask. Greetings, Ariadacapo (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ariadacapo Thank you so much for getting back to me. I am really confused by all the jargon which is used and am not totally sure what I can and cannot use. I have had long discussions with the publisher who is grinding their heels regarding the issue even though I have sent them the copies of all the licences I have used. I have contacted a fair few of the authors of uploaded images and sought their written permission. There are, however, quite a few that I cannot find/get in touch with even though I have left messages on the talk/discussion pages. Do you think you could help me is I sent you links to the images I am still unsure of and you can categorically tell me if I can use them without written permission and exactly what accreditation I have to write? I realise this is a huge thing to ask but I am really struggling to understand the information in the licence in the way it is written. Many thanks for your time Bev's Book (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Bev's Book

Hello Bev’s Book. It is not jargon. All you need is to read through the text of each license, e.g. the summary of the CC by-sa license. It is not hard to understand — just sometimes hard to accept!
These licenses have been written by experts. They have been enforced throughout the world in many court cases (for example when a re-user fails to respect license terms). The licensing is irrevocable and permission for anyone to re-use is granted in advance. The Creative Commons website has some frequently asked questions that may help you.
If you want to negotiate different license terms with an author (for example you want to re-use a CC-by photo without having to attribute the author) then you need to contact them. Otherwise it is not necessary (and very time-consuming!). If you did get in touch they could only repeat what they have stated when they uploaded their work on Commons.
Neither I nor anyone here on Wikimedia Commons can guarantee that the uploader of any one file is really the copyright holder of the work. Reasonable efforts are made to detect and remove copyright violations. This is the same as anywhere else (including non-free image data banks). How much effort you are willing to put in the verification of copyright ownership is up to you. In practice it works very well: bad or contentious uploads here are detected and removed swiftly, and works on Wikimedia Commons are routinely re-published elsewhere. I have seen several photos and diagrams of mine in print already.
If you or your publisher want to understand the underlying ideas behind this system of licenses, I recommend Free Culture by en:Larry Lessig. It’s a very good book. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Aviation disaster in Prague-Suchdol[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo. I noticed you questioned set of photos from the disaster in Prague-Suchdol.

The website stated as the source declares (in its foot) that its content is generally released under cc-by-sa-4.0 and that the set of photos was provided to the website by Mr. M. Černý (btw., one of 3 authors of the web is Mr. František Černý, maybe a relative). Thus, it's possible that the photos are really released under the stated licence. Just to be sure, I asked admin of the web to confirm explicitly that Mr. M. Černý provided the photos as their author. --ŠJů (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Dleted file NOVAE[edit]

You erased a file: File:Novae, Ruins of the city.JPG The image from file was extracted from Google maps and there is no elsewhere. Eurocentral (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Eurocentral, indeed, but the fact that it is not available elsewhere does not make it free. The terms of use of Google Maps prevent re-use in Wikimedia Commons (see COM:LICENSING). In any case this is not "own work" and you cannot choose to distribute satellite imagery from Google Maps under CC-by-sa. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ariadacapo There is no reason to erase a Google map (erased from Lupus from Novae). There are a lot of Wiki pages with captures from Google maps (see Kosice etc, etc) -- Eurocentral (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Which pages and which files exactly? They need to be deleted too, if they are copied from Google Maps. This is not up to me, nor is it a question of them being useful… it’s just a matter of copyright law. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Caproni Ca.95[edit]

Evening Ariadacopo,

First, thanks for your persistence with the Flight problem. It's an important cause.

I wonder if you can advise me on a copyright issue. I've an almost complete draft on the Caproni Ca. 95 but some important points and clarifications have come from looking at these images and I'd like to cite them. I have no Italian and Google trans is little better; is it OK to upload them to WikiCommons? They may be out of copyright in Italy, but here ...? Cheers, TSRL (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello TSRL! To be honest, I have no idea! I can skim through and vaguely read the Italian text, but I do not understand the copyright tag on, say it:File:Caprono_Ca.jpg, precisely enough to be sure. I would recommend you ask at the Village pump/Copyright board. Greetings, Ariadacapo (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll try there.TSRL (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

File(s) appeared in Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter[edit]

