User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2015

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

Renaming

Dear colleague! If you don't want to rename, don't do anything! --Matsievsky (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Matsievsky: No, you miss the point, file names are meant to be descriptive, and intimate the contents of the file, and your proposals decrease that information, so are not helpful. 02:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Old names were nonsense. Old names include numbers, but not include catalogue name. The term "CPA" is Russian catalogue name and it use for country name. And year need for stamp works and seach. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Matsievsky: , I am not saying that the old names were good, nor that you are not technically correct with your names. I am saying that the names that you suggested were not helpful in being descriptive. I would suggest a mixture of something like "Soviet postal stamp + year + (technical identification)" or some such combination that assists anyone who isn't knowledgeable in the philately space.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank's. But now the situation is following by Russian philatelic users. The name of Soviet stamps is <year CPA #CPA (technical identification)>. The technical identification is used for various stamp. Without <Stamps of the USSR>. Information about contents of stamp is in catalogues (CPA, Scott, Yvert and so on), on the stamp file page and page of Wikicatalogue, for example my page [[1]]. --Matsievsky (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that Commons is used by more than users of Russian philatelic interest. Hence why we have naming policy, in which a user could legitimately ask for a rename of the images with that name as they are non-descriptive for what they display.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not your believe. It is your forcing. I believe that STAMP name (year-CPA-#CPA) is very descriptive for STAMP image. This image isn't abstract image this is STAMP image. --Matsievsky (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I am telling you that it is not descriptive to me, and as a user I count. So look to a compromise. I have not said that you cannot utilise the nomenclature from a stamp catalogue, and I can see the value in it, however, not the nomenclature alone. The fact that you are in a stamp catalogue and looking at Russian issue, should be a good indicator that you are looking at specialist data, and that is not sufficient for a generalist site like Wikimedia Commons. I am waiting for you to look to alternatives, and you are refusing to do so. I am not forcing anything, I am waiting for something that I see as suitable. Think outside your specialist interest geroup, and think of a naming that a generalist can also see and identify.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but you returned file names to incorrect file names. Stamps file name with catalogue number and without calologue name is incorrect. Sorry but Russian stamp file name year-CPA-#CPA is standard name for Russian stamp file. It is conclusion of Russian Wiki philatelists. --Matsievsky (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did, after you moved them, after I had rejected your requests, and asked for you to propose better names, for which I am still waiting. While what the Russian philatelists may wish for is lovely, this is Commons, and it is the responsibilities here to think broader than the narrow interest of the group that you identify. So please go back to your philatelic group, and tell them that. Also to remember that you are renaming someone else's work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Not all people know that such "stamp". Not all people know that such "Soviet", "Laos" or "Manama". Complete technical identification of stamp is needed more than 256 symbols. A name of file (and anything) not be long, for technical identification there is file page. The name form "year-CPA-#CPA" is good compromise for soviet stamps file name. In principle name may be change to "Soviet stamp (year) CPA (#CPA)", but it is in future. --Matsievsky (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Matsievsky: The requirement is that the filename is descriptive, not that it is completely and universally known, and for full details and comprehensive detail about an object then there the information templates. The search engine treats the filename as highly relevant, and later it takes the descriptive data. So please listen to someone experienced about the use of Commons, and the general tools of Wikimedia, and not get caught in your area of speciality. The name needs to be broader than you have suggested so please look to some of my suggestions, and look to find a compromise position.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

