User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2013

File source is not properly indicated: File:The Pantiles, Tunbridge Wells.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:The Pantiles, Tunbridge Wells.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:The Pantiles, Tunbridge Wells.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

howcheng {chat} 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Chrismorley.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Chrismorley.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Chrismorley.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

—howcheng {chat} 08:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#ZenitStarFootball

Hi, can you please stop this vandal fast and delete his fake uploads? After being blocked again in English Wikipedia he now tries to continue with his vandalism and the uploaded fake pictures in Bosnian Wikipedia. --93.209.69.161 02:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the information.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maksim Gaspari v ateljeju 1910s.jpg

Hi, how can I answer the questions you've asked if you have closed the discussion immediately afterwards? I may well respond to you at your talk page, but it's not the right venue to discuss the deletion of the image. Anyway, for example for the mentioned image, the image was published in 2003 or later.[1] It's from this collection that states "any reproduction forbidden". There is no information about any previous publication and we have to assume that the work is still protected with the publication right (unless the uploader proves otherwise - the burden of evidence is on the uploader). Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As to this and this image, I think that the following applies: "Photographic reproductions, as a form of derivative work, may inherit the copyright of the original work. If that artwork is in the public domain, then so is the photograph.[13] If, however, the depicted work is copyright protected, then, although there is no independent copyright on the photo itself, it cannot be considered to be in the public domain as the original rights holder still has the authority to control how reproductions of his work, including photographs, are made and distributed. The same applies to digitized images."[2] Thanks for your reply and regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I closed the DR after further reviewing the Slovenian legislation and closely reviewing {{PD-Slovenia}}, which was after asking those questions. My apologies for not making that clearer.

By Slovenian law the copyright of the photographer's work expired 1994, so the cited publication is just another out of copyright publication (re a generic copyright claim and old photos, NADA just laziness). Otherwise, you are talking about a posed photograph of the painter with his images are displayed as props about them. The de minimis argument would not be a strong argument where the permission of the artist would appear to have been given, and this is simply the reproduced photograph. The smaller images, in themselves, are not any detail where they could be reproduced, so the right of copy doesn't seem relevant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You conflate your argument, firstly you say that we need to respect the copyright of the publishing institute; then you argue that the artist's have their copyright and there is no publication allowed. I put it to you that the institute publishes the images as they are out of copyright, and that the images are primarily of people and that the images of an artwork are not of suitable detail. If the images were of the works themselves, then your claim may be okay, but here they of insufficient detail in consideration of they are photographs of the artists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not conflating my arguments. What I'm trying to say is that the photographs are a) protected with the copyrights (about which we may agree to disagree), b) protected with the publication right. These two are similar, but separate. Even if we assume the depicted artwork is not visible in enough detail and the photographs are in the public domain, they are still protected with the publication right. Btw, the institute has also published copyrighted images, like this one. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Which publication right? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are suggesting, however, an institution cannot get copyright on an item for which they have no copyright in the first place. If you are talking about their rendering of the photograph, my opinion would be that there is insufficient originality to get a new copyright, however, if that is your argument it is not one to which I paid much attention for these particular images.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, actually an institution can get the publication right on an item upon which they have no copyright. See :en:Copyright Duration Directive and this conversation. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugh and sigh. You Europeans are flaming crazy!  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, therefore as there is no evidence that the images were published before 2003, I think that they have to be deleted for this reason. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

On this one, what is the evidence that they have the publishing right? I am always happy to delete due to copyright claim, but less so on a claim of first publication. I would want to see that substantiated. A professional photographer taking publicity photographs of artists and their works and there is evidence presented that one was published, so why not the others, it seems more likely that it was the case, than not. Different challenge, and one where you need to be able to read Slovenian. Best I will offer is to reopen them and state where we are. I am not prepared to delete on a claim of first publication when there is not substantiated evidence.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this one was published in 1929 and should stay, whereas the other two ([3], [4]) were part of a library collection that has been only recently digitised, starting in 2003;[5] the library's webpage contains the following statement[6]: "Samo za lastno uporabo in študijske namene. Reproduciranje prepovedano." [Only for personal usage and the purposes of study. Reproduction forbidden.]

The difference between these photographs is that for the one that was published in 1929, this is directly stated on the library's page ([7]; click 'Notes'), whereas there is no such notice for the other two. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting attention towards unattended nomination of self uploaded misinformed files

Requesting your attention towards these nominations [8] [9] [10] sir, I tried to nominate them for speedy deletion to save time but got advise to nominate it like this. Thankyou --Sks1950 (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that they have been managed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Correcting or deleting a page

I hope this is the right way to contact you. You seem to have created a couple of pages headed for Victor Verasius Branford (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Victor_Verasius_Branford and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Victor_Verasius_Branford). Unfortunately, you have the incorrect spelling of his name and also an incorrect date of birth (the date of birth is incorrect in some other public sources, but is correct in the DNB). A full entry on Victor Branford is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Branford. This inc Udes numerous cross refernces to and from other entries. Please could you correct your pages or delete them? I have marked them for possible deletion but am not sure if I have the format correct. 2011jps (talk)

If the dates of life need fixing, then fix them. It would also be useful to cite on the talk page the source of your information. If the spellings are wrong, then we can move the pages to the right place. Creator:Victor Verasius Branford  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for duplicates

Hi, thanks for the explanation, how should I notify these files than? Tremendo (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the tardy reply. I thought that I covered that with the link, they would follow a normal deletion process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

SDrewthbot removes interwiki links

Hi, I fail to understand why SDrewthbot removes interlanguagelinks from some disambiguation categories. --Foroa (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which bit is the question, that the bot removed them or that the links were removed. The interwiki links were removed as they were showing up in disambiguation categories with links.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In the mean time, I noticed that you removed valid interlanguage links too. Those links are very important and dabs tend to be very country specific (and badly maintained). So the question is why you remove them and where are those cats "showing up in disambiguation categories with links." ? --Foroa (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Non-empty_disambiguation_categories  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dab categories appear in Category:Non-empty_disambiguation_categories when they are not empty (not always immediatly when an item was assigned to it by a bot). Those items disappear from Category:Non-empty_disambiguation_categories when they become empty and:

• A dummy edit is done on it
• after some days, sometimes a week if nothing is done.

Sometimes, the process is accelerated by doing a dummy edit on the {{Disambig}}, but that doesn't seem to work always. You have similar behaviour on Category:Non-empty_category redirects and Category:Broken category redirects, but those tend to be updated with less delay.