Hello Ariadacapo, it seems that your latest changes or uploads of the file(s) Caterpillar 3512C Generator Set.JPG broke a template. This assumption has been made because the file(s) appeared in the maintenance Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter. To fix this issue please check this category for further information. If the file(s) is/are not contained in the maintenance category anymore someone else already did the work and you can ignore this message. Thank you for your cooperation. --ArndBot (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

my edits[edit]

Hello Ariadacapo, Thank you for your feedback on my tiny contributions. Best regardsPieter1963 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Further images from Flightglobal[edit]

Hi, thanks for all, for your initiative on the historical images by Fight(Global) archive website, but I cannot find in which range of images you can upload them to move to Commons without violating a copyright, can you help me? All images up to an exact date? There are still many articles that, for example, in where I write, which are free of images because present only in by Fair Use, and I would understand if I can go find quietly the images that are missing.--Threecharlie (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Threecharlie: The answer is: I don’t know.
Flightglobal licensed the images already uploaded to Commons as CC-by-sa. Other images from their archive are not covered. So, to import more Flight images to Commons you need them to be part of the public domain. Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain details which "types" of public domain are appropriate for upload, and the short version is: it’s complicated. As for images used under fair use on Wikipedia, they cannot be imported onto Wikimedia Commons.
Sorry I cannot help more! Greetings, Ariadacapo (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Restorationist's Barnstar.png The Historical Media Barnstar
For tackling the FlightGlobal 'Somebody Else's Problem' system head-on. I saw the emails. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Steelpillow! It’s a cool thing to wear ;-) — Ariadacapo (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd also like to spell out my thanks and support this barnstar for your efforts in this matter. What a wonderful work on this complicated license situation. It was purely due to your work that we were able to keep over 500 hundred unique and used images. Basvb (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


Themightyquill (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The new graph of the Cd of the sphere[edit]

Hello, Ariadacapo, thanks for modifying the categories of my new publication of the Cd of sphere. I am working on an english version of this file !

Friendly, Bernard de Go Mars

File:Ariane 6 les chiffres clés.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Ariane 6 les chiffres clés.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Je conteste votre suppression. Gnurok (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour, la licence sous laquelle ce fichier est publié (CC-by-nc-sa) n’est pas compatible avec le projet Wikimedia Commons (clause NC: pas d’utilisation commerciale). À moins d’avoir l’autorisation des auteurs, vous ne pouvez pas en modifier la licence et donc pas le déposer ici. Je vous recommande de lire attentivement notre page concernant les licences. J’espère que vous ne serez pas découragé(e) de participer. Merci de votre compréhension ! Ariadacapo (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No Copyvio on File:Transonic.jpg[edit]

Found on with publication date 2012 => this & mine were both copied from GNU file dated 2007
--Mcapdevila (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Why are you going so fast without verifying all the links?
--Mcapdevila (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn’t go "so fast". I stumbled upon this file as it was recategorized. I spent some time looking through the information: author with no link, license tag as 'self', image hastily edited. Then I reverse image-searched for the file. Here there were many characteristics typical of copyvio, and there are many copyvios uploaded to Commons… It is not very enjoyable nor very rewarding work. In all of this I did not see or click the link in the source field. This is my mistake. Thank you for contacting me. I sincerely apologize. Best regards, Ariadacapo (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Mujeres con pelotas.jpg‬" File:BorrandoaPapá.jpg[edit]

Hello Ciao? per caso parli italiano? we are stating Gabriel Balanovsky page, Gabriel is the codirector and producer of both films. We are the owners and have rights of films and images as well. There're no problem to share the images. What should I do next?

Greetings and thanks for your help--Leticia Barletta (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mrs Barletta,
(I do not speak Italian — only English, Français, ein bisschen Deutsch.)
The files you refer to, Borrando a Papá.png and File:Mujeres con pelotas.jpg were just deleted because they were published elsewhere and you indicated this was your "Own work" during upload. So we considered them to be copyright violations.
Don’t worry! We can undelete them. Please send a permission email to our OTRS team using one of our email templates. Make sure you indicate the name of the files that should be undeleted. When the mail has been processed by the OTRS team (this can take several weeks) the files will be restored.
Thank you for sharing your work on Commons! If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. Best regards, Ariadacapo (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


