User talk:Huntster/Archive 15

Revdel EXIF data on 1 file

Hi Huntster, hope you're well!

As per our exchange at User talk:Gikü#Revdels, can I ask you to please revdel one more file? A Wikimedian friend of mine pointed out that there is one more file I had not mentioned in the revdel DR, and it is File:Ioan-Aurel Pop - oct 2018.jpg.

Much appreciated, Gikü (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gikü: Done! Take care. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Chapel of Ascencion on Mt.Olives.jpg

URGENT. Huntster, the file I've uploaded 12 years ago is tagged for deletion. Apart from methodology of nomination our colleague: what about the "freedom of panorama" for this image? What tag shall I use (of course, 12 years ago I did not know much about it). Cherurbino (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, I may be missing something here, but what permission did you have to upload that image? Was it marked on the website as being released under that license? How are you suggesting that Commons:Freedom of panorama plays into this? There is also no author listed, which would be required under Creative Commons Attribution. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, I've read the Commons:Freedom of panorama and must acknowledge that I somehow misinterpreted these principles in a broades sence. I throw these principles away )), and restart from the new grounds.

The site hosting this file does not set any copyrights at all, anywhere. In the course of 10 years they moved the picture to archive$ its present location is here. No authors, no copyrights... it's a religious mission. Photos are small, not professional. Highly likely that nuns and abbesses shoot these images themselves and thus consider them a public domain. Setting copyrights under the work they did voluntarily may comtradict with their consepts of modesty. It's my assumption, however the fact is that I find no copyrights at https://www.jerusalem-mission.org. Is that transfer from one (supposed) PD to another legal? BTW, about 5 years ago my wife was there and even lived in that mission for a week... however she rarely takes photos abroad and I dont have no photos for replacement at my home ((( Cherurbino (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, as I've mentioned before, a work is fully copyrighted the moment it is created (with some exceptions: for example, U.S. Federal Government lack of copyright, or, if the object of a photograph is copyrighted then the photograph is a derivative and would fall under the object's copyright rather than generating a new one). Failing to publish a copyright statement on a website is not indicative of there being no copyright. It's like someone publishing one of their images on a social media website like Twitter; rarely will that ever include a copyright statement, but it doesn't mean they've somehow given up their copyright. Releasing copyright to the public domain or releasing under a free license like Creative Commons must be actively done, rather than passively. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Cover pages of first 8 issues of the Russkiy Cosmos magazine (first year of edition 2019).jpg