When I began to work with soviet stamps at Commons I started being confused with duplicates and varieties of stamps. There was a need for transition to a single system of names of stamp image files. In Russian Wiki I learned that there is an compromiss on the namesː years-CPA-#CPA. And it is valid, thousands of the names, about a half of all soviet stamp image file names, responded this template. I started renaming remained names to this template also I renamed hundreds of the files. If you suggest to change this template of names where warranties, what somebody won't want it to change again, and so indefinitely? --Matsievsky (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The honest answer is that there is zero guarantee of anything. That said, our names are generally stable, and we have the policies and practice to support stability of names wherever possible. This is one of the reasons that I am pushing for a name that suits your requirements, but also suits people who know nothing about Russian stamps, and want a name that means something to them. Look at cats like Category:Stamps of New Zealand, Category:Stamps of the United Kingdom and Category:Stamps of France (three randomly chosen cats) and see what you think. I truly want to see if we can find something that is win-win, for your group of enthusiasts and the general searcher who just wants to find a picture of a Soviet postage stamp. I would see that your nomenclature years-CPA-#CPA would be part of a filename. If the templating that is an issue then we can seek assistance if that is required.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
(@revert: Sorry, it was a wrong klick --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC) )
No issue. I too can have phat phingers, and "ohnoseconds".  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Three your cats don't approach as examples of names of filesː 1 stamps of the countries aren't public domain and there numbers aren't thousands; 2 the file names are bad, need renaming and don't approach as an example. In my opinion an ideal name for the Soviet stamp file is "USSR stamp (year) CPA (#CPA) (shot description)" (for 1923-1991), where (shot description) contain 1-2 words. But who will rename thousands of files from template A to template B? --Matsievsky (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful discussion! New reasons came to me.
1 That many don't know the word "CPA", doesn't withstand criticism. It is possible to carp at any template. Many don't know the word "Stamp" too. Many don't know the word "USSR" and "RSFSR" (Soviet country 1918-1923). Many don't know English, and in English they won't understand the name of the file.
2 The template of file name shall define single-digit stamp and to be convenient in use by those who works with stamps in Commons. The question should be raised so: whether it is possible to use this template? Template year-CPA-#CPA is possible to use. It define single-digit stamp and is convenient in use by those who works with stamps in Commons.
3 Template year-CPA-#CPA is convenient for the description of varieties of stamps and images with several stamps. For example 1939 CPA 663 cancelled.jpg, 1939 CPA 683A vert perf shift.jpg, 1938 CPA 580-582 Bloks of 4.jpg, 1938 CPA 595-598.jpg.
4 To template year-CPA-#CPA came as a result of consensus. And this template was invented by smart administrators.
5 The majority of the Soviet stamps is transferred to template year-CPA-#CPA.
6 If tomorrow the new template is accepted, the third template will be accepted the day after tomorrow. Who will rename thousands of files?
I categorically against transition to a new template. --Matsievsky (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the tardy response. You still haven't resolve the basic issue that your name is not suitably descriptive. This is not about the template, this is about the naming of an image at Commons. So please stop harping on about the template and its use, it is just a template, they are not hard to adapt. This is solely about the naming of the file hosted here, that can be used across many wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Is name "Stamp of the Soviet Union (year) CPA (#CPA)" correct? --Matsievsky (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a marvellous compromise.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Can I renaming files with Russian stamp images to the name template? --Matsievsky (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
But why you don't return the my right for renaming? --Matsievsky (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I apologize, but it is impossible to call by this name of the image of stams. I offer the following adapted system of stamp images namesː "The Soviet Union (year) CPA (#CPA) stamp" for image of one stamp, "The Soviet Union (year) CPA (#CPA) stamps" for image of two or more stamp, "The Soviet Union (year) CPA (#CPA) block of 4" for image of block of 4, "The Soviet Union (year) CPA (#CPA) sheet of 1 stamp" for image of sheet of 1 stamp, "The Soviet Union (year) CPA (#CPA) sheet stamp" for image of stamp from sheet, "The Soviet Union (year) CPA (#CPA) card" for image of post card with original stamp, "The Soviet Union (year) CPA (#CPA) card stamp" for image of original stamp from post card and so on. --Matsievsky (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Final compromise: "The Soviet Union (year) CPA (##CPA) (image type) ((short description)) (version parameters)". It suits you? You will return the right of renaming? --Matsievsky (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't rename the file w:c:File:1939 CPA 655.jpg to "The Soviet Union 1939 CPA 655 stamp (Lenin Library)": already harmonised. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Please return my renaming flag. --Matsievsky (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. December was hell, and not enough of me to go round.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: , please return my renaming flag. --Matsievsky (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: , please return my file mover rights. --Matsievsky (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Solicitud de bloqueo