Changing red links or interwiki links on disambig cats don't change it behaviour, except that you think it works as with dummy edits. --Foroa (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Went through all those steps, but what the heck. Probably wise to add some actual clarity to the catch-all category page itself, rather than the unhelpful instructions that are there. Personally I cannot see any point or value in interwiki links on disambiguated categories like that at Commons, we are simply disambiguating our pages as guidance to others local, but if that is what people want to do, what do I care how they spend their time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation cats tend to be badly maintained and very language/culture specific. If you knew the massive amount of items we've got in Berg (Germanic of mountain), Santa, Arbre, Grave, ... So interwiki help there is much more useful than on normal categories, especially on categories like Castell, Castelli, Kapelle, Newport, ... and for example some Polish villages that have 15 to 20 different versions. Maintaining a dab on wikipedia is already a challenge, maintaining one on the crossroad of all wikipedias is even more difficult. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

your deletion of Category:Corpshaus

There are more than one of a name in Germany in one place, so that your move was not helpful. For an instance there is a Corps Brunsviga and a Burschenschaft Brunsviga in Göttingen, both own houses. The house of a student corps is always and only a corpshaus. That was the intended difference. Also the corps own corpshouses and the others dont, because they are no corps. Furthermore Koporation is a terminus technicus that describes old, preconstitutional (in the meanig of before the BGB (German civil code) which came into effect on 1.1.1900) bodies, which would include all the others... So you really meant "Houses of student Korporations", but it has been screwed up a little anyway. We should discuss the reimplementation of the good old Corpshaus and otherwise change the subcats using the full title of the fraternity.--Kresspahl (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I just cleaned up after the moves. The moves were ordered by another.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

US soldiers in Kandahar

Hi. Can you please redirect these 2 files to my version. [11] [12] I have uploaded these 2 in July 2012, a month before Slick-o-bot. Slick-o-bot chose very long names for the files.--Officer (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

They have been dealt with and the larger files were kept. Redirects can be used.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

BSicon rename

Hello! This edit you made should have been the opposite: "BSicon_dÜWo+l.svg" is the bad old name and "BSicon_dSTR+1.svg" is the good new name. Can you undo it, please? -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not how {{Duplicate}} works. The expected protocol is that the old file stays where the files are of equal quality. If you want something different, then you will need to get a {{Rename}} request on the page. Note that the rename tool hates those BSicon links and the shortcut templates, and doesn't do replacements well.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you misunderstood the original request, alright? After that, your lessons on protocol sound a little defensive, really. If you dont want to handle BS_icon rename requests, well… don’t bother — there’s a few people with filemoving rights who know the ropes about BS_icons. Thanks. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not misunderstand the request. The request was handled as per the protocol for {{Duplicate}} requests, which is what you made. You were wanting a process in line with {{Rename}}.
Defensive? No, I was indicating that due to the means that the rail line project uses those icons they cannot be bot fixed, they need to be done manually. They are basically a time-consuming process, so the demands when someone makes an innocuous decision to have a renamed icon has ramifications through the system.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

File:יהואש צווייטע.pdf

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

– Quadell (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's in yiddish and I don't understand it. It appears to be two pages of poetry. Not sure of its significance. --Eliyak (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair call, we will just fate decide it. Thanks for looking.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Hugh llewelyn 4309 (5961574176).jpg

Hi there. I don't think it matters which file was kept, seeing as they were the same, but since I'd tagged the one I specifically didn't re-categorize it to match the one I'd uploaded, which was properly categorized. I hope in the future you consider merging the categories in these cases. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a protocol to follow when the files are same size and quality, and that is to keep the older file. People fell miffed when the file that they uploaded (up to) years earlier is deleted in place of a new file. In fact you are feeling miffed on the simple example of the file that you uploaded and it had only been in place a day or so. There other factors as well to consider, but in the case that you bring that is how I made the assessment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not miffed about that at all and I said as much in my original comment. I'm simply miffed that I had re-categorize the image, especially as not being an administrator on this project I'm unable to view the deleted image and the categories it had. There was no indication whatsoever from you that the image had been deleted; I only noticed because I happened to be viewing a category in which it belonged and I did not see it there. I then looked back in my edit history to find the original image and re-categorized it. I'm now here on your talk page explaining why this wasn't a great outcome for all involved, and suggesting gently that could have either (a) categorized the original image to match the new image prior to deleting the new image or (b) at least letting me know what was going to happen. Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. If it had existed for a longer period, and especially with evidence of use, there would have been a 'merge', where the cats would have gone over, but it also creates a redirect; the instruction for new files is to delete, not create redirects. It is a less than perfect system, and manually comparing and eye-checking against many factors is just difficult, similarly having to tell every user about a change. We do try to strike the right balance, but are imperfect beasts in ourselves.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Close-up view of the sky around the star HD 10180.jpg

Hi, Billinghurst. Why did you deleted this file, but keeped File:Eso1035c.jpg? This file has incorrect, meaningless name and it has bad quality and lower size compared to the original [13]. (size of File:Eso1035c.jpg - 376 kB, and size of File:Close-up view of the sky around the star HD 10180.jpg - 383 kB). Stas1995 (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

They are the same dimensions, and the quality difference is miniscule. There would be a lot of renames, for no real benefit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicates

Thanks for the cleanup! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I did have a tad of <grrrr> as I was paddling through them, then I saw it was you and basically thought it probably fell into "shit happens" category (we need to create that). I cheated in the end and didn't use the nice but slow tools.:-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You deleted Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed. Did you realize it was under discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed? I think that makes speedy deletion premature.

So, could you please restore the category? Geo Swan (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Speak to the admin who put it into the queue to get all the components moved (it will be in the history of User:CommonsDelinker/commands and presumably the talk page), they presumably determined that it was closed. I just tidied up after the move.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you got the order wrong.

They listed it at COM:CDC first. I opened Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Union Station, Toronto, Tracks and Trainshed when I found the contents I spent a couple of hours putting images into the article had been removed by the bot, without any prior discussion. I had never hear of COM:CDC prior to that contributor mentioning it after I initiated the discussion, so there is no way I could have asked them why why they directed the category change. Geo Swan (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A move is a move; the admin must order the move, please discuss it with them. Or start the conversation to move it back, no real fuss. As I said, I was just tidying up after the move.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, your sig is missing [14] here. --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Horrocks in Rees.jpg and File:British Generals 1939-1945 BU2411.jpg

You deleted second file although it was better quality, and the first one is just scaled-up 345×325. Ain92 (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted to status quo, and we can let someone else look at it  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Marienbrücke, Vienna vs Category:Marienbrücke (Vienna)

Hi, I'm somewhat confused concerning the above categories. The deletion log shows that it was you who deleted Category:Marienbrücke, Vienna. Was it also you who initiated that move? If yes, why? After all, the convention that I've seen so far seems to be to use a comma and not parentheses. If it wasn't you, can you tell me whom I can contact to discuss this? Thank you. darkweasel94 16:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I just deleted after the move had been ordered by another. To see who ordered it, you are going to need to dig through the history of User:CommonsDelinker/commands or the corresponding talk page to see who did.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate or "colouration different"

Hi! You replaced template "duplication" to "other version" with comment "colouration different" (link).

This image (File:RU058-11.jpg) is a low resolution version of the stamp File:Girl band European Russia North XIX.jpg. Also "File:RU058-11.jpg" has unbalanced and too dark colors. Really, I don't understand why bad quality and exact duplicates should be presented at the Commons.

The reason "colouration different" is poor IMHO. I can make hundreds of different colouration of this stamp using Photoshop. I am uploading stamps to the Commons and I suppose that only one (the best) version of the stamp should be presented here. :) -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I cannot speedy delete based solely on colour differences. That would need to be based on a normal deletion request, see Commons:Deletion policy.

Yes, you can make all those colour changes and stick clown noses on the people, make them 50% transparent and turn them into montage, and as long as the images are within scope they can exist on Commons. Commons is not the encyclopaedia, it is the shared resource of all the sister sites, so the task of admins is to curate, and assess community consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your special and magical powers that makes people appear on IRC on demand. :D :D Béria Lima msg 14:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Request that category moves are better documented in edit summary

Hello. I agree. Delinker is for non-controversial moves, but every once in a while what appears to be routine can raise questions or concerns. The problem, however, is that the edit summaries aren't added when the old category is "cleaned up" (and they should be). That's an unavoidable result, since SieBot doesn't always implement the change right away, so someone other than the ordering admin ends up doing the clean-up (I'm not telling you anything you don't already know).