Huntster, this is my recent upload (an hour ago). It's the first time when instead of the firm license I put the template of promise to find this license in the near future. Sorry. Regarding yours previous comments upon Roskosmos I may expect that you answer "no, it's impossible in any ways". Anyway I ask you, is there any possibility to put something like a 'fair use'? This gallery of magazine's cover pages is planned to be displayed in the future merged article. In awaiting of this merge I displayed it in the fierce discusion around my nomination for merging two unsuffucient articles, one of which is "Russkiy Cosmos" and another is its predecessor, "Novosti Kosmonavtiki" the name of which was placed obn the cover page during the 6-month transition period in 2019. (If you are interested, you may proceed to this discussion via the link shown in "File usage" and translate it by google). Opponents reject my prooflink and this collage is the only way to convince them that magazine R.K. is a legal hereditor of magazine N.K. — Cherurbino (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino: wow, that's not a contentious debate at all! Oof. Sarcasm aside, regarding your question, Commons does not accept Fair Use images under any circumstance. I cannot speak accurately to the Russian Wikipedia's policy on Fair Use (Except that, according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content, it is similar to en.wiki's policy. Translation is...twisting some terms around.), but the English Wikipedia only allows Fair Use in live articles when it is impossible (not merely difficult) to obtain a freely licensed version, and they can only be used when the article itself discusses the image contents. They cannot be used merely as decoration, or, in the case of your image, used outside of the article space. Russian Wikipedia does appear to be mostly similar. I would strongly encourage using a file hosting site, like https://imgur.com/, for images such as this one, since they'll have a permanence that a non-free file on Wiki may not. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just written the nominator (NoFrost) on his talk page about my vision of future of this file. In the best outcome of the file merging dispute, I shall appply to move it to the local ru-wiki section (given Roskosmos grants such a permission). Otherwise, I promised to kill the file with my own hands (place a SD tag) before a 7-day deadline expires. I intentionally wrote him in English to make the dispute around Roscosmos transparent to the maximum widest auditory, starting from Roscosmos' partners. A hint: the underlying motive of my opponents is a conspiracy myth about 'bad Rogozin' who killed a good magazine. Keep that in mind if you shall want to read that merging holywar again )). Cherurbino (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The best solution I can think of is to simply make sure you have a copy of that image saved to your computer (because it will be deleted here as fair use), and then if the article merge happens, upload it to ru.wiki with appropriate rationales. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, may I ask you who changed initial NoFrosts' warning which allowed me 7 days for getting permission, and what grounds? I know that it was DMacks who tecnically performed the deletion, but who has set the new tag allowing him to do that, is unclear. I gonna file an official protest against this action, given my application to Rosocmos is already sent. I have 4-5 days ahead, and SD of this imaged deprived me of last hopes )). Cherurbino (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I filed the request to DMacks at his Talk page. His motivation for deletion is based on "User says it's a fair use"... but the fact was that I didn't fill the license line at all! I expect a diff from him for this statement: where did I "say" these words Cherurbino (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I responded there. Summary: it's a simple copyvio; there's no fair-use claim, but obviously none would be viable here anyway. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, DMacks! Now I see that re-nominator to the SD was MBH, and you simply repeated his comment "Marking as possible copyvio because non-free magazine covers. Uploader says it's "fair use". Very, very strange. In our recently started conversation upon the copyright issues he did not tell me, the uploader, that it was him who changed the nomination of NoFrost to the SD! This is the diff where he avoids mentioning himself, saying "а файл на складе, как я понимаю - КБУ" ("as for the file at Commons, to my understanding is set to SD").

...Huntster, I deleted the further explanation. Don't want to bother you with my problems. It's always better to speak about cosmos and creative plans ))). 10:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Spacecraft launched in 2020

You, as the only contributor to this category, placed it in the non-existent category Projects established in 2020. I understand that space missions are usually planned years in advance, and the CRS contracts were certainly awarded years in advance, so there seems to be no justification for this categorisation. Brianjd (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Brianjd: I suspect I copied from the 2021 version of that category when I created the 2020 cat. Regardless, it appears the overall Projects by year of establishment category tree was an abandoned effort by Allforrous, as it was never deployed outside of...four year subcategories. I've depopulated the "Spacecraft launched in..." subcats from these, and requested deletion for them, as no other category tree used them. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX CRS over-categorisation

At Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Dragon (spacecraft) categories, when I said the SpaceX CRS categories were over-categorised, I was referring to them being in both a general Dragon category and a specific subcategory. For example:

• SpaceX CRS-21 is in both Cargo Dragon and Cargo Dragon C208.
• SpaceX CRS-10 is in both SpaceX Dragon and SpaceX Dragon C112.

The is over-categorisation, as defined in Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. Brianjd (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Brianjd: Yes, that system is used in a variety of spaceflight-related categories as a method of breaking down missions and launches into vehicle sub-types, while still allowing users to view them all together. These are certainly not the only topics to use such double categorisation, both because it is a net benefit to the end user and because no better solution was thought up. However, if it is that much of a concern, perhaps subcategories like Category:SpaceX Dragon by mission and Category:Atlas V by mission would work. Unless you can think of a better unifying term than "mission"? It would be easy enough for me to roll out once a term is decided on. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to categorise spacecraft missions under "[Spacecraft] missions" metacategories (e.g. Cargo Dragon missions, Boeing Starliner missions etc.) and launch vehicle flights under "[Launch vehicle] flights" metacategories (e.g. Atlas V flights, Falcon 9 flights etc.). --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Soumya-8974, 1) let's keep the category naming according to Commons standards: subject preposition topic. 2) why "missions" versus "flights"? Both the spacecraft and the rocket are acting in a mission. I'm not against the phrasing, just curious why two different terms would be better than a single term. There's no parent categories that would dictate them, afaik. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

