User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2016

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

Commons bot inactivity

Hello! Your bot has been listed at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag 4 as being inactive for over two years. As a housekeeping measure we'd like to remove the bot flag from inactive bot accounts, unless you expect the bot will be operated again in the near future. If you consent to the removal of the bot flag (or do not reply on the deflag page) you can rerequest the bot flag at Commons:Bots/Requests should you need it again. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Sure to remove as I am not expecting to get back to tasks imminently, especially with the evolving of WD. That is not to say that I won't be coming back to bot'ing, though comfortable with a light approval request process. It would be useful if 1) the bot user rights change is so noted, AND, maybe we have a ready means to label the bot account with a user template that can reflect such a change.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, @billinghurst. Our request approval process is much lighter than it used to be, and is quite fast, particularly now that we've got a few bureaucrats who deal with them on a regular basis. I will remove the flag from your bot now, noting that you have agreed to do so; please do feel free to re-apply for the flag when the need arises. Thanks again, odder (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Memorial plague. Metropolitical building, Kiev Pechersk Lavra.jpg

I was renaming "File:Pechersk 446.jpg" into File:Memorial plague. Metropolitical building, Kiev Pechersk Lavra.jpg and I have made a typo, which changes the meaning of the title. So I have removed it again to => File:Memorial plaque. Metropolitical building, Kiev Pechersk Lavra.jpg
I woulded like to delete the meaningless redirect: "a plague" is not equal "a plaque".
But you decided: "Undo revision 188237188 by Wieralee (talk), keeping redirect, long term image"... Look at the history, please. 11 minutes -- is it a "long time"? Wieralee (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up Wieralee. I missed that it was only a recent rename to the typo.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Kiko system image

Hello why have you deleted the Kiko system image from the Linn Products page? The image was supplied by Linn themselves and is copyrght free. TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andburslem (talk • contribs)

@Andburslem: There were two images, and one was a duplicate of the other, and I removed the image of lesser quality. I also marked the second for review by another administrator, and they subsequently deleted it.

For Commons to host an image we need to know its providence, and to know that it is able to be hosted with a free licence (see Commons:Scope). The image that you uploaded had no providence (you uploaded it, no evidence that it was Linn), and there is no evidence to show that it is freely licenced (no source, no exif data, etc.), so it gets deleted. Please read the scope page, and you can have any questions answered at Commons:Village pump  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment on phab:T106516

I removed my comment after some reflection because it was not germane to the discussion regarding the bug, and not because I disagreed with it. Respectfully, I do not believe an apology is warranted in this case. I also don't think communicating via deleted comments is a great idea at all, hence this message here. If AKlapper_(WMF)'s inquiry regarding whether you would want to shepherd a patch set was genuine, rather than snark, I would reconsider an apology; I may have misunderstood or misinterpreted his comment. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to have managed to derail it despite my comment removal, unfortunately. For that, an apology to all of the bug subscribers may be in order. Storkk (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: My reply in that Phabricator task was pretty direct and frank (which can also be interpreted as snarky in some cultures or backgrounds) - I am sorry for that. Plus I did not realize that this could be worked around (as bawolff pointed out).
Still I don't see why WMF was explicitly mentioned - I assume it's not related to technical aspects of that specific bug but rather related to a variety of individual opinions and expectations in our community towards the WMF, somewhere between the two poles "It would be best if WMF did not exist" to "WMF shall fix every single bug out there because they get paid." (Obviously this is my very personal impression after years in this community, hence I'm using my personal account to add this comment instead of using AKlapper (WMF).)
If there is some expectation that some WMF folks should fix that bug, everybody is welcome to find someone (whether WMF or not) to work on it by explaining why the problem is important / urgent / should have higher priority. Given that manpower is not unlimited (neither in WMF nor in our entire community), some bugs simply get less attention than others, and different individuals have different priorities. I know that's not the answer that makes people happy but it's the reality in free software projects. --Malyacko (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: If there was a snarky comment, a snarky comment back is completely unhelpful, and just causes tensions. If anyone was being poked, then it was me, and I am able to handle it. I am more interested talking about resolving the bug, and knowing who, what or where, I need to cuddle/information/forum to progress the matter.

