This user is an administrator.
This user has a bot.
Email this user.

User talk:Billinghurst

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


Je suis Charlie
"Da mihi basium"
This user has an alternate account named SDrewthbot.
If you are looking to get my attention, you can

Deletion request

Please @Billinghurst: , kindly assist in closing the deletion nominations for these two photos: File:Ann Jane Arko Anny Photoshoot in Yellow Top in April 12 2015.jpg and File:Anny (Ann Jane Arko) on the Runway of Mercedes Benz Fashion Week.jpg Both photos in question portrays a model who lacks notable recognition or relevance within Wikipedia’s scope. They don't contribute meaningfully to any relevant article or topic. The photographer remains unknown or not an established artist in the industry as well. The the photo was uploaded for self-promotion. Moreover, it's a copyvio. Several photos uploaded by the user have been already deleted. Wikipedia aims to provide accurate and valuable information to its readers, and including images of individuals without notable recognition detracts from this objective. Newrobertsparks (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newrobertsparks: Please don't prosecute the case on my user talk page. They have DRs, and that is enough to get the community's attention and processes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Regina

What did she do? Trade (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic only. User keeps top loading here requests for action that don't need to be put on an admin's user talk page (as collectively managed by our processes). I'm away and don't have the ability to babysit. Seems non-English as first language and may need someone in her language to explain what I couldn't, when I tried.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Industrieschool de Wiekslag aan de Talingstraat, 1956.jpg

Hi Billinghurst, thanks for all your work here. I wonder if you could reconsider this refert. I uploaded the same image twice from the same source, the original (6.5 months ago) and the trimmed version (I uploaded yesterday). There seem to be no reason to keep the untrimmed version, but maybe I am mistaken about the Wikimedia policy. -- Mdd (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdd: The file does not qualify for speedy deletion as duplicate for numbers of reasons. You can nominate it for a standard deletion per the polich, though I don't see any issue with both versions being available and letting users decide which they wish to use. Free choice is a marvellous thing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx, this is fine with me and I will keep this rationale in mind. Best regards, Mdd (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of files from Category:Höltigbaum

I placed the files intentionally in the disambiguation category that they can be found and maybe identified and sorted into the correct category. Now they are totally uncategorized. GPSLeo (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: Please do not categorise to disambiguation categories, that is totally against the practice. The purpose is to empty those categories. If required, please create the category for where they belong. If it is not known to how they should be categorised, then they probably are lacking educational purpose and should be considered for deletion. If you cannot get them exact to such a term, then look to use the other aspects of the country which apply.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @GPSLeo: Or you can create a maintenance category somewhere appropriate under Category:Unidentified locations. - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion requests

Why is File:Bradley square mall entrance 1991-2012.jpg and related images not eligible for speedy deletion? As the original uploader, I'd like them deleted. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013: 2017 files. Please reread Com:CSD for the criteria for speedy deletion, it fails. Take-backs have a very short shelf-life.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I thought I've had another one from that time deleted. The issue is, I think they may be copyright violations. To the best of my knowledge, they came from Flickr (I probably incorrectly attributed them to myself), but someone else has determined that a lot of my uploads from this time belong to Google. I can't confirm that, but I couldn't find them on Flickr anymore, and there's no reason to have this many images of these subjects anyway. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bneu2013: I doubt they belong to Google. They are not eligible for speedy on the criteria you provided. Com:Deletion requests is the process now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Another user has since confirmed that all of the Greenway photos have come from Google maps. Since I can't find evidence of them being freely licensed elsewhere, they need to be deleted. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete this file?

Hi, you deleted the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dom Jones.jpg. Why? What do you mean, "no suitable license to keep at Commons"? The file is my own work. It's from a video I took. I linked the full video to prove that. What's the deal? Was there a rule change that I'm not aware of where people are no longer allowed to upload their own work to Commons? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @BottleOfChocolateMilk: : are you saying that YouTube user alethiology is you? Because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfTBAVeyNbo doesn't offer a free license, and https://www.youtube.com/@alethiology8321 doesn't give any indication of being connected to your WMF account. If you fix one of those two, then the image can presumably be undeleted. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Yes, that account does belong to me. I have added a Creative Commons license. Note that the video is unlisted and has 9 views. It's my video and my channel. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: thanks! @Billinghurst: may I assume that as the deleting admin, you would now be willing to undelete this, instead of making this user go through a formal UNDEL request? - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: : undeleted File:Dom Jones.jpg and amended the deletion discussiopn. Please update the license to use {{YouTube CC-BY}} and please update the source to point to the work at youtube. This will also allow us to validate the license as being at youtube at the time, so if it ever is removed, we can utilise our verification process. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: just to be clear, you should like link your YouTube video as the source, and you should include the license of the YouTube video as at least one of the available licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File deleted by mistake - not a copyright violation

Hello. The File:Peter Jordan em 2022.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation and was deleted, but it wasn't a copyright violation. I linked the YouTube video source, which is under a Creative Commons license. I specifically put in the license which the image was under, both in English and in Brazilian Portuguese, so that this wouldn't happen. Pato ilógico (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pato ilógico: I checked the file at YouTube and there was no permissible licence showing. When there is a suitable licence, please use the undelete process to have the file retrieved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me out with some information