Hola que tal. Necesito tu ayuda. Necesito que bloquees en forma global a esta dirección IP: 190.173.12.93, porque ingresó para efectuar vandalismos. Si puede ser un bloqueo infinito, te agradecería demasiado. Observa sus contribuciones y veras que sólo entró para molestar. Muchísimas gracias y espero que puedas entender este mensaje. Saludos!!! --Diego HC (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are problems with editors, or editing IPs, it is usually best to use the central reporting channels rather than to ping someone's talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Suppressions on Commons

Please do not perform suppressions on this wiki. These actions are only reserved for the 6 local oversighters and certain Wikimedia Foundation staff. Thank you. odder (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Odder: The suppressions were performed as part of a series of 10-15 such edits for an individual from the stewards's work queue, as stated in the summary. They were non-controversial, on a user's page, edits of the user, and involved privacy issues, and were not particularly the business of any wiki, and completely within scope of the duties of a steward. Rest assured that matters that relate solely to the wiki will not be undertaken. So please just let me get on with my tasks, and please consider that we look to make things easier for our users.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@billinghurst: Commons has opted-out of the global sysop system for a reason; we like to manage our internal affairs by ourselves. Your suppressions were not performed as part of an emergency, so you should have contacted a local oversighter or, best, filed a request for oversight on our mailing list. Instead, you decided to perform the actions yourself, which resulted in me having to clean after you, so in the future, please do not undertake tasks that you are not competent enough to perform. Thanks. odder (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Stewards are not global sysops. Yes, Commons does manage its own affairs. I acted within the scope of my allowed tasks as a steward for a crosswiki issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth
@billinghurst: Thank you for recognizing that Commons is able to manage its own affairs. Please also recognize that the oversight policy states that "local oversighters should generally handle local oversighting, when they're available." Commons has 6 local oversighters living in multiple time zones, who are perfectly capable of dealing with non-emergency oversight requests, generally within a few minutes or hours' time.

The OTRS ticket that you processed was not an emergency, and according to the policy, oversight actions relating to this ticket should have been left to local Commons oversighters. You have not contacted either myself or, as far as I know, any other oversighters with regards to this issue, despite the global policy's clear instruction to do so.

In future, please do not ignore the policy and leave Commons suppressions in the hands of Commons oversighters; you can reach us either over IRC or by writing to oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org. Thanks in advance for following long-standing procedures, odder (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Odder: The policy continues with the statement Stewards may perform local oversighting in emergencies, during crosswiki oversighting, or if there are no local oversighters available and as I have stated this falls under the second of the three during crosswiki oversighting. So I ignored no policy, and in fact was compliant to the policy (was clearly annunciated in the suppression statement), and I stand by the fact that this was within policy for a non-controversial set of removals requested by the user on their user pages over many wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:World 820.png

File:World 820.png 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

JuTa 11:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for commenting at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statement on the Death of Leonard S Nimoy.pdf.

Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tribute to Leonard Nimoy by Adam Schiff.pdf.

Thanks again,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an Email. Please consider my request. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (black and white).png

File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (black and white).png 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn. The concern was the possible existence of an additional non-copyright related restriction on reproduction of these. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kosovo KOSOVO KOSOVA As Seen As Told Osce 1999.pdf

File:Kosovo KOSOVO KOSOVA As Seen As Told Osce 1999.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

JuTa 21:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 21:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Kosovo OSCE Legal System Monitoring Section Monthly Report - August 2008.pdf

File:Kosovo OSCE Legal System Monitoring Section Monthly Report - August 2008.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

JuTa 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Kosovo OSCE Legal System Monitoring Section Monthly Report - December 2008.pdf

File:Kosovo OSCE Legal System Monitoring Section Monthly Report - December 2008.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

JuTa 21:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ombudsperson of Kosovo