I found your comment insulting to a staff member, not only should it not have been made on the ticket, it is my opinion that it should not have been made in any open forum. You may or may not agree, that is your right, and now you have an opinion again to reflect upon.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Further Andre is between a rock and a hard place on many days, with much to do, if his approach is not graded "A" on every occasion, I am the last person to criticise. AGF AGF AGF, and compassion and understanding for a person who has been doing a really hard job.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that my comment was unhelpful. That is why I removed it. I'd like to note that as a programmer by trade and a user of Linux and other *nixes, I'm much more likely than the average person to be able to create and maintain a package to upgrade Wikimedia's imagemagick, although I've never written a deb package before. Taking at face value Malyacko's assertion that I misunderstood his intent, which was direct and frank rather than snarky, and to demonstrate some willingness to help solve the problem rather than escalate the snark, I volunteer to attempt this, which shouldn't be too impossible. @Malyacko: assuming I can get a debian package working, are there instructions on how to get it updated/installed? I'm not volunteering to become the upstream (debian/Ubuntu) imagemagick package maintainer, however. If this is something I should pursue, perhaps my talk page would be a better place to continue this conversation. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi: I don't see the need for the personal comments whenever something I do doesn't please you. It would be most beneficial if you would be so kind as to stick to the situations and omit personal remarks. Just above here you are reiterating AGF, AGF, but I feel you are omitting that with me. You really do not know what is inside my head; I do not presume to tell you what you are thinking and I would always assume that an error was made before considering any sort of comment such as you made today. This is a process. If mistakes are made, just point them out, leave the 'go for the jugular' moves to Dracula, ok? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Files restored; links restored; note left on the DN. Have a great day! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Thanks for the undeletions. To the rest ... umm, you deleted image(s) that were not part of a deletion discussion; you used tools, and didn't review the actions; your commentary against the deletion conversation was uninformative. So please don't categorise that as "something that doesn't please me".
I wish for Commons administrators to lift the quality of their work and their decision-making, and for them to remember that their actions and decisions spread wider than Commons. You evidently do not understand the impact of a deletion at a sister site, and the amount of work that it takes to detect it and to resolve it. That your expectation (implicit or explicit) of administrators at other wikis is to run around, and to hang out requesting undeletions is troublesome. You clearly do not understand the difficulties that admins at other wikis have when a Commons administrator deletes an image that was uploaded many years ago, and then is deleted seven days after a nomination. Even worse when it isn't even nominated and is deleted by use of tools without adequate observation, and review.

I have repeatedly come to your actions as they affect enwikisource, and needing to have them reversed. I have been through discussions with you about deletions previously, and you do tend to be a decisive deletionist. So without any additional reasoning against a deletion, your actions and history act as the reasoning. With your considerations you don't take the time to poke someone else or a community, nor to seek advice, so that too becomes part of your actions upon which you will be judged. I see you acting solely with the consideration of Commons, not the global project, and with what I consider misinterpretation of the precautionary principle.

All admins should be looking to increase their efficacy, instead I see them trying to increase the number of actions that they take with the qualification "AGF" when they make a mistake. AGF should not be used a "get out of jail free" card. If you wish to have that applied, you need to be upholding your end of the bargain of being seen to act on community consensus; to be learning and reflecting on your decisions, and to be looking to be changing your approach and actions in light of issues raised.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Billinghurst, your arrogance is misplaced. Assigning labels like deletionists to a person is offensive and unhelpful and make it much more difficult to have an open dialogue. What you are actually asking is special treatment for your beloved en-wikisource and you seem to be quite the wikisource activist. (Is this assignment helpful and does it make you more open to reflect on your actions?)
You can’t start picking on people and start lecturing every time someone makes a mistake or makes an admin action you disagree with. I have recently come across your uncivil and arrogant comments and I see you acting only in the interest of en-wikisource instead of Wikimedia Commons. Admins who only make a handful of deletions should find ways to lower the workload instead of complaining. Natuur12 (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Natuur12: I use the Wikisource cases as examples of my experience, are you denying that these have occurred? They are also for where I am seeing the issues and need to resolve these issues, so they are perfect examples. By the way where am I they asking for special treatment for enWS? I am asking above for the consideration of all the sister wikis from Commons admins to have due diligence and mindfulness for their actions and their impact upon the sister wikis, rather than the position of Commons alone.