1. I agree such categories would be something like "[Spacecraft] by mission" and "[Launch vehicle] by flight" according to Commons standards.
2. Rocket launches aren't individual "missions" per se, payloads inside a rocket have missions. In fact, there can be multiple space missions in a single launch. That's why we should distinguish between spacecraft missions and rocket launches. Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think the "by mission" idea could work. The two examples I mentioned are both described as "missions" and categorised as Commercial Resupply Services missions, so I guess "mission" is the logical term for the Dragon categories.

But I note they are also categorised in "Falcon 9 Flight" categories (Falcon 9 Flight 101 and Falcon 9 Flight 30, respectively), so I guess "flight" is the logical term for the rocket categories. Brianjd (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Brianjd and Soumya-8974, both reasoned statements. I'll start implementing it. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

MESSAGE TO YOU

I HATE YOU, YOU DELETED MY OWN SCREENSHOT OF THE SOYUZ 2.1B WITH THE PRICHAL, I SAID I TOOK ON MY PHONE, YOU BETTER RESTORE OR I 🖕🖕🖕 CoolChib124 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

OKAY FINE I SURRENDER, I DID TOOK THE IMAGE ON POCKOCMOC TV BUT I TOOK IT IN THIS CHANNEL CALLED INTERNATIONAL ROCKET LAUNCH, CHECK HIS CHANNEL HERE: https://youtube.com/c/InternationalRocketLaunches, HE WAS SHOWING A VIEW FROM POCKOCMOC TV, YOU BETTER REMOVE COPYRIGHT OR 🖕 CoolChib124 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

CoolChib24: copyright belongs to the original creator of the work, in this case Roscosmos. Taking a photo or screenshot of someone else's video does not give you a new copyright. You cannot take a photo of a copyrighted work and claim copyright on it, or release it under a new license. Neither does International Rocket Launches on Youtube own the copyright to the video, as they simply took it from the Roscosmos video stream. I'm happy to explain further how copyright works, if you'd like to learn, but put simply please do not upload such images again. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Soyuz 2.1b with Prichal onboard high quality.jpg is again here Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan and CoolChib24, my concern is whether or not CoolChib24 is the actual photographer. Roscosmos published the image at https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1465933446115729409, stating their own photographers took these photos. CoolChib, are you the actual photographer? Do you have the right to release this image under the license given? — Huntster (t @ c) 18:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Crew Dragon C210 and ROS

The new name for Crew Dragon is called Endurance. Is it exciting! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:FEA8:D559:8D00:A8D8:B70E:95FE:C241 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah Huntster can you make a link like {{ComV|Dragon 2|Endeavour}} as it is there for crew dragon endeavor and Resilience. the c210 or endurance as you know is the new entrant and does not have such a link and I don't use wikidata where I can make this. So please make this. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, {{ComV|Dragon 2|Endurance}} writing my request again as it didn't appear in comment correctly. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I wrote for wrong one in first comment Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Currently it is showing just Cargo dragon written on writing {{ComV|Dragon 2|Endurance}} Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And please comment on this one. Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, huh? No such template exists, so I have no idea what you're wanting. I also cannot comment on that talk page as I have zero knowledge of the issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

this is the template Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I want an iteration of that for Endurance you can see there is one for Endeavour in example section Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, done. Please make sure you specify if you're referring to something at another project next time, else I'll assume it's something on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks sir Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Crew-3 thanks for helping this page Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