Bonjour, Comme demandé, un email a été envoyé à OTRS ( [Ticket#2016062310009185]. Il s'agit d'une photographie familiale datant de 1928, dont je suis propriétaire. Si des précisions complémentaires sont nécessaires, n'hésitez pas à me contacter. Merci. Costemane (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour Costemane, merci pour votre réponse ! Il va falloir un peu de temps pour que le ticket soit traité par l’équipe OTRS. J’ai indiqué cela sur la page du fichier. Merci pour cette belle contribution ! Salutations, Ariadacapo (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi Ariadacapo. I noticed that you added an OTRS permission notice at File:Good night.jpg, but you don't appear to be an OTRS agent. Could you clarify what that tag was intended for? BU Rob13 (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello BU Rob13, the user had indicated the ticket number, I just made that information machine-readable (at least that was the intent). Did I do something wrong? What should be done in such cases? Ariadacapo (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to add anything in that case. The OTRS agents will tag appropriately when we get to the ticket. You accidentally tagged the image as permission being received and verified, which was not the case. BU Rob13 (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, ok! I had not understood the template to mean that exactly. I got it now. Thank you for correcting me. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


Capricorn4049 (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File upload conflict you mentioned[edit]

Here is the original link referring to the problem is original file link and the file was could not be shown on Mongolian wikipedia so I re-uploaded the file to show it on daily news reel. 03:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


Schofför (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing removing my category from my photos?[edit]

--section deleted--

Constructive criticism[edit]

Nozzle flow case 4.svg

I have constructive criticism regarding the images File:Nozzle flow case 4.svg and File:Nozzle flow case 4.svg. The water should not hit on the inside of the cup (or blade) and then spread outward. It hits on the outside (the top in case of the image) and is then redirected inwards (and in 3d sideways too). The way you drew it would not work if you had work then 1 cup on the wheel. The next cup would simply be in the way. Greetings--Jahobr (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)-

Hello Jahobr, thank you for the feedback! I am aware of this problem. This diagram was drawn to build a tutorial exercise in a fluid dynamics course. In this particular case, we were interested in the optimum velocity for the blade (that which yields maximum power) and calculating how this velocity changes with the outlet angle (it does not). Because of this, the turbine is simplified down to one blade and the path of the water is so that it is easiest to draw. The drawing looks simple, but making it "work" unambiguously for 100 people is quite difficult. In the future I will try to find the time to change the path of the water so that it makes more sense mechanically (perhaps in the meantime someone will have taken the file and made a fixed version of it). Thank you again! Cheers, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hyperloop UPV[edit]

Hi, I hereby confirm that I own all images I uploaded. I would thereby please not to delete any image or recommend me what to do to avoid deletions. Thanks in advance, and kind regards. Juanvb (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Being the owner and the author of media are two different things. As Jahobr just explained on your talk page, if you properly source your images and send permission via OTRS, then the images will be kept (if they are deleted in the meantime, they will be undeleted when permission is received). Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft by operator[edit]

Thanks a lot! It has been a long work indeed!

As I've surely missed some operator, in particular the categories not listed in Category:Aircraft by operator, please feel free to write me, so we can have an uniform categories tree. (I am fixing more myself right now) Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 17:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wingfoot Express (Walt Arfons, 1965).jpg[edit]

Good morning from Spain, Ariadacapo.

The warning is correct. I've confused the copyright of this image with the copyright of a similar picture existing in Flickr, identified automatically by Google Chrome. I will upload the right picture.
Logically, this image should be deleted.
I apologize for the confusion. --Wiki LIC (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the heads-up! Regards, Ariadacapo (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Esfortzu diagramak.png[edit]