I find it very interesting that you say I am acting in the interests is contrary to interests of Commons. In fact, I find that very interesting, as I am clearly acting in the interests of Commons in getting the deletions right, and having Commons fulfil its Commons:Scope ... two components: available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content ✓[OK] and acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects ✓[OK], so, as such your argument is either wrong or mischievous.

To your hyperbole ... I have not complained every time that a Commons admin makes a mistake. And you will hardly find me complaining about decisions with which I disagree. You will, however, find me addressing issues where I find that Commons admins can lift their game; where I believe that I am seeing Commons admins only having local regard, rather than the broad regard for the Wikimedia objectives. Commons is being criticised externally for its collective actions, and actions that already have communities looking to avoid Commons due to the actions of the admins.
Deletionist is a label, and I assign no connotations to it being good or bad, just the position that is most likely to occur from the persons actions, see m:Deletionism. Why is that considered offensive? I have tried open dialogue, on many occasions. If people have cauliflower in their ears, one ends up speaking very plainly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Billinghurst,
My apologies for the late reply. My last post was partly meant as a persiflage of your posts towards Ellin to make you understand that they can be hurtful since they are so full of anger and are directed at the person instead of the action. You should not take it literal. Perhaps it is a bit unfair to do so but I already asked you nicely before.
Calling someone a deletionist can be offensive if someone doesn’t label him/herself. Just like calling someone an inclusionist can be offensive plus those labels are against the spirit of the projects anyways since they are created to divide and not unite.
You should take my comment that you seem to be acting on the behave of en-wiki source quite literal but more as me finding your examples unbalanced and your comments to harsh. Instead of tackling the greater problem you focus on en-wikisource and lose your mellowness when you criticise admins making at least the one who posted above uncomfortable.
And of course, people will always avoid Commons because of admin actions but can’t you say the same about every project? We should prevent it as much as we can (well, when it comes to chasing away good users at least) but we cannot avoid it. Simply because whatever we do, sooner or later an admin will step on some diva’s toes creating external negative comments. Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Confused

You wrote, "It is about the argument you bring, not the argument that you have." - can you explain: What are an "argument you bring and an "argument that you have"?--Elvey (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Oh, it requires the comparison of the meanings of the word "argument". Argument that you bring = the quality of the debate and points that you make; argument that you make = is the disputive nature.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

File:La donacion de Pipino el Breve al Papa Esteban II.jpg

Hello. This file was uploaded in 2007 so it can't be COM:GRANDFATHER (which has to be before the introduction of OTRS in March 2006). 95.28.25.216 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Book_illustrations_by_Beatrix_Potter

Category discussion warning

Category:Book_illustrations_by_Beatrix_Potter has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

India Andhra Pradesh location map

Hello

The issue is that since 2014 the state of Andhra Pradesh was divided, and the northern part became the state of Telangana. I moved the file:India Andhra Pradesh location map.svg to its current name because the map still showed the situation prior to 2014. Following the conventions of mapping workshops, the name of the file that shows the current situation should be "India Andhra Pradesh location map.svg", which it is the standard used in all wikis. That is the reason why I asked for the deletion of this redirection, to upload there an updated map.

Greetings. --Shadowxfox (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I cannot speedy delete based on your beliefs, instead the local rules Commons:Deletion policy apply. As I said, upload your work to Commons with a different name, and you can utilise appropriately through the wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the best way to manage the image is through infobox and calling the data from Wikidata. You will be able to add your new filename to Wikidata.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

¿What? I'm not asking the deletiion of a file, I'm asking the deletion of a redirect. Is so difficult to understand that? In any case, Commons:Deletion policy does not collect any rule for keep/deleting redirections. And if redirections can not be erased, then ¿why this redirect was removed?. --Shadowxfox (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Lakshmi Rebecca.jpg in google

File:Lakshmi Rebecca.jpg appears in google as a video in YouTube --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) It is just a change to prod for permission, it isn't removed from review, just review by different means.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-deletions