Dear Billinghurst,

I checkt every file but I couldn't find other licensing taggs so I tend to close this DR as delete. Is there still stuf that needs to be done before the files can be deleted? I don't want to break pages at Wikisource. Natuur12 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Natuur12: . Have you reviewed EB's comment about Template:PD-UN-doc?  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes I have but I doubt that this template applies. They are created by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and addressed to a representative of the UN and are therefore not created by the UN itself plus some info within the document exists of third party letters. If you think that I am wrong please let me know. Natuur12 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Natuur12: I beg to differ and think that you are confusing the OCSE and the UNMIK material, which is explained within the foreword, that the ombudsperson was set up as part of UNMIK. I believe that you will find that these reports are from the ombudsperson back to establishing office. You will see that I have already deleted the OCSE material.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
But they are lised as the author at file:SECOND ANNUAL REPORT 2001 – 2002.pdf. Secondly, if they are created by the ombudsperson they are created by a representive and not the UN itself. We also don't assume that works from UNICEF etc are PD. I won't close this DR untill we agree and if you can't agree I will ask another admin to look into this. Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It has various levels of lack of clarity. I have no further to add to the DR request. The files are again at enWS in case the decision is to delete, but will be removed their if C decides to keep.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Temporarily removed

Dear Administrator! You wrote: "I have temporarily removed the filemover rights". It doesn't seem to you, what "temporary removed" too long? --Matsievsky (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

WRT File:20130612-DSC_9032_(9293490966)_(2).jpg.

As I noted in the deletion discussion, IMO all the images in this series are in scope. Did you nominate any other images from this series for deletion? IMO, any images from this series that were deleted for not being in scope, etc, should be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that they are in scope, then please make them within scope by adding detail that describes the files and allows categorisation. As they are now, they are not.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Greetings and... apologies in advance

Greetings Billinghurst. Just a quick note to inform you I just created a redirect here Category:Achilleion. Not sure if that's how things get done here at Commons, but I reckon it was better than the dead end left by linking to Commons from here and here. If I've left you with any loose ends that need tying up, please accept my apologies in advance. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

PS. On previewing this, I've just seen the bit about renaming... my apologies above still stand. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Technopat: That would not be the normal approach. I have added a {{Category redirect}} so we keep within the same namespace. Thanks for the note, and no need for any apology, we all have had to learn these things.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all your patience and help. {ping} db_pakistsn 7 September 2015

Reversion Deletion Requests

Heya, sorry for disturbing you, but I just wondering, if you could remove/hide some reversion files for me? I'll aplogogize in advance for the extra work, but I've uploaded those files at a time, at which I wasn't that familiar with Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc... so, s...t happens. Here are the files:

  • File:Hafen_Open_Air_2014.jpg (Revision 09:38, 21 October 2014 + 09:34, 21 October 2014 could be removed/hide)
  • File:Cornerstone_Promo.jpg (Revision 08:46, 26 April 2015 could be removed/hide)

Thx in advance! (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2015 (CET+1)

@Morrissey1976: I am trying to understand your request. Is your request to revert back to the original versions of the file, that is the say the first uploaded files, or is your request based on the fact that you were just wishing to removed the intermediate edits. If it is the intermediate edits, then please do not worry about that, they are what they are, and just show the file history, and what exists is quite okay. If you wish to show the original versions of the upload then you can just revert to the initial versions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Ok, so we'll let it be the way it is, I guess. I've dropped you a PM, btw., in regards of an WP-article of mine, would be great, if you could get back to me. Cheers! (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2015 (CET+1)

Modify an edit filter?

Would you mind tweaking Special:AbuseFilter/122? Right now, it prevents new users from creating anything in the gallery namespace unless the new page includes <gallery>. This prompted an error report at COM:HD because someone was unable to create pram as a redirect to baby car; I've created the redirect, but it seems like it would be more convenient if it were practical to exempt new redirects from this specific filter. Nyttend (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See my comment here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Steinsplitter has done so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible copyright vio

Hello Billinghurst. I've recently noticed that this user uploaded many images with adding his website as a source. I'm not sure if all those images were published there. However, if that's the case, then the images doesn't have a free licence since the material on the website was licenced under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. I wanted to inform you so you can delete them if there's really a copyright violation. Thanks. --yabancım 14:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Billinghurst and Yabanci

I am the author of the pictures and the website. All the pictures are mine and all of the pictures are free licences for wikipedia, forget about the creative common license because I uploaded the pictures in wikipedia before creating license in my website. I havent uploaded pictures in wikipedia after I have changed the license. If this is a big problem I can delete all of them. Take care — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michisolino (talk • contribs) 11:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC) 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2015&oldid=375210115"