Esfortzu diagramak

Hello Ariadacapo! (Olivier if you let me). Thank you a lot for your changes in File:Esfortzu diagramak.png; I just thought that telling that the image was based on File:Einfeldbalken.png was enough, but you correctly teached me that it is needed to attribute the original author. Although, as the image it is not only a translation but also has modifications in the typo, arrow types, units and notation, colors, order and sign system, I have thought that it is more appropriate to say author=[[User:Enzaiklopedia]] based on [[:File:Einfeldbalken.png]] made by [[User:Petflo2000]] (as I didn't just put the translated text above the original one). I have seen that you reverted that, maybe thinking that it is only a translation. Clearly you know a lot more about image uses and licensing so I would like you to explain me which way is the correct one. I'm a bit newbie yet so I apologize for the inconveniences. Thank you very much, best regards, Enzaiklopedia (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Enzaiklopedia. I was a bit fast in my edit summary comment. It is clear you have made a greater contribution than merely translating. I have just tried to reflect this with better attribution of authorship. Please be very careful and considerate when attributing authorship of authors in Commons (e.g. such edits should never be marked as minor). Many people here care very strongly about attribution. I apologize for not having compared the two figures carefully enough. Best regards, Olivier/Ariadacapo (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Olivier! I'm sorry for answering so late. Thank you for the changes and for your advice, I'll remember it for the next time. Best regards, --Enzaiklopedia (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated[edit]

Hello Ariadacapo, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Violation[edit]

Hi, this is Nimitz. I uploaded several images related to military aviation. They are ALL marked as copyright violations and deleted. Furthermore, I am warned not to upload any image at the risk of being denied access to my account. I wounder why? Where did you even see that the authors did not want their images to be put on Wikipedia? I never find anything on their website that forbid me to upload the image. Plus, I noted for every image that I found it on the internet and that I am not sure. I even cited each and every image properly. Please double check if I am really not allowed to upload those images. If I am really not allowed to do so, can you tell me how I can identify if an image has copyright? And how I can request to the author to upload the image?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimitz Zhang (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Nimitz Zhang, basically every image you find on the Internet is fully copyrighted (this is the default state per copyright law). You cannot upload them to Wikimedia Commons, because we only allow files which are published under a free license. You cannot take somebody else’s work and re-publish it with a CC-by-sa license. The only files you can upload here are:
  • Files which are in the public domain, e.g. files from NASA
  • Files which the author has explicitly published under a CC-by or CC-by-sa license
  • Files which you have produced yourself.
See COM:Licensing for the full details. I hope this will not stop you for contributing! Thank you for engaging this discussion! Warm regards, Ariadacapo (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MAC06130[edit]

Bonjour Ariadacapo. Je viens de voir qu'un bon nombre de fichiers que j'ai posté ont été proposés à la suppression. J'avoue que certains sont limites mais plusieurs sites mettent en ligne des images sans références aux droits. J'ai quand même un certain doutes sur les images d'avions anglais et américains aussi. Il s'agit pour la plupart d'images prises avant 1957. Logiquement dans le domaine public. Comme par exemple Par ailleurs un certain nombre d'images sur des articles pointent vers des sites ou le lien ne donne rien… Si j'ai rajouté US Navy, RAF ou Armée de l'Air ce n'était pas par pure fantaisie mais pour se rapprocher de la réalité. Par exemple Les auteurs étant généralement inconnus je faisais référence au contexte. Et que faire avec un site comme www.aviadejavu qui met en ligne un paquet d'images mais sans copyright ? Est-ce légal de les réutiliser ? Merci du retour

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MAC06130 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Bonjour MAC06130! Merci pour votre message. Malheureusement les limites légales du droit d’auteur et du domaine public sont extrêmement complexes, et la date 1957 ne joue aucun rôle. En France l’auteur/e de la photo doit être décédé depuis 70 ans (avec plusieurs exceptions dont Saint-Exupéry). On voit que si quelqu’un a pris la photo en 1930 à 20 ans et est mort/e à 80 ans, il nous reste encore 27 ans à attendre avant que la photo rentre dans le domaine public. En plus de cela, pour héberger une telle photo (prise en France) ici sur Wikimedia Commons, il faut qu’elle soit aussi dans le domaine public aux États-Unis, où les règles sont différentes. Le fait que la photo soit hébergée sur un autre site ne change rien. Aux États-Unis et en Grande-Bretagne, certains corps gouvernementaux publient systématiquement leurs images dans le domaine public. Mais il faut être sûr de la provenance des images. En France l’armée de l’air ne fait rien de cela.
En résumé, il faut impérativement connaître la source de chaque image que vous importez ici, et la raison exacte pour laquelle chacune est dans le domaine public (il peut y en avoir beaucoup, et plusieurs à la fois!) dans le pays d’origine et aux US. En aucun cas est-ce que vous pouvez faire passer ces images vous-même sous licence CC-0 (seul le détenteur des droits peut le faire).
Comme vous je suppose, je trouve cet état de fait terriblement idiot et assez lamentable. Mais on ne peut pas le changer en uploadant des fichiers sur Commons: il faut plutôt passer par le parlement européen… Cordialement, Ariadacapo (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