I'm curious which files you found File:Dallas Cowboys (51156284890).jpg and File:San Francisco 49ers (51155408668).jpg to be duplicates of, so that I can properly categorize the files that remain on the project. Help would be appreciate. Thank you. SecretName101 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot tell once deleted, the matching machinery doesn't work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Actually, billinghurst, it can be done. You download the image to your machine and then copy-paste or drag and drop into Google Lens. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The system machinery of Commons doesn't work for deleted files, it just worked for find the duplicate. Not certain that the stalker comment is that helpful as I definitely didn't sign up for using the hit and miss of Google Lens to help users bulk uploading folders from websites of other people's files to find the duplicate files that the system already identified. Definitely got better things to do with my time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories with "potential to be populated"

Hi.
I appointed Category:Lucy G. Acosta for speedy deletion, but you Reverted because the category has a link to Wikipedia and so it has "potential to be populated". But Lucy G. Acosta died on 8 March 2008, if it wasn't populated yet, it won't be populated too soon.
The same happened with Category:Vashti McCollum, who passed away on 20 August 2006. It won't be populated too soon.
Having a connection to Wikipedia, for itself, is not a good reason for maintaining a category. They are different projects.
And if, at any point, an image of these people is uploaded to the project, we can just recreate the category.
Minerva97 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Minerva97: These are linked categories to Wikidata and they have potential to be filled, so on face value they are not eligible for speedy deletion. The purpose of speedy deleting empty categories is to allow for the removal of unuseful empty categories, not solely empty categories. What value do you see in deleting them? As with anything else that is not valid for speedy deletion, there is a process for reaching a consensus for deletion, and that you opinion fits in the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Finnish army equipment photos

Hello, the picture uploaded of the Sisu GTP vehicle here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sisu_GTP_4X4.jpg has since been deleted. The reason stated for this was "The material cannot be used for advertising or marketing purposes or to make profit". I fail to see how usage on Wikipedia constitutes any of these. Usage on that self-proclaimed encyclopedia is not commercial or profit-seeking (there are no advertisements to view). I would call this use informational, even educational.

The Finnish Defence Forces website features an equipment gallery, where it is stated in Finnish, that:

Ladattavan materiaalin käyttöehdot Kuvia saa käyttää uutisia ja muuta tiedonvälitystä palvelevissa tarkoituksissa. Kuvia voi käyttää myös blogitekstien yhteydessä, samoin kuin sosiaalisessa mediassa. Kuvien käyttö on maksutonta, mutta edellyttää käyttöehtojen hyväksymistä. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää mainonnassa, markkinoinnissa tai ansaintatarkoituksessa. Käyttäjä ei saa siirtää eikä myydä julkaisuoikeutta kolmannelle osapuolelle. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää hyvien tapojen vastaisesti. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää mihinkään lainvastaiseen tarkoitukseen tai mitään yritystä, yhdistystä, henkilöä tai tuotemerkkiä loukkaavassa tarkoituksessa. Lähdemerkintä on annettava muodossa (Puolustusvoimat) hyvän tavan mukaisesti.

There has been a wrongheaded fixation on the "no commercial usage" clause, which doesn't even apply here. Yet the first part, about "purposes serving the transmission of information", news and blogs and social media, is being ignored. Those latter points seem closer to "topical decoration" and articles on Wikipedia certainly could benefit from that.


In addition to the above from the equipment gallery, a site-wide policy is laid out here: https://puolustusvoimat.fi/tietoa-sivustosta

Kuvat ja niiden käyttöoikeudet Kuvien käyttöoikeudet ovat Puolustusvoimilla. Muu käyttö esimerkiksi koulutusmateriaaleissa ja oppikirjoissa on mahdollista. Kuvan julkaisun yhteydessä tulee mainita kuvaaja ja käyttöoikeuden haltija. Kuvia ei saa manipuloida tai muuttaa ilman lupaa, eikä niitä saa hyödyntää sopimattomalla tai hyvän tavan vastaisella tavalla eikä käyttää markkinointi- ja mainostarkoituksiin tai muihin kaupallisiin tarkoituksiin. Käyttäjä ei saa siirtää julkaisuoikeutta kolmannelle osapuolelle.

I would interpret all of this in a way that usage on Wikipedia, with a source and credit provided as requested, constitutes good faith usage, and that these photos should not be deleted for reasons of supposed copyright infringement. Granted, the exact copyright or license tag to be used should be figured out, if "Attribution" is not correct. No specific policy like CC or public domain is explicitly stated in the source.

I had time to upload three photos from the equipment gallery in a similar way. This one has been deleted already: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sisu_GTP_4X4.jpg

These other two should also be deleted for completeness' sake, if this unfavorable interpretation of the FDF's image use policy stands: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FNS_Kallanpaa.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FNS_Isku.jpg MOSTKA87 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billinghurst&oldid=876572306"