Category moves can be better documented in a number of ways, depending on the circumstances. But there are also some things we should also be doing in terms of the commands page. First, I would give ordering admins more time to do their own clean-up from the commands page (although, for the reason stated above, that always isn't practical), and the ordering admins should be using appropriate edit summaries. Second, we need to try to not be deleting categories from the commands page when someone has added a CFD tag to an affected category. Third, while it is unfortunately not possible to automate the process using SieBot, the {{Move cat}} template does have a third field that allows the insertion of a rationale, and that rationale can be really useful if it isn't practical to wait until the ordering admin does the clean-up. I stopped using the third field because it seemed pointless, but I will start doing so again. Providing a rationales enables a third-party admin, who is deleting categories or adding redirects from the commands page, to cut and paste the rationale into the edit summaries. It also reinforces the practice among ordering admins that they should be using edit summaries at every step in the process.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was simply hoping that we could add a little rigour to our processes, as we are getting queries. bot improvements would be lovely, though I am not going to be holding my breath.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

AGE

Keep calm, I will simplify the logo after someone move to the correct name, and it won't be a copyright violation. --JaviP96 15:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What? Mate, it was calm and specific. And, no, we don't move files under copyright discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If I put a normal "u" is enought isn't it? --JaviP96 15:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the colours. Regards. --JaviP96 18:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing the colours is not going to remove the copyright components of design. Anything that replicates the original is going to beat its head against copyright issues, that is the purpose of applying copyright to creative design.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Naval Ensign of the Australian Navy Cadets.svg & File:Naval Ensign of the Australian Naval Reserve Cadets (1973-2000).svg

Please UNDO that merge! They are not the same thing and if you read the descriptions you would see that. They had two different badges which is why I deliberately uploaded two files. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither image that you uploaded has a badge, they are the same image as far as I can see. One can only work off the visible image when comparing images. Otherwise it is unclear at what you are looking to say.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

They don't have the badge because I'm not good enough with SVG to make them, I was gonna do a Graphic Lab request, however the file descriptions had links to photos of the different badges. Please undo. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Recovered and labelled with {{Underconstruction}}. With the blue, it needs to be darker, is meant to be navy. See http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm#colour Blue PANTONE® 280  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know about the construction template but I am glad you added it. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wappen Kreis Brilon2.svg

Hello, you reverted it to the 1st version. But that CoA has nothing in common with the file name. That CoA with the yellow lion and the red F is a fictional version of the CoA from the German town de:Freinsheim (my hometown). The user Bayernraute created several versions, who does not exist in reality and are just based on his own creativity, so you can say it is his private version. In January a deletion request failed. So in April I had the idea, if it can not be deleted, I just upload the suitable CoA to the file name - the CoA of de:Kreis Brilon.
The best way would be to delete that file, cause it is useless. There exists a file of the CoA of Kreis Brilon, and there exists a file where another user and I work to have that a correct version of the real CoA of Freinsheim (Our discussion). Fränsmer (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I did and why. Please acquaint yourself with the following

• Commons:Scope
• Commons:Overwriting existing files
• commons:Rename
• Commons:Deletion policy

Then reflect on the actions that have been undertaken, and by whom. These pages will also give you information that you require to how to progress the matter. Commons is not an encyclopaedia, that is left to the Wikipedias, fictional versions that are within scope are right to continue to exist, they do however need to be clearly and properly described, and they need to be appropriately named.  — billinghurst sDrewth 18:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Billinghurst, ok it is not directly fictional, but we do not need this version anymore or the other (I understand all your linked policies and those are right). There are now 3 (with history more) versions we do'nt need. We have a "official" like version. See for a precedent DR COM:Deletion requests/Fictional Papal Arms. And here is more a only copy&paste compilation of completely other CoAs. Greetings -- Perhelion (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You are conflating issues. The community has their rules which direct an administrator what can be speedily deleted, this doesn't meet the criteria. I reverted the file as it was overwritten, contrary to other guidance. None of those actions relates to whether a file should or should not be retained.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

USCGC Castle Rock (WHEC-383)

Deletion not required, if there is any value in keeping. Regret inconvenience caused. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The difference doesn't allow me to speedy delete one of them. If you think that they should be deleted, then please progress through a normal deletion request, where the community can decide.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-duplicate images

Could you clarify what difference you are seeing between File:LDA-HMPA ester enolization.svg and File:Enolización LDA HMPA.svg? DMacks (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Size and image density, one has a little more whitespace; all basically equate to not exact duplicate. If you think that one needs to be deleted, then it would be through a normal deletion request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! DMacks (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Email.

• Please check email. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

“

Hi Billinghurst, would you please assist me in regard this, [15] and this, [16]. I am the editor on English wikipedia as a user:Justice007---------------previously I contributed as user:(username removed)-----As an author, publisher and owner all project in Pakistan and Holland, has legal authority of all copy rights to allow anywhere all my works as free domain. Nearly one year ago User:Sreejithk2000 has demanded permission for images, and book titles, that was given and provided by email conversation. I do not understand what is more needed to satisfy the commons OTRS. I hope you will assist me in this regardt so that dispute can be resolved. Thanks.

”

I am not sure what more you are wanting me to do here. Fastily has directed you to the OTRS process, and the requested declarations. OTRS will make a determination, and if they accept the permissions they should inform an admin and have the files undeleted. I would suggest that you would want to include the urls of the filenames, and point to these two urls that you emailed to me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Billinghurst/Archives. You have new messages at Fry1989's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: File:Cart plan 400.gif

Hello, that is a image from en.wikipedia. Sorry if the picture is under copyright, but I saw that it was under CC SA-BY. Thank you for you warning. --Nachosan (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, maybe this picture in under the same situation, file:IPN east wheel.jpg. Do you think is a good idea to consult to Headland Archaeology?, maybe they were the original uploader. Thansk, --Nachosan (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have marked it to be transferred back to whence it came.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Flags of the United States/Kingdom

Hi, you recently deleted File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg as being a duplicate of File:English language.svg. I see that's in use, however I nominated the latter because I thought that the first would be a more appropriate name, consistently with most hybrid flags, and that a redirect would have been created anyway. --Ricordisamoa 07:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I kept the older file, which is the convention when all else is equal. The flag is an invention, so there is no requirement for it to harmonise with the national flags convention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

James Dobson

Hi, you recently deleted a file I had upload (James Dobson 2noprofile.jpg) on the ground that it was a duplicate. The image contained slight colour profile differences to James Dobson 2.jpg which were pertinent to an ongoing discussion here. I am sorry I did not more clearly demarcate the two beyond putting a different title and expecting the difference to be noticed, however I would appreciate it if you could revert the deletion. If not I can just upload it again, I guess. Cowtowner (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Will make an effort to be clearer in future uploads. Cheers, Cowtowner (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Plosives -> stops, "No valid reason stated"

These are used in tpls on en wiki. Renaming them would mean they'll bear the same name as the symbol and get picked up automatically and we won't have to set up exceptions. — Lfdder (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