And can you tell how to do this so next time I will do it myself Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, take a look at the edits I made, here. You can see the first two rows of changes account for making the template read "Crew Dragon" rather than "Cargo Dragon", and the changes at the bottom actually tell the template what to display for a specific capsule. I added C209 as well, since it wasn't already added for some reason. Now, these changes are just for when a new Crew Dragon capsule is added; if it were a Cargo Dragon, only a new entry at the bottom would be added, since the template assumes by default that we're referring to Cargo Dragon. It's not complicated when you understand templates, but it may be difficult to grasp if you're new to it. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, please suggest that should it be better for waiting for orbital images for c210 endurance or publishing a fair use image from this this image to make a image like that on the page of crew dragon endeavour. as we know spacex lisence for wikimedia commons is terminated in 2018, i cannot upload this image from raja chari to commoms. Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, we should avoid using fair-use images unless a free version is impossible to obtain (not simply difficult, but impossible) and the article actually discusses the fair-use image (i.e., it isn't just for decoration). Just wait for NASA to publish one, please. Also, see https://blogs.nasa.gov/crew-3/2021/10/25/crew-dragon-arrives-at-launch-complex-for-nasas-spacex-crew-3-mission/ which shows SpaceX is credited as the photographer, so you are right on that count. That's good to have caught. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

from my experience, from manufacturing to whole launch coverage (neglecting some portion of crew activities in nasa facilities before launch coverage liftoff viewed by audience from wikipedia or any creative cmmons one) + cameras aboard dragon ( like soyuz cams) will have spacex as the SpaceX is credited as the photographer. therefore Huntster, i predicted this image to be of spacex without checking the credit line.Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, do yo think File:Crew Dragon Endurance.jpg to be right as per commons after our discussion on this topic yesterday.Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, so long as the file's EXIF data specifically indicates it was released by SpaceX under Creative Commons CC0, then it is fine. The problem is that the image version that was used in the blog and in the Twitter post had its EXIF data stripped out, so there was no indication it had been properly released then. I'm uploading the other file now. Just remember to not *assume* a file is released under a free license unless it is specifically stated as such. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Is [1] a pd nasa image or a image outside this license. Please tell Huntster Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, that is a Space Force image, since the credit line is "USSF 30th Space Wing/Aaron Taubman". So you would use the license {{PD-USGov-Military-Space Force}}. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks I didn't knew this lisence Chinakpradhan (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What is ball Aerospace lisence, Huntster or is this image under NASA pd lisence. Definitely not a creative commons as I see in the exif data. Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you are busy now Huntster, but please tell the answer when you are free Chinakpradhan (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me try to help you in the absence of the boss ))

Answer is NO, not free. Scroll down to the end of the image description and read:

Image credit: Ball Aerospace

I am sorry, but it is true. You cannot upload it to Commons. — Cherurbino (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, Cherurbino is correct here. This is merely NASA republishing a photograph by Ball Aerospace, so it is not PD-NASA. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks I believed Cherurbino Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I wished Huntster and Cherurbino that this image was like this File:ASA'S Webb Telescope Team Completes Optical Milestone (8411148241).jpg. Meaning under a creative Commons 2.0 lisence but this is that it under non commercial 2.0 lisence. Let's wait for the future as we may get free images later this year before liftoff in December Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Iff this was like webb one then even ball aerospace was not interfering in this Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, I need to be clear on something. NASA has no right to release copyrighted images (like the one in your example) on their Flickr page as Creative Commons. What they are doing is not legal, and we on Commons should not be accepting these. However, I have tried for years to have these types of images deleted, but others on the site are so obsessed with collecting everything with even the smallest justification. While morally wrong, they make the argument that the onus is on NASA for using the Creative Commons license, so why not take advantage and upload them to Commons? It's reprehensible, but I have had no luck changing minds. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh I think I thought it to be good in consulting u on this topic. Don't know why some are using. If I haven't asked you I would have followed the same for another image I would have got of the Webb image kind nextime. Thanks for helping Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Huntster in advance I am asking that are all esa astronauts professional, regular or daily, flickr using photographer Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I was asking to know if Thomas' successor matthais and his Samantha will click regular pictures posted on flickr they will publish pictures that are not elligible for commons Thomas is coming back to earth around 8 and is replaced by matthais and he will be replaced by Samantha next year in may Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