747 pedestal photo[edit]

I apologize if I used the wrong uploading tool and maybe I misread your license of the photo. Feel free to correct it, because I don't upload photos very often and will probably mess it up again. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

(Science and Technology)-specific coordination[edit]

Hello. Probably, you are a similarly minded person and are active here for years.

I’m interested in work with scientific images—deep semantic categorization, evaluation, and fixing/restoration—for several years. Just now I can propose some shifts in the category graph with such vaguely defined categories as « (some very technical topic) diagrams » to phase out and alternative ones to promulgate.

But I found uncomfortable to discuss abstract topics among the general Commons atmosphere, where popular topics are: freedom of panorama in Randomistan, unclear copyright status of yet another bunch of celebrities photos, tools for a cool sysop to make 100500 edits, Jimbo Wales deleting an obscene picture, or a bureaucrat uploading an obscene video about Jimbo. Wikimedia scientific community is fragmented. Something like commons: WikiProject Science and Technology should likely exist to coordinate works on problems specific to S&T. But I hesitate to step forward and propose to do much job myself because of time required, as well as due to my distrust to public sites in general. Also, I’m unsure that science-related guys will spend their time for it. Do you expect good people to participate in a sufficient number? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Incnis Mrsi, thank you for getting in touch. I do not really know how to answer this. My view is that Commons has constructed itself as a media repository community, and not at all as a media curation/creation community. There’s a sense of a successful anarchic buzz here, but I think driving a project of scientific nature or a constructive curation & creation project would require things that are not here. Among the missing components are undoubtedly a social dimension, and a modernization of the technical tools (abandoning wikitext, talk pages, and gadgets). Something perhaps drawing lessons from Stackexchange and Flickr, which both overpassed us. Therefore, I just cringe at the thought of participating in a project supposed to crystallize around Commons:Yet Another Tedious Wiki Page. A spin-off of Commons, or a platform resting on top of it, would definitely get my attention, however. Best regards, Ariadacapo (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this essential answer. Some quick remarks:
  • Stackexchange’s handling of images is miserable. Stackexchange’s categorization system (so-called tags) is far inferior than MediaWiki’s. Stackexchange’s “proposed edit” system is abominable. Except for some social stuff, unsure what could “we” learn from there.
  • Flickr is a photo site without any particular scientific or technical propensity, isn’t it?
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. But in Stackexchange, the gamification of participation is incredible. It is fun and enjoyable to propose answers and push up the visibility of relevant content. And Flickr is pleasant for photographers to delve in and contribute to. In both communities there is a strong technical team which understands that participation and the feeling of having made a worthwhile contribution can be (at least partly) engineered. None of them replaces Commons, but, Stackexchange drives more contributions than Wikimedia projects, and Flickr gets more freely-licensed photos uploaded than we do. I would like my favorite place on the Internet to be that savvy, too, so that I don’t find myself typing four tildes like it was 2001. That would be a cool science and technology media editing project in my eyes. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. You may look at User:Incnis Mrsi/Science and Technology (and watch it). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons newsletter, October 25, 2017[edit]

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests
Presentations / Press / Events
Audience at Structured Commons design discussion, Wikimania 2017
Team updates
The Structured Commons team at Wikimania 2017

Two new people have been hired for the Structured Data on Commons team. We are now complete! :-)

  • Ramsey Isler is the new Product Manager of the Multimedia team.
  • Pamela Drouin was hired as User Interface Designer. She works at the Multimedia team as well, and her work will focus on the Structured Commons project.
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!

Design research is ongoing.