They are too widely used across too many wikis. Add to that that the rename tools are down so not fully effective, so the answer is no.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean they're too widely used? Do redirects not work? And if you're not renaming them, you might want to rv File:Voiced uvular stop.oga; no use just having that one renamed. — Lfdder (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, I see these 2 got renamed as well: File:Voiceless retroflex stop.oga, File:Voiced retroflex stop.oga. — Lfdder (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Global usage. Redirects is not the preferred means, though if you want to try a redirect from your desired name it isn't anything that is going to bother me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Pete browning cigarette card.jpg

Please delete the current version of this picture because it is the same as the first. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Files are nominated with {{duplicate}}  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You did not understand me. I sent the wrong version of the same image. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I work the queues, I don't manage requests via my talk page. Tag the files as per the instructions and they will be evaluated by myself or others working the queues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Chris Mann Brings New Album "Roads" to Walmart Risers.jpg

Hi, I noticed you tagged File:Chris Mann Brings New Album "Roads" to Walmart Risers.jpg as missing evidence of permission. I'm confused over it. It's from Lunchbox LP's flickr, which is the company in charge of Walmart's soundcheck and they release many other images that are already approved on commons. Am I missing anything? Thank you! Maine12329 (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I merged the descriptions for the two files, when I deleted the other as duplicate, and that would include the no permission tag. I didn't dig deeper.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your reply sats (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Renaming files

Hi Billinghurst, thanks for your welcome and all. Could you explain, for each proposal declined, precisely why you have declined some of the proposed renames? I have read the policy and that's all very well and good, but one would reasonably think that each and every proposed rename had merits and was valid.

For the files "File:Australisches Essen 2010-by-RaBoe-04.jpg" and "File:800px Hannover Australisches Restaurant 2009 05 (RaBoe) (cropped).jpg", the file names make absolutely no sense (not even in German) and are not relevant to the content shown therein.

Thanks for your time today. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the bit about changing language. Plus also, the restaurant information is maybe as equally important as the name that you define. Such things should be discussed with the uploader.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reply is much appreciated; but, with all possible respect, I don't believe that it is a very strong argument for retaining the current names. I duly noted the criterion "Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized (Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages).", but that is a moot consideration here and I think it was quite presumptuous to think that I proposed name changes on this basis.

With respect to the second ground, I agree that restaurant names may, at times, be worth retaining; however, here, "Essen" means "food" ("Australisches" is, well, I'm sure this is still crystal to anyone, whether or not one understands German), whereas "Hannover Australisches Restaurant" simply means Hanover Australian restaurant. Moreover, to my knowledge of Australian restaurants, there are non such restaurants named "Australisches Essen" or "Hannover Australisches Restaurant" or anything similar to that, whether in German or English, and there are no such restaurants in Australia (allegedly where the images were taken) for which that is a unique descriptor, at least in the former case, or that is covered by that, at least in the latter case. I know of German restaurants and regional German restaurants in Australia, but I do not know of any that is specializes in Hanoverian cuisine. Thus, this is not in fact "restaurant information", if that is the implication here. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not about our presumptions, nor our assumptions. Then please attempt to discuss it with the uploader, as that little bit of courtesy doesn't go astray. I hope that you can see it from the other way around about how that consideration is useful. The rename policy is primarily to deal with a file name like SPN223938.jpg not where descriptive text exists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the gist of your "It is not about our presumptions, nor our assumptions." and I don't believe we're on the same wavelength. As for the rest, though, sure. Thanks. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that you have decided another way on a number of recommended renames and without providing too much of an explanation; perhaps I should use another yardstick. If you please, could you clarify exactly where would you draw the line between a name of adequate precision and accuracy and a name that isn't precise or accurate enough? It's quite clear for extreme cases, such as "SPN223938.jpg" (which, more often than not, is both imprecise and inaccurate), but what about the intermediate cases? Thanks in advance. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Rutilus pigus leánykoncér.jpg

Hallo! Would you, please rename the file. The uploader, User talk:Andrew69., argeed with the renaming. Thank You! --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You! --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Renomeação de várias escolas de samba de São Paulo

Greetings friend how are you? I'm trying to contribute images samba school, but I see no sense files samba schools of São Paulo in having your name MG and any number of image, think this is misinformation and should not be part of the image name. For me MG - Minas Gerais means. So I asked on several images renomeação.Gostaria of their collaboration.   Friend insist on multiple images you put the image name to the image description, getting a huge name. Already exists in the specific field loading to put the description of the image, not the image name.--NosLida (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Renaming files is a significant issue, and this is due to having to edit the pages at whichever wiki it is linked. Your renames seemed to be more about your preference for a name, and your preference is not more important than that of the contributor. As explained at Commons:Renaming, the renames are only done when there is a suitable benefit, or a requirement, and this was not evident in the proposed names.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Not doing to my taste. I just think this is not the image name. Even the name of the photographer was placed in the image name.esta imagem.--NosLida (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That is acceptable, see Commons:File names. This is not about names to our taste, it is about naming to policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

When I collaborate with the project samba schools, believed that harmonizing the names of the images would facilitate its use for queries.--NosLida (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Harmonise is not required for filenames like that, unless you are templating as per the flags. This person has added a perfectly adequate name, so we let it exist and move on. The search engine will find what you want.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Rights

Hi Billinghurst, I've done quite a few more rename requests and am now requesting filemover rights. But given the discussion above wanted to let you know, and say that I won't rename the above files and won't take offence if you wish to deny my request at Commons:Requests for rights#Liamdavies. Kind regards, Liamdavies (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, User:INeverCry has given me filemover rights, but I'm a little uncertain about what is fully required to perform a move. I have moved one file (to try out) using the "Move & Replace" button from the drop down menu the and it appears that all edits across all projects have been made automatically. Is this correct and there is nothing else for me to do? If so, what is the issue with "Commons Delinker"? Sorry to bother you, but I know that you perform filemoves, and it's best to be sure and not mess anything up, than cavalier and create a mess. Regards, Liamdavies (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally one doesn't undertake one's own requests, be they copyvio, ..., rename requests; the job is to do other people's, unless of course you have discussed it with the uploader or one was the uploader. [Always keep vested and conflict of interest in mind.] All the links used to get done via CDL alone; and there is an option to not do the renames under one's username, which means via CDL (though you are not an admin so cannot use CDL anyway), so all related to CDL. When I do a rename, I always count the links in and the links out, as sometimes the tools miss, and you have dig into the redirect and check the global usage of the redirect. If the original file is a new creation, then probably request its deletion. I am glad that INC did your request, I generally keep away from that space. And fwiw, asking questions is exactly the right way to go. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I shouldn't move files when I wish, but use the template and wait for others to aprove? And the move drop down menu should do every thing, but keep an eye on it? I have an additional query about uploader request renames, do these get approved even if minor so long as they are not disruptive? Thanks for putting up with my pestering. Liamdavies (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes to moving file, just not those that you propose. Drop down menu? Hmm, I don't see that, though I have different permissions, so maybe it is programmed that my view is different; though the move and replace is meant to be complete, but watched. Uploader requests are generally approved, but not when they involve a lot of work, and it is a reasonable request, and in that space they are usually due to mistakes and non-controversial AND the uploader won't complain. Not pestering, they are just questions; just to note that when asked personally, they can take longer to be answered.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I use the 'vector' skin and for me 'Move & Replace' is in a drop down menu between the watchlist star and the search box, in 'monobook' it's a link between 'history' and 'watch' (I just changed preferences to have a look). I have also now lost the single click template form for move requests, but gain one, lose another. I've made a few more moves, checking that all referring pages are updated (which they are) and feel I'm getting the hang of it. My question about upload requests relates to images like this File:Formosa Map.jpg, the current name is sufficient (it is a map of Formosa) it is very widely used and the uploader overwrote an earlier - lower quality - version of the file. I'm tempted to deny the request, but would prefer a second opinion given it's my first day judging requests and all. I know that you'll take longer to get back, but I don't mind as long as you don't, I'd rather seek advice from an editor I've already had something to do with and trust to give an informed opinion. Oh also, what do we do with all the redirects? Should I speedy delete request them or let them be? Liamdavies (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Do it, the rename is a more accurate specification of the image, and it is a request from uploader. Redirects should remain if the image has history and it is still a somewhat accurate representation, remember that the images can be linked from external to the WMF. If it is a day or so old, then it can go, though as redirects are cheap (in system terms) it is quite okay to leave them, and simply not fuss.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Already done by someone else, but thanks for the advice, it's those lineball requests that I'm a little funny on, but I figure it'll just take a little time to get used to (like most things around here). Thanks for the advice and direction in general. Liamdavies (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If unsure, ask some questions, or leave it for someone else, and watch what they do. When they do, ask them, for your knowledge, how they made the assessment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, the image you just declined was one that I wasn't sure of, and was leaving (as I have done with many others). I have noticed that filemovers rarely decline move requests, and many (like the one you just declined) that I'm not sure about, but would probably decline, get moved by others. Which has made me a little curious as to how 'tough' I'm being. I generally investigate and determine if a change should be made, using google translate, other images, and maps. Is that overkill or the correct way to go about it. Liamdavies (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a bit of rigour. It is easy to test and politely challenge, and then do a rename. Worse when the original namer cracks the shits, and you did something without an evidence base.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