[2] and [3] are two accounts but not sure if they will be used to click almost all the pics from us segment of iss like Thomas Pesquet one Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, no, photographs by ESA astronauts are copyright ESA, and do not qualify for Commons unless specifically released by ESA (not NASA) under a free license. If it is released by ESA, it will always be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO license, and you would use {{ESA}} for those. However, I do not recall ever seeing astronaut photographs released this way, only robotic space mission images, like those from Rosetta. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh so Huntster then they are just personal pictures and released to commons only after the person issues it under the one you specified or others licenses by himself only. Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, not personal photographs (those would be automatically copyright to the individual, and they would choose the license, not ESA), but it's possible that ESA might select a photograph to release under that Creative Commons license. But like I said, I've only ever known them to do that with robotic mission images, not with astronaut photos. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, please suggest should I upload this in any wiki. This is as chaotic after being published as nauka logo. Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

For this, we did a long conversation, I am thus not willing to publish but don't know if fair use on Wikipedia can be done. Since recently those Shenzhou 12 and 13 used fair use images and seemingly it appears all successive missions will do that. Will my image be good for publishing as a fair use one. I doubt it's existence as page makers will simply remove it under arising no public conscience through fair use Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

And Huntster, you said esa published some images of robotic missions, can I consider era iss arm in it, to publish its image to commons Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Like this Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

To be specific for the logo one is the nauka logo which had a condition making it be like its never for Wikipedia, and one is shenzhou logos or more closely to nauka like thing :File:European Robotic Arm (ERA) Launch Mission Patch.png, that hasn't faced resistance even once, don't know which will prichal progress m-um logo be like Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, I'm the wrong person to ask about fair use if you want to actually use such an image. On en.wiki, fair use images must meet all 10 points of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. FUC #1, that the fair use image must be one that is impossible to obtain freely, and FUC #8, that the logo is an object of discussion in the article, are the two most violated, in my opinion. Logos are so rarely discussed as to be laughable, especially in any meaningful way which is what is required, and so I do not believe that non-free logos should be permitted at all. That said, different language Wikipedias have different standards, and I do not know what they are outside en.wiki.

Regarding ESA images, as I said before, ESA will specifically release an image or group of images under a free license, always designated as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO. The Flickr image is not released under that license, so it is not acceptable here. It's pretty straightforward. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have sought to use that external images option that is seen mostly on ru wiki and now I assume to be on Ross page and prichal page for launch logo Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, i wanted to publish the crew portraits of shenzhou 10 and 11 to commons like the shenzhou 12 and 13 mission under creative commons as i saw in those images i searched for videos under creative commons and finally i got those kind of images on [4] and [5], that are from ian benecken's youtube channel. can i publish them on commons and is cc 3.0 unported the right lisence.Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, I saw Commons:YouTube files say I can do upload videos and screenshots in videos if it's under cc lisence but still I have a doubt.please clarify this out. Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, the problem is that the uploader on YouTube is not the copyright holder. They obviously cannot release something under a free license if they do not hold the rights to that work. Make sense? We cannot assume the original broadcast is CC without evidence. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

---

huntster maybe you are not familiar or without resources about this discussion, but i have put all the sources in that article, no one is responding, so can you come forward and determine the result in the article. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan: The vast majority of sources still call it M-UM. For example, TASS. I would suggest just leaving it alone. In the lead, you could write something like "Progress M-UM, sometimes referred to as Progress MS-UM, is a specially modified..." and cite a source for the alternate name. If the situation changes, if it becomes more clear, we can always change it later.

That said, you really need to calm down on these issues. You asked a question on that talk page yesterday, and seemed to be panicking at a lack of response today. There are likely very few people who are watching that page. There is no rush. People have lives outside of Wiki, and it can take a while to get a response on even highly trafficked discussion pages. When you are writing on a discussion page, please take the time to collect your thoughts, research the problem, and be thorough. Try not to spam the page as you did, as that can make you look overbearing and actively cause people to not want to respond. We're all volunteers here; exercise patience and give people time.