It's not that I disagree with your logic (or care in particular about the categories), but can you understand how edits like this might come across as somewhat rude? I'm trying hard to fight the backlog of CfDs. You might have had the decency to ping me or comment on my talk page, rather than just overruling and adding to a closed discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll go further: What Commons guideline or policy are these "not deleted" because "Wikidata" determinations based on? This appears to be recently invented, and if I've never heard of it, being around here as long as I have, then it should be linked to so someone has a chance to know where this guideline is, where it came from, and who discussed it, if at all. Category deletions based on the subject (particularly a subject with a proper name rather than a common object) having only one file and no sign of imminent additions, has been relatively uncontroversial for the entire history of Commons, as far as I can tell. And I've never heard of the mere existence of a Wikidata link being allowed to override a project's own deletion determinations; if that were the case, there would be no such thing as AfD on Wikipedia anymore. As much as I like Wikidata, some "bright idea" from a few Wikidata users doesn't override or substitute for Commons consensus. --Closeapple (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The categories are populated, can and should be populated. There is no need to delete, and the CfD queue is shortened by my action to keep,. Re consensus, non-discussion discussions where there cannot be said to be a clear consensus to delete simply may not be deleted by an admin. Now if you wish to criticise please demonstrate the harm in a keep action. Demonstrate to me the benefit in a deletion, rather than come here and whinge about your thoughts on Wikidata. If you want that Wikidata debate take those thoughts to a broader audience at Commons. It is evident to me that you have no been looking at the discussions about infoboxes and creator: ns usage and the use of Wikidata on-site, nor the management of static and differing data.

Commons is not a standalone in the Wikimedia community, despite some thinking that it is. Part of an adaptive approach to this site, and its jigsaw piece of the WMF movement is to keep an eye on the broad usage by the WMF community, and how they utilise or can utilise categories to the point that a Commons Category is now a clear defining factor. If you wish to ignore Wikidata that may an interesting reflection upon you, but I would prefer an evidence-based central discussion, not a snide comment for a valuable debate. While Wikidata is not perfect, and has its issues, I do not sit in your camp of negativity.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I may have missed something. Just so I understand, how is the CfD queue shortened by your action to keep? Second, I disagree with your evaluation that a 3-year-old nomination for deletion without any opposition in three years can be said to lack consensus. Almost no CfDs get input from more than 3 or 4 people. If I wrote "support" and then closed, would that have made a big difference, or should no CfDs ever be closed? Third, taking unilateral action based on a non-existent policy and then telling other people who disagree to bring *their* concerns forward for a wikidiscussion seems rather unhelpful. Finally, regardless of the legitimacy of your action, the way that you did it, as well as your complete lack of response to my two-week-old comments above, is still rather insulting. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: For my non-response, please accept my apologise as I did start a response and did believe that I had submitted it, but it is clearly evident that I didn't. I cannot remember back to what was happening there then to me not successfully completing the action. Not having a reason to visit my talk page since I hadn't noticed that my response wasn't there. I would agree that an administrator is and should be responding to queries on their actions. Again my apologies for no evident response.
My action to not delete was not meant to be insulting, and I didn't see it as particularly controversial and was trying to add context about the usefulness of populated categories, even lightly-populated categories from the Wikidata perspective an area that wikis are now looking to utilise for trivial and auto-populated data. I know that English Wikisource relies on WD for its data feed for CommonsCat, and Commons in populating the author and header links. I also know that they are a valuable indicator for the WD link itself and pointer to Commons, and our community has been slowish to respond to utilise the resource.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I certainly accept your apology, Billinghurst. Although I'm fairly neutral on this issue, your argument seems like a very reasonable position. If you believe it is important, I would suggest you bring it up at the village pump for further discussion, hopefully leading towards a firm policy, so that those of us working hard on the CfD queue have something to work with. There are currently more than 15 person categories with a single image nominated for discussion right now just in June, and the Commons:Category scheme People currently specifies a minimum of two photos even for notable people. Perhaps your proposal will change that scheme, and we can proceed with your plans when dealing with new and existing CfDs. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alumni Oxonienses

Hi, Billinghurst. We have a category and a whole host of files including the words "Alumni Oxoniensis", which should be "Alumni Oxonienses". Could you please suggest the best way to deal with it? Regards, Moonraker (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Moonraker: You can recategorise the files, though moving them is too problematic for enWS, with no benefit. The descriptive components in the templates will need to bear the brunt of the correctness. :-/  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

pdf is not a duplicate of djvu

Where have you seen a djvu? Ratte (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ratte: Thanks for the ping. They are not duplicate works, if there is replication then please take the file through a normal deletion process and identify how they are replicated in the deletion discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Вестник_Европы_1868_009_01_Гарвард.pdf&page=9 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Вестник_Европы_1868.1.1.pdf&page=10. Again «pdf is not a duplicate of djvu» although they have same format and even the same size. Sorry but I don't understand such politics. Ratte (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Category