T. F. Lansing (1).jpg

I meant for you to delete File:T. F. Lansing (1).jpg and keep File:T. F. Lansing.jpg. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and when I assessed I went the other way.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

They are the same file created the same time with the same resolution, with File:T. F. Lansing.jpg showing a better upload history.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Image density or compaction differed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

my case

is being summarily dismissed by arbcom. SilkTork told me via email that they didn't even plan to respond to me at all. So, do you now have any advice, now that your pretend concern is rendered moot by Wikipedia insiders? Zerofox (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

are you just toying with me, like the Wikipedia people? the details of my case are ugly and involve some very nasty details. how do i handle this? i welcome the opportunity to lay out my case, but i want to know what the rules are before i do so. i can be as mature as the next guy, but when they took my voice away from me, i resorted to immaturity. if this is an honest offer, and you are at least slightly familiar with the details, i can take you up on that. Zerofox (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your issue at English Wikipedia and/or with their ArbCom is irrelevant here. Do not bring your issues from another wiki to this place, and start battles. I am making no offer as I know nothing of the case, just seeing your actions here, and aware of other blocks and locks. I am saying use Commons within the boundaries that the community expects and requires, step outside of that again, and will not hesitate to ensure act more forcefully. With your personal attacks on people, don't disgrace yourself further, it is unseemly. Get a bit of fortitude and hold yourself to a higher standard, this is just a bloody wiki, for goodness sake.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

i have no idea what you mean. but okay i see that my valid evidence page has been removed anyway, and i can see where this is headed. i do hold myself to a higher standard than the admins who tag teamed me, so my conscience is clear. i did nothing wrong until they took my voice. now, i have no interest in helping them cover up the truth, but since you've asked nicely, i will not bring anything cross wiki. thanks for being reasonable and realizing that i, too, can be reasonable. Zerofox (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why add Tram?

Hi, thank you for carrying out my requested moves, but why did you put "Tram" at the front of my requested names for these files:

• File:Tram W6 983 in Victoria Pde on route 30, 2004.jpg
• File:Tram A1 245 at St Vincents Plaza on route 112.jpg
• File:Tram C 3009 at St Vincents Plaza on route 109, 2004.jpg
• File:Tram Z3 209 in Union Rd or route 57, 2004.jpg
• File:Tram D1 3529 in Swanston St on route 6, 2008.jpg
• File:Tram D1 3529 on route 72, 2008.jpg
• File:Tram W7 1022 in La Trobe St on route 30, 2008.jpg

I was hoping to try to get a consistent naming scheme like with many other files in those cats. Would it be possible to get them renamed again, with the "Tram " deleted? Thanks. Liamdavies (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Because they are trams. The filenames without those components do not make sense to anyone but an officiando of Melbourne's trams, not even most locals would know the coding. Please see Commons:File names. Think of what is presented when doing a search, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, most are already named by class -> number -> location, and I was hoping to move towards harmonisation, but I guess I won't bother with anymore move requests now. Seems pointless to create even more different naming styles. Thanks for the prompt reply though. Liamdavies (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

EDIT, I would also note that that link isn't a policy, it is merely suggested, I didn't think it was binding at all. Liamdavies (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The principle of naming is quite clear, and it is reinforced by renaming link. A file name is meant to give clear indication of the image, and "D1 3529" is not clear (a D1 is equally a type of bulldozer), though the route and location is clear. That rigour hasn't been applied to the names of the other files is unfortunate, and often happens with those who curate the subject matter dear to their heart (forest and trees syndrome).  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it be worth asking for a bulk rename to include 'Melbourne tram' to the front of all files in the tree using C7? Or would that be rejected under Criteria to decline 1? Liamdavies (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Could we, on these images, remove the word tram at the front and add "(tram)" at the end? Maintain Liam's harmonization, but a nod towards those of us who don't know what a D1 is? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Liam? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Howdy? If you're prodding me to do these moves, I feel it would be improper vis a vie the rename guidelines, although not the names I would like, in the grand scheme of things it hardly makes a difference. I've written this off as a learning experience, through it I've learnt more about our policies and procedures (to the extent I'm now active in helping out with file moving), and feel comfortable that this issue is resolved with no action required. Liamdavies (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I should add that through doing filemoving I too have rejected proposed names or proposed renames all together. This has given me a better understanding of what filemovers do, and billinghurst was correct. Liamdavies (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Billinghurst, that was a very kind gesture, which notwithstanding my text above, is appreciated. Your knowledge of Melbourne seems quite good, next time you're in town I'd gladly meet up and buy you a beer/coffee! Liamdavies (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Liam. I wasn't prodding you to undertake the moves, but rather seeing if you thought the proposed move would be helpful. I'm glad to hear that the issue is resolved. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I had thought that there may have been some rename requests for them, though clearly I scared that away with my other adamancy. Yeah, I may know Melbourne, though I have the fortune to not to have to live in the metropolis any more, though it is good for the football. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

P and G Twin Towers

After discovering that File:P and G Twin Towers.jpg was a duplicate, I tagged it as such and wondered how long it would take to get dealt with. (There was quite a backlog at the time.) I was pleased to see it fixed within just a few days. Thanks for doing the tedious admin work that keeps Commons running smoothly! – Quadell (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(-: Thanks for taking the time to say so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving OTRS files.