  • Jonathan Morgan and Niharika Ved have held interviews with various GLAM staff about their batch upload workflows and will finish and report on these in this quarter. (phabricator task T159495)
  • At this moment, there is also an online survey for GLAM staff, Wikimedians in Residence, and GLAM volunteers who upload media collections to Wikimedia Commons. The results will be used to understand how we can improve this experience. (phabricator task T175188)
  • Upcoming: interviews with Wikimedia volunteers who curate media on Commons (including tool developers), talking about activities and workflows. (phabricator task T175185)

In Autumn 2017, the Structured Commons development team works on the following major tasks (see also the quarterly goals for the team):

  • Getting Multi-Content Revisions sufficiently ready, so that the Multimedia and Search Platform teams can start using it to test and prototype things.
  • Determine metrics and metrics baseline for Commons (phabricator task T174519).
  • The multimedia team at WMF is gaining expertise in Wikibase, and unblocking further development for Structured Commons, by completing the MediaInfo extension for Wikibase.
Stay up to date!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 14:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

File:V (35804252431).jpg and File:V (35804252431) (cropped).jpg[edit]

Hi: The pitot tube is not evident on those photos and you cannot not expect a viewer will over the pictures to find it. The fact should be mentionned in the description of the image because all what a viewer sees is the race car. You have to provide a complete decription of each images when you upload an image. Another point, these files should be renamed more decriptive of what it is related to.

Désolé mais je n'avais pas vu que vous étiez un utilisateur francophone. C'est beau de mettre des images dans Commons mais il faudrait les décrire aussi. La section description est minuscule (f1) et devrait contenir la description de l'image : quel écurie, quel coureur, quel Grand Prix, les caractéristique de la voiture dont le tube de Pitot, etc. Ce n'est que par pur hasard qu'un lecteur va passer sur l'image et voir votre encadré.

Finalement, les deux images devraient être renommées avec des noms plus descriptifs, V(...) ne permet pas de savoir ce que sont ces images.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Certes, certes, certes (à ce stade, vous prêchez à converti : je n’ai pas téléchargé ces images ici et j’en suis encore moins l’auteur…). Il n’y a plus qu’à faire. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: Voilà c’est fait ! De rien ! Ariadacapo (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Merci bien! Pierre cb (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons newsletter, December 13, 2017[edit]

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests
A multi-licensed image on Wikimedia Commons, with a custom {{EthnologyItemMHNT}} Information template. Do you also know media files on Commons that will be interesting or challenging to model with structured data? Add them to the Interesting Commons files page.
Presentations / Press / Events
Presentation about Structured Commons and Wikidata, at WikimediaCon in Berlin.
  • Sandra presented the plans for Structured Commons during WikidataCon in Berlin, on October 29. The presentation focused on collaboration between the Wikidata and Commons communities. You can see the full video here.
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
  • Research findings from interviews and surveys of GLAM project participants are being published to the research page. Check back over the next few weeks as additional details (notes, quotes, charts, blog posts, and slide decks) will be added to or linked from that page.
  • The Structured Commons team has written and submitted a report about the first nine months of work on the project to its funders, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The 53-page report, published on November 1, is available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • The team has started working on designs for changes to the upload wizard (T182019).
  • We started preliminary work to prototype changes for file info pages.
  • Work on the MediaInfo extension is ongoing (T176012).
  • The team is continuing its work on baseline metrics on Commons, in order to be able to measure the effectiveness of structured data on Commons. (T174519)
  • Upcoming: in the first half of 2018, the first prototypes and design sketches for file pages, the UploadWizard, and for search will be published for discussion and feedback!
Stay up to date!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 16:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A question,[edit]

How do I delete the requested files?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by José Furtado (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@José Furtado: Hello José, the files lacking permission will be deleted in a week or so unless permission is provided. As for the other files, those up for discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_José_Furtado, you can speed the deletion up by writing on the deletion request page. I hope you are not discouraged from participating in Wikimedia Commons! Best regards, Ariadacapo (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons Newsletter - Spring 2018[edit]

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter and contribute to the next issue. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
  • Our dedicated IRC channel: wikimedia-commons-sd webchat
  • Several Commons community members are working on ways to integrate Wikidata in Wikimedia Commons. While this is not full-fledged structured data yet, this work helps to prepare for future conversion of data, and helps to understand how Wikidata and Commons can work better together.
Things to do / input and feedback requests
Discussions held
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
  • Prototypes will be available for Multilingual Captions soon.
Stay up to date!

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)