I removed the image you added; it's actively misleading. No image of B exists, and the size of the planet is unknown. Guesses suggest it would be at least 1.3 times the size of the earth, but they are no more than guesses. Your image implies we have imaged the planet and it is the same size as earth, which is pretty much known to not be the case. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, you generally should reply to a message where it is written rather than split a conversation across multiple pages. See the top of my talk page for a banner describing the proper way of dealing with that. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
planetary images discussion, moved from other talk page
The vast majority of the textures, appearances and dimensions of the NASA's artistic representations are merely speculative and appear in a large number of Wikipedia articles, such as this image or here, here, here. The artist-speculative texture of Proxima Cen B by NASA is here (same texture that you told me is "actively misleading"). If the parameter of the mass radius is 1.3 times you can fix it. Download Celestia, download the NASA oficial image, fix the .ssc file with the new mass radius parameter and take screenshot. --Piquito veloz (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The picture you reference actively states "artist's conception", which the image you added did not. The image you added provides no useful information, and indeed provides erroneous information (a claim that proxima b would be the same size as earth), and as such is a net detriment to the article. I notice you have added a bunch of similar images to other articles - they seem to all be screen captures from Celestia. That's a copyright violation, see WP:COPYVIO, and all those images will need to be deleted. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Celestia is GNU/GPL license and is compatible with CC-BY-SA and the NASA/JPL-Caltech/MIT images are public domain. Fix the parameter of radius in Celestia scc file is easy, i can fix and upload new image with new radius.--Piquito veloz (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Artist conception of Proxima Centauri b by NASA.1 The size of Proxima Centauri b is around 1.3 times the size of the Earth.2
New upload with fixed radius since ssc file inside of Celestia with a new radio of 8291.6 km. The problem is because to the user that has created >4000 exoplanets to Celestia, sometimes he makes mistakes because is a very hard work there. --Piquito veloz (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(end of moved text)
You STILL can't use those images. Several problems:
First, there is no reason to import them from Celestia. All you are doing is taking a screenshot of an image someone imported into Celestia. Celestia served no purpose here, it is not providing any additional value to those images you are screen-shotting into Wikipedia.
Second, you don't know the original source of the images. The fact that they were imported into Celestia does not mean they are now free. Someone painted those images, and they didn't lose their copyright because someone imported them into Celestia.
Third, if those images are indeed available, you must import them from the original source, and document why the original source for EACH of the images allows it to be used on Wikipedia.
I expect you to self-revert all your celestia imports. If you don't, I'll raise a complaint at the copyright violation noticeboard. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should add another point; the image you added to Proxima b serves no purpose. We don't KNOW the size of Proxima b. We know it's considerably more massive than earth, and there are a number of guesses as to its size, the lower end of which is a factor of 1.3. We do not know that it is 1.3 times the diameter of Earth, we simply have some guesses that it isn't smaller than that. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You told me: "First, there is no reason to import them from Celestia" The big reason to use Celestia is the same reason you are using Wikipedia: Wikipedia and Celestia have free licenses and very compatible, anyone can expand or improve content. For example, if someone questioned that the mean size of Proxima is 1.3 times than Earth can improve ssc file and there is the big reason Celestia is the best choice. --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You told me: "Third, if those images are indeed available, you must import them from the original source".. of course, I can put each source of the textures in my pics, not problem there. I am sure that most of textures, models and database are public domain because the chief source of textures is the NASA and ESA or default textures of developers under GNU license. --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You told me: "If you don't, I'll raise a complaint at the copyright violation noticeboard" Here is a collaborative environment and does not work through enforcement coercion, just ask for sources and I will be happy to provide you the sources. Sources will appear in the info of the images in Commons.--Piquito veloz (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The topic here is the license of images in Celestia. I will never go back to the Tarl talk page but Tarl is no longer welcome on this talk page. Please do not post again Piquito veloz (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
The unblock reason does not adequately address the competence, bludgeon and battlground issues that led to the (very appropriate) block. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
In just minutes the administrators have deliberated without going to read the discussion pages. To understand the problem with the user, at least it takes an hour to read and research, w7f. --Piquito veloz (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