Hi Billinghurst, sorry to bother you again (not really sorry at all, but nice to say it). I've just got a quick question about moving OTRS files, I had thought it would be no problem, the ticket is attached to the image, but the talk on Snowden's OTRS picture put a few doubts into my mind. I've moved the image File:Dobran Božič (1).jpg as the old name was clearly wrong, but thought I'd post here asking if that was the right thing to do. If it isn't, could you please move it back (I don't think I can as I'm not an admin). Thank you in advanced (and thanks for the thread above, and at risk of breaking en:WP:NOTFORUM, I couldn't live anyone but inner Melbourne - born and raised). Liamdavies (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hesitation is good when it comes to looking at moving an OTRS file, similarly other highlighted images, where the name has been implicitly accepted through its processes. If there is a clear demonstrative error, then the move criteria win if it removes confusion. OTRS applies to the image, not the name, so as long as the redirect exists it makes it easier to trace from the OTRS side, and if you have the number then it is not a herculean task to get someone to look at the number (well, it is getting that way, but it should not be) ... We are not at enWP, and ewww, escape, get to where there are real trees and native birds, not the exotic muck that pollutes the cities if you can see any at all.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, so I did the right thing by being cautious, but still undertaking the move. Thank you. I've noticed that this place isn't quite EN, it is a lot more chill (I quite like it here). Trees and wildlife are nice (although every spring a flock of Rosellas move into the tree outside my room - not impressed), but so is the hustle and bustle of a city (I could never live in the 'burbs), and growing up in the inner city I couldn't live without all that goes with it - pollution and all. Liamdavies (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Caution and consultation are always preferable unless you want to have your share of <harumph>s and opinion-makers after the fact. Undoing with someone peering over your shoulder and whining is simply unpleasant. I am more of a WSian, though other (administrative) tasks keep me busy around the place. Blackletter interpretationalists get my goat. Cities are bleh to live, I escaped that.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File talk:GARUDAN THOOKKAM.jpg

Please see File talk:GARUDAN THOOKKAM.jpg. Thank you --Vssun (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Vssun (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Locator maps for 1929-1939 banovinas

Hi, I see you've removed the rename templates from these files (1,2,3). I assume you only deleted them because they weren't showing properly. Can you help me rename these files, please? I've already done this sort of things before but I can't make it work this time. --Flappiefh (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rename template needs to be something like {{rename|far better filename.jpg|1}} which is the suggested name, and the 1 = uploader request  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't know what I did wrong this morning. Whatever, it works now. Thank you. --Flappiefh (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The files contained the existing names of the files.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

File names of random numbers

Hi, you have just changed the name of a file File:1931 Bentley 4½-litre supercharged 4-seater tourer 3156810839.jpg by dropping the numbers at the tail. You avoided a conflict with all the other files named File:1931 Bentley 4½-litre supercharged 4-seater tourer because they still have their "random numbers". Those numbers are their numbers in Flickr because of the difficulty of ending up with many views of the same subject and the same file name if following the guidelines. I load many new images and name the same way every day. Obviously you do not like that, what am I to do? Yr advice pls. Eddaido (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone requested the rename in accordance with Commons:Renaming and I just did it. Probably have a look at Commons:Naming conventions. It is nothing about which to be concerned.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Liliuokalani duplicate

Why did you keep the duplicate I labeled to be deleted? The labeled one have unnecessarily high file sizes compare to the unlabeled ones because they were upload from a mobile device. Last time you deleted a duplicate for the same reason.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please restore File:Liliuokalani lying in state in Iolani Palace (Hodges).jpg (same quality but smaller file size) and delete File:Liliuokalani lying in state6.jpg (same quality but larger file size).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Higher size for same dimensions usually means lower compression. Lower compression is better.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

They are the same resolution and same quality. The larger file size is created artificially from saving to a mobile device rather than a computer.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

All other image from this book was uploaded from my computer and are perfectly fine and is the correct and actual size of the image any internet user would find online too not this artificially larger file.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Weeks ago you deleted File:T. F. Lansing.jpg whose only difference with File:T. F. Lansing (1).jpg was that the first was uploaded over with an exact version of the second one saved on a mobile device which increased the file size. Both had the exact same resolution and quality, and you deleted the larger file size and left the smaller file size. Now you are doing it differently.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect ...
09:33, 4 July 2013 Thumbnail for version as of 09:33, 4 July 2013 326 × 422 (61 KB) [kept]
19:23, 4 July 2013 . . KAVEBEAR (talk | contribs | block) 326 × 422 (31,834 bytes) [deleted]  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

They are the same resolution and same quality. The larger file size is created artificially from saving to a mobile device rather than a computer.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

All other image from this book was uploaded from my computer and are perfectly fine and is the correct and actual size of the image any internet user would find online too not this artificially larger file.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That is hard to believe that a mobile phone camera would have image bloat on a file of a known standard, there just isn't extra information to be carried in the file type (as I understand it). It is more likely that they mobile phone just does not apply as high a compression factor as you have set in your software for your computer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

• Hi, User:Vladsiken doing vandalism. It also means that the user name Turkish swearing. see constrib. Also; 1, 2. Thanks.--i.е. ^v-mail 00:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please report to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Digging out plane FWS.jpg

File:Digging out plane FWS.jpg was deleted as a duplicate. It was the older upload and linked the original source, while the other version links an image-scraping site. If it is not sufficient, as a matter of courtesy, to keep the older upload, then you should at least recover the original source url which is not accessible from the present source site. Dankarl (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Added the data to talk page so you can work it back in. Thanks for note.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Gallery

Sorry, i don't get that. Using pictures in galleries nobody opens changes the performance of the picture itself? btw, is there a way to put all of my pictures in one category retroactively? --Ailura (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have had to edit the page repeatedly for the image rename/moves, and it significantly slows the process down, especially on large pages. Building long pages full of image links is just a PITA for other maintenance. If you just want to tag all your pictures uploaded with a specific category, it just needs a bot to run through and tag the images. Stick a note at User talk:sDrewthbot of what you want, and I will get around to it with my bot, firstly check to what others do with their collections.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

do you know how to tell commonist to use different pages? this is only the commonist protocol, i don't need it maintained (or i can do this myself).--Ailura (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. At this time, no, not automatically, though I have requested that the developers of Commonist to consider it as an option.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:1836 (33) Registration of Births &c. A bill for registering Births Deaths and Marriages in England.djvu

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:1836 (33) Registration of Births &c. A bill for registering Births Deaths and Marriages in England.djvu, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom).djvu

File:Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom).djvu has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

in Relation to ile:1836 (33) Registration of Births &c. A bill for registering Births Deaths and Marriages in England.djvu

In response to your removal of the tag, I won't contest that,

But do you have a URL for the scans used? If it was sourced directly from the Parlimntary Archive then fair enough.

Whilst ultimately the document source is the UK Parliament (as was indicated), what should ideally be indicated as well is the archive source that the version Commons holds was downloaded from. This is partly so the license of that site can be confirmed (the text of the enactment is public domain anyway per your comments elsewhere), and so that should the archival version prove to contain errors, appropriate concerns can be raised.

Given that you seem to know more about these things, you a free to remove the previous notification from your talk page ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an 1836 Bill from the Hansard, it clearly is the work there is simply no copyright issues. 1836! Apply a modicum of sense.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi,

you denied to rename the Files:

• File:Ayn-i Zeliha Gölü ve Mevlid-i Halil Camii.jpg
• File:Mevlid-i Halil Camii.jpg

It's not about changing language! The file names suggest the shown mosque to be the Mevlid-i Halil-mosque. Actually it's the New Dergah-mosque shown which is in close neighborhood of the Mevlid-i Halil-mosque. best regards --Sar Kissatim (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Then please look to keep the same language for the new name (as per the information in the guidance), and add some evidence to support the name change. Renaming needs to have an evidence-base rather than based on an opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Sar Kissatim (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Rename

Thanks, --DLeandroc (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot too ! --Laurent Jerry (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What the ?