Also, when starting a discussion on a new topic, create a new section so things don't get jumbled up. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

huntster, firstly sorry for panicking like comments. earlier i have started many discussion where i found no one was responding so i had to do a case study myself and get my answers. i thought this will become like those ones that is being unanswered so i started rushing in hope of getting it solved. actually the page was not like list of falcon 9 and falcon heavy launches. i did this to attract editors to the discussion. now you said i am satisfied not to rush up in discussion.

secondly sorry due to the comments, maybe you forgot the original question, i said due to traversing i got the question of renaming the page name M-UM. thing i asked was whether i need to change the progress m-um variant from progress ms (modified) to progress m (modified) or not. please tell the answer of this question. this was a small question but nobody answered so i thought this is a unfamiliar question to many so i placed all resources in hope of attracting others.Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, yes, I misunderstood the question. And it's a good one. Everything seems to point to Progress-M being fully retired in 2015, with -MS taking over after that. Sputnik, Space Daily, and Russianspaceweb.com all call it a Progress MS. Problem is that few sources actually discuss it. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So Huntster, as i asked now what's your opinion on this should I keep as it is or shift to progress m Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, I recommend keeping the article as it is (Progress M-UM based on a modified Progress-MS). — Huntster (t @ c) 17:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks finally the topic come to an end Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, this problem has restarted as per variant to be progress m

now as it is a progress m variant(which i wished not to be for lessening problems), problem is arised about its subvariants (given in the discussion page), that was not needed in ms variant and another is that is its production no. 303 (as per earlier update) or 400 ( as per anatoly's update of it being a 400 series one). can you helpChinakpradhan (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

To say the subvariant issue is resolved Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to, beyond something about the M-UM. Use your links. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ya Huntster it is on m-um. I got two issues after a wikipedian Jrcraft Yt declared its a Progress m variant. One is resolved with him only another remaining is need of exact m-um production no. which keeps on changing. Yesterday it was 303 today it is one in between 400 to 430 that is the issue remaining Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan: I don't read Russian so I'm limited to English sources. Nothing I've found is specific on these issues, certainly nothing official, so I don't know where either Jrcraft or Anatoly Zak are getting their information. Nothing I can do on this issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan: I came across the Roscosmos webpage for Prichal, at https://www.roscosmos.ru/33140/, where is specifically states the Progress vehicle is a modified "M" model, not "MS". It's stated about 2/3rds of the way down the page. Hopefully this helps you. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Hi Huntster, have a look on this image File:Maurer-mission-logo-cosmic-kiss.jpg. Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Good I was helpful to you. This was a repeat addition. 6 months ago I upload it with alpha mission patch of Thomas from proper esa link and these two were deleted even these were my first esa copyright violation. Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, please modify this wikidata item LICIACube, based on en wiki page LICIACube and Category:LICIACube. i am a beginner and rare user of wikidata.org so can change the wikidata item as needed Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan: Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

please Huntster, approve these File:Prichal progress m-um structure diagram.png, File:Iss after docking of prichal progress m-um.png and File:Iss before and after undocking of progress m-um from prichal.png as they were from nasa tv without roscosmos watermark (so probably not by roscosmos) before i upload it to enwiki

and delete this File:Soyuz 2.1b with Prichal flames.jpg, its directly from pockosmoc tv a roscosmos product. Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan: I agree those three images are almost certainly NASA's. From the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZCikH9oZmw, you can see they actually did credit Roscosmos for photographs and such, while these had no similar credit. I've uploaded higher resolution shots from that video, and I've nominated the Roscosmos screenshot for deletion. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, today while docking of Prichal Progress M-UM, they are showing replays of yesterday's progress ms 17 undocking, that they they didn't Livestreamed yesterday without roscosmos watermark, so can I use screenshots from that to commons. I also find the images to be not from Russian segment Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, so long as the camera is part of the U.S. Operating Segment, and isn't video specifically shot by an ESA astronaut, then it is fine to use. Let me know when you upload it, and I'll double check things if you would like. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Ya thanks for both of your comments Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Huntsteras you have mentioned cross check please first see the 45 prichal docking screenshot I have uploaded to commons Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, again File:Soyuz-2.1b ignites.jpg