How can you say there's an unvalid reason of renaming when pictures are showing someone and are named after another person's name ??!! See the informations I added here and here. Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It needs an evidence-base for a change, not based on an opinion. At this stage I have one person calling it someone, and another saying it is someone else. So please present the evidence that a name change is required, or discuss the name change with the uploader of the image.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sons

Ok merci. --Floppy36 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Kostel sv. Michala (Brno) images

These files (File:Kostel sv. Michala (Brno).jpg, File:Kostel sv. Michala (Brno) (2).jpg) have got wrong name (it is not the church of St Michael, it is the church of St Thomas). The author, who is not experienced wikipedian, asked me to arrange renaming. Please do not remove the renaming template. Thanks! --Gampe (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You had {{Bad name}} to a non-existent file, so naturally that template was removed, that is a deletion template, not a rename template. If you want something renamed, then you need to use {{Rename}}. With renames please also note that if you are not the uploader that there should be an evidence-base or an explanation for the request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Now  Done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Gampe (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Renames are more than opinion

A rename request cannot just be based on a person's opinion. An error needs to be evident, or you will need to support it with evidence, or get the uploader to agree to the rename.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

This is not a personal opinion, there are already eight pictures under Category:Chaouach that show the same object and all have a description that demonstrate the name of the picture I asked to rename is wrong. Isn't that enough? Moumou82 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Then present the case in the rename request, preferably with a link. The request needs an evidence base, and one that lasts more than today, but through the history of the file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Language of filenames

Hello! Could you answer (and a link to the Commons recommendation or rule will be fine) the following question:
Does the recommended name of files uploaded to Commons should be in English? Or it is not important and the filename could be in any language, e.g. filenames could be in Russian? Thank you. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons is a multi-lingual project and file names can be in any language, there is ZERO requirement for English. We do ask that a description is provided in languages in which you can add. More detail at Commons:Language policy  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback of Revi

Hello, Billinghurst/Archives. You have new messages at Hym411's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

레비Revi✉_{SUL Info} 15:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

SPL Princess Anastasia File Rename

• Thank you for your help, regards,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Billinghurst/Archives. You have new messages at Cplakidas's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Other Gazprom Yachts File Rename

• Thank you for your newest help, regards,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

I have done the archiving of 1 of your threads older than 31 days as MiszaBot has not been doing any archiving since 2 October 2013. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 14:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops I thought at first that there is no bot to archive your old messages, so I archived some of your messages, until I saw another bot doing the archiving. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 15:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

File rename justification

You recently rejected my requests for the renaming of three images of a Ford Anglia, each of which had been incorrectly labelled as "Ford Popular", as I had not met the requirement to "demonstrate that an error exists". Ignoring the fact that one of the images clearly shows "Anglia" badges on the side of the bonnet, what is the correct process that I should have followed please? Where do I put my justification? I wasn't aware that the rules had changed! GTHO (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Renames for such are based on supporting evidence, not opinion, so the error needs to be demonstrated. Something simple like {{rename|whatever name.jpg|3|Note the Anglia badge on side of bonnet}} is sufficient, we are not looking to do high hurdles … some justification.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Information is at {{rename}} and to note that the reason that the administrator or mover uses flows through to the wikis where the replacements are taking place. So for example if the Ford Popular article is getting replacements, then either myself can demonstrate why it is removed, or someone at the wiki can remove it knowing why they are doing so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Slowly doing the renames

Bonjour, pouvez parlé en français. --Floppy36 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Hi Floppy36, a huge amount of rename requests you've made lack a reason, and are placed in Category:Incomplete media renaming requests because of this. Not all filemovers will look through that cat, and we don't know why we should rename the files. The requests will be processed much faster if you amend them with both a reason per COM:RENAME and actually write in an explanation as to why we should rename them (Billinghurst outlines this in the section above). Thanks. Liamdavies (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Billinghurst, I see you're slowly making your way through these. How much rigour are you putting them through? I know no French, or anything about the local area, but am happy to start working backwards to clear the backlog. But that is only if we are assuming the new names to be valid and accepting them as is. Liamdavies (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have done renames for Floppy36 before, alone a similar line, and my (long ago) schoolboy French, along with the occasional Google check, is sufficient to do a sanity check, and I just presume that any conjugation is appropriate. The first batch were clearly uploader images, and I suspect that the remainder are probably this person, or someone known to them. Any rename on these any rename is an improvement as they are currently basically placename with numbering difference. I was more managing expectations with my initial message.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Screw up on The Lady of Shalott

What the hell is going on? User:CommonsDelinker has removed about 20 images and captions on en:wp because you have deleted the image as a duplicate. This is not how it it should be. I have corrected the two most important uses, please make sure you do the rest. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Billinghurst. I agree with Johnbod. When you delete an image because it is a duplicate please replace it on the pages where is was used. I've done another correction. Regards, Pimbrils (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I did 13:01, 5 November 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+226)‎ . . User:CommonsDelinker/commands ‎ (universal replace: File:JWW TheLadyOfShallot 1888.jpg → File:John William Waterhouse The Lady of Shalott.jpg). AGF! Clearly the replacement process of CDL has SNAFU'd.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Pimbrils (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's up to you to sort it out. I've done some more, but not all. The old file was in articles that got about 500k views in July 2013, and it was used on many other wikipedias. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Flagman 1 and Karolin Tallinn Bay 6 May 2013.jpg

• Thank you for your help,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Cranach Lucas 1 A Faun and His Family with a Slain Lion.jpg

Hi Billinghurst, please, this is the duplicate, from File:Lucas Cranach the Elder - A Faun and his Family with a slain Lion - Google Art Project.jpg. I am the uploader and I made a mistake. The size of the file is not important, but the pixels. Please change or discuss with User:Dcoetzee.Regards--Oursana (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Always worthwhile having those notes on duplicate requests, or the images. My mind reading is imperfect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Billinghurst, I thought an Administrator would know this, and second you changed my duplicate requests without any discussion with me nor Dcoetzee, which would also have been worthwhile. Furthermore I believed Dcoetzee's wonderful google arts uploads are like holy cows (as we say in German). Thanks for your quick repair. --Oursana (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Many people put duplicate requests back to front, so it is always worthwhile being specific and better to be more open, than less, and just presuming. Re the scans, yes, the google art are of great quality, though that is never to say that there will never be better scans.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My duplicate mess

Hi Billinghurst ... I recently placed the duplicate template on this photo that was incorrectly titled and described as the S.B. White House in Winchester, Massachusetts. The photo is really of the Amy B. Mitchell House in Winchester and, in fact, there was an exact copy of the photo that was titled and described correctly. However, I evidently misunderstood how the duplicate template is supposed to work because you kept the photo that was inaccurately titled and redirected the accurately titled one to the S.B. White House photo. Are you able to fix this so that the correctly titled and described Amy B. Mitchell House photo is retained instead? Sorry for the confusion. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done though I probably should have woken up first.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:いすゞ エルフ.JPG

Why you deleted the file which was fabricated to delete license plate (File:いすゞエルフ.jpg) and kept unaltered version(File:いすゞ エルフ.jpg)? It may invade privacy in Japan.--TTTNIS (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The files were marked as {{Duplicate}} and I kept the higher quality version, unaware and not noticing that blurring. If the reason for marking a file was due to the need to blur registration plates, then please clearly identify the reason for the deletion. Overt statements of need are far superior than having admins knowing another agenda. If you have the alternate version please upload it over the existing image, and then let me know and I will delete the first image.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Quirk in workflow

Hey stranger,

I don't know if the following is new here or just recently added into the mix over on WS but ever since the routine was restored for WS' Maintenance Logs a week or two ago, I'm seeing a considerable increase in our Orphaned Pages count overall - but what concerns me specifically is the jump from week to week due to File: deletions here on Commons (causing Index: & Page: orphanages by the hundreds back over on WS for almost every file deleted).

Normally the "uploader" is notified by Commons when a file is pending deletion for a, b, or c of many legitimate reasons & given the time & chance to prevent that. Most of the time that works. Yet, I've come to notice that when the Magnus Manske Uploader is used (not familiar to me), the User: field in the upload summary no longer forces an associated User: name to be included and whenever the question of deletion comes up, the bot gets notified instead of a real person. Example.....

• User_talk:File_Upload_Bot_(Magnus_Manske)/Archive/2013Nov#Copyright_status:_File:Genealogical_Memoir_of_the_Chase_Family.djvu

The other common problem I've seen become more of a pattern of late is the whole 'US copyright vs. Commons copyright rules vs. rest of the English speaking world' thing. There must be a way to automate a notice to "us" over on WS in addition to the local uploader when a File is nominated for deletion here AND that file's global usage shows wikisource as having Page:s depending on said file. Otherwise, even our most popular/previously featured works can be reduced to garbage without any warning. See...

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Velveteen Rabbit.djvu

If you could FIRST let me know over on WS if either of these can or can't be salvaged so I can take the appropriate steps to rescue/bulk-delete/etc. as needed asap and then (if you have the time) look into both scenarios for possible solutions/workarounds. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the deleting admin that they should have followed the process at {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}}, and left notes of my disappointment for two experienced admins to have their short-sighted approach to administration. Solely focusing on Commons in isolation is quite frustrating. I have yet to find someone with suitable bot or hacking skills who has been willing to help, and unfortunately I find many admins here singularly focused on Commons purity, and not a WMF universal approach. Beyond diligence, I am unaware of a better process to get that diligence from deleting admins.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Recovered the genealogical work, and left a note for the deleting admin.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Checked Magnus's bot archives for other files, and I cannnot see anything else obvious. To note that for Commons there is a discussion about OAuth and I have commented that having a tool so that files are uploaded in the operators's name rather than a bot name would be useful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take anything I can get to help keep that orphan count back under 1,000. Thanks. As far as the OAuth thing goes, that might be a bridge too far. The current URL2Commons tool already has an automated field for User:name placed in the upload comments of the File: (see the File:Genealogical_Memoir_of_the_Chase_Family.djvu's entry for example). The issue is that you can upload using the tool without having to enter something in that field as a prerequisite. It might be easier to have that field populate itself somehow or force a manual input to use the tool - end of story. I'm betting whoever runs the Bot would like the reduction in subsequent referrals for deletion, etc. being dumped his or her way all the time.

Again - I'm not all that familiar with anything on this godforsaken side of things so I might be wrong totally about what is "easier" to get accomplished re: these points. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

SVG files

Hi! You changed the template on File:Official Aam Aadmi Party logo from their website.png about it being duplicate. So is it that we don't delete different format? I thought there is no purpose for keeping two same images in different formats and that Category:Vector version available is just unmaintained backlog of deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A category is a category, it is neither maintained or unmaintained. The aspect around duplicates is primarily so where we have a poorer quality image that we use the better one. Where we have two files of the same file type then there is no need to cahce two. Otherwise different file types allows users at the wikis to choose which they wish to use, not to be forced by an opinion of users at Commons, that said we do wish to encourage users to utilise certain formats, so we template with {{Vva}}. You can read the policy at Commons:Deletion policy. Pivotal is the principle that we still wish to allow wiki editors choice.

All that said, the template {{Duplicate}} is a speedy delete template and file mismatch does not fall under speedy deletions (admin deletion prerogative), and that would be via a normal deletion request where the community makes a decision.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why a certain user on some wiki should be given a chance to use a inferior quality image when a better one is available. We can simply get one deleted and maintain the better one everywhere. Am sure non of the wikis have their own policy of being mediocre. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I did cover that component in relation to speedy deletes and other deletions, and who are you to determine that a png vs svg makes a superior image. Apart from that if you are at a wiki and wish to use a certain filetype, or you upload a file, you think that it is okay for someone to just come along and delete it somewhere else without due process? Remember that Commons as a wiki is a central resource, it is not a dominating wiki and does not set the policy for all wikis, and you would do well to look at Commons:Project scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	The Special Barnstar is awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation when there is no other barnstar which would be appropriate. Thank you for your hard work (on commons & global) -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

File:UP Diesel.png

Hi there. I appreciate your help with the duplicate files but you did that in reverse. The file you deleted, File:UP Diesel 4453.jpg, was the one with the correct transwiki history from en.wp. File:UP Diesel.png was improperly transferred and converted to a PNG; while larger, it wasn't a superior copy. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I missed the file mismatch. Clearly I shouldn't have deleted it. AND you shouldn't have requested its deletion, especially in light of Commons:Deletion requests/File:UP Diesel.png which I just saw. Both recovered and exist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm really confused then. Commons shouldn't accept an improper transwiki copy when we already have the proper copy. The request, which no one attended, only addressed the cropping. Both images now have the same cropping. The concerns I raised about the licensing status were completely ignored. I don't see a way to resolve the problem with File:UP Diesel.png; given that it's a PNG it obviously wasn't bot-transferred since it's not the same binary file that was on en.wp, but rather a conversion. I'm not an administrator here but I try to do the right thing. Please explain to me how, exactly, I'm supposed to resolve the issues. Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Why should Commons refuse files in different formats? Which part of shared and open community space would restrict users to one type of format if they preferred others, especially across about 800 wikis. Commons admin is a curatorial role for all wikis, so we try not to enforce our opinions or double-guess users. The {{Duplicate}} is a speedy delete format where there should be zero requirement for discussion, what you are requesting needs discussion.

If you think that a file has a copyright issue, then apply {{Disputed}}.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked for a third opinion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#File:UP Diesel.png. I appreciate your assistance. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays!
	G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Опыт о кожаных деньгах (Каченовский 1835).djvu

Hi. About rename Pages in RU-WS. I'm planning ask to bot to rename Pages after rename file in Commons. I hope this action will be without some unwanted results. --Averaver (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Averaver: , no need to bot move the pages anyone with administrator rights can do it, it just needs to be done in conjunction with the move at Commons, otherwise it breaks the transclusion process. So it just needs coordination, I would suggest to work with @Butko: who is an administrator here and at ruWS and can do all the work, or I can seek the approval to assist on that wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Wyoming2.jpg

Are you sure it's not the same image as File:Wyoming.jpeg? My eye can't see a difference and the EXIF data matches. There's no obvious color alteration either. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

6.6  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)