and i have uploaded the docking adapter images Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan: I see nothing wrong with your uploads, though you might want to consider going back and using CropTool or a photo editor of your choice to remove the borders, so they are more useful to others. Another tool you might like is Screenshot YouTube for Chrome. It adds a screenshot button to the YouTube player to more easily save an image, and will avoid getting the little "bugs" like the NASA logo at bottom right.

All that said, in the future I would suggest that you not act so quickly to upload live images. What you did is not a bad thing, but if you had waited a recording (see here) would have been released. It has somewhat better video quality, and you could more easily (and selectively) chosen which screenshots to take. It's just a suggestion for the future. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh thanks Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, if possible upload some from this to commons Chinakpradhan (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not uplading myself to get rid of the problem of ultimate creditor nasa and personal creditor Thomas pesquet not shown by exif Chinakpradhan (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And tell the best one for replacing the one at the top of every language ISS page the outdated sts 132 ISS image Chinakpradhan (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thing is that they haven't taken the ISS in one shot taking irosa in another shot so is it still being sufficent to be distinguished from sts 132 image Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan: Why would you ask me to upload these images because of your concerns, and then go and do it yourself without telling me? Thanks, I wasted my time duplicating your uploads. Now I have to waste more time fixing this nonsense. And no, none of them are of acceptable quality to replace the existing STS-132 image. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

ah sorry Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Huntster today on hatch opening ceremony of soyuz ms 20 I saw Both of the cosmonauts, Anton and pyotr were in the camera and somebody else was using livestream camera so can I upload its images to commons I suspect the camera man to be a US astronaut by the voice Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Huntster today on hatch opening ceremony of soyuz ms 20 I saw Both of the cosmonauts, Anton and pyotr were in the camera and somebody else was using livestream camera so can I upload its images to commons I suspect the camera man to be a US astronaut by the voice Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As a note the images were taken in Poisk module Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Huntster I heard that the welcome ceremony is taken by a laptop's camera. So is the one I said above, that is used during hatch opening also a Russian laptop or fixed camera. I saw it never moves to another place Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Huntster I heard that the welcome ceremony is taken by a laptop's camera. So is the one I said above, that is used during hatch opening also a Russian laptop or fixed camera. I saw it never moves to another place Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, is there a feature in wikis which can help me to replace the global usages of a media file to another media file Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

File:View of the ISS taken during Crew-2 flyaround (ISS066-E-081311).jpg and File:International Space Station after undocking of STS-132.jpg are the files Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

File:The station pictured from the SpaceX Crew Dragon 2.jpg is the file I need to be placed in place of the the other images in other wikis Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Since thousands of wikis use them manual replacing is a bit cumbersome and time consuming Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

For this reason I need a feature for replacing is it applicable to all users or just administrators Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan: I thought I'd already responded to your original question, so I'll start there.

1) Regarding MS-20 hatch opening ceremony. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: unless a U.S. astronaut is specifically credited as taking the photograph in the Russian segment, do not assume the image to be NASA Public Domain. Period.

2) I do not understand why you want to replace the STS-132 flyaround image with the significantly inferior Crew-2 image. The Crew-2 image is too cropped, has poor lighting and contrast, and is just not as good. Yes, it is newer, but the STS-132 one is better as a generalized descriptive image.

3) Re: File:The station pictured from the SpaceX Crew Dragon 2.jpg, NO. Absolutely not. I'm usually pretty relaxed, but that image is absolute garbage, and I will resist your replacement of good images with that one at every turn. I cannot express enough just how absolutely awful that image is, and whomever at NASA approved its release should be ashamed of themselves and resign. Even for a mosaic it's awful. Unless you have an exceedingly good argument, I'm restoring the old image in those articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks for your suggestion Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)