Hi, Could I ask why my request was declined ? ... The editor requested to have their category moved and as no one in their right mind is going to manually move over 5000 files I thought the next best option was to get the bot to do it for them ...., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I have no expectation that anyone manually moves them. I also see no point in moving them by bot or normally, this is the sort of request we politely decline as the user can utilise {{Category redirect}}, which will provide the shorter use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah right sorry I wasn't aware these were generally declined, I assumed that if the category creator wants their category moved then it had be done? ..., So If I come across something like this again should I just point them to {{Category redirect}} ?, Thanks for your help, –Davey2010Talk 01:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Identifying a tank

Howzit,

I'm not an expert on Soviet and Russian tanks, particularly when it comes to the T-series... must admit despite years and years of photographing armored vehicles on three different continents I still don't know the difference between a T-54 and a T-55. Could you identify which one it is in this picture I took? Thanks.

--Katangais (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No hope. I know nothing, just move what people can verify. I would suggest looking at the names of the uploaders of images.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Arab stone design.jpg

Hello.This file is s duplicate.See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arab stone design.jpg.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion requests trump speedy deletion requests, so I removed the speedy template. If you ever wish for something to be considered as duplicate them please use Template:Duplicate  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

user:هفشجانی

Sir This is my own phoo! by me! help me This is up by me!!


I am a writer and took them in 4 years!هفشجانی (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If they have been marked as copyright by someone else then please remove the tags and address the matter directly with the person who tagged them. The problem will certainly lie with images that you uploaded that do look at though they were taken by you, and other images have been marked due to this assoication.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ok! but most of Them is by my camera! the picteres has copy you can add the refrense. help me! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by هفشجانی (talk • contribs) 12:08, 09 August 2016 (UTC)

I have instructed you on how to proceed for nominated though not yet deleted. Admins should only delete pictures that appear to be copyright. If they have already been deleted, then address the issue with the deleting admin, or with the process at Commons:Undelete  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


please delete this photo/they are not clearly!

Closed DR

I'm guessing that you missed that it was my intent, when I 'voted', to add File:Pokémon Go Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.jpg to the DR about the cropped version. It's really not DM either, the sign and the Pikachu are just as much the 'subject' of the image. I'd flagged it as being up for discussion there when I mentioned it as 'also', so it needs closed out as well. Thanks. Reventtalk 01:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I did miss the referral. I will label {{Fair use delete}}.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks again for understanding DM. :) Reventtalk 12:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


Dcoetzee talk page

Could you unprotect the talk page please, or raise this page protection at AN? Many volunteers who are not Commons Administrators work with Dcoetzee's legacy of uploads, especially the Google Art project images. Using their user talk page to flag notices for deletion requests and other issues is useful and putting the information anywhere else makes no sense. Commons has no policy for stopping all edits to a banned user's talk page even when the banned user can no longer edit it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to raise it at AN. (Obviously) I believe having contributions on the talk page of a banned user is counter-productive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I saw the you deleted the logo of ICCROM that I uploaded to the Spanish language article about it. I work for ICCROM, therefore I am the rightful owner of the logo, but I understand that the Spanish language Wikipedia forbids fair use images. However, isn't there an exception for logos of organizations? Many thanks --Akozlova

That you are an employee of an organisation does not allow you to own the copyright of a logo. If your organisation is willing to put the design of the logo into the public domain then please have someone authoritative within the organisation follow the process at Commons:OTRS. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
So there is no way to upload the logo under "fair use"? It has to be released into the public domain? I know exceptions are made under the Wikipedia in English and in other languages for logos to be uploaded under a "fair use" policy.  — Akozlova
English Wikipedia has an allowance for fair use through w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline as it limits how and where an image can be used. Commons, however, is the central point for all wikis to store files, so has a no fair use statement in its Commons:Project scope. If that is an issue for articles at Spanish Wikipedia then you should address that matter at that wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

deletion of video

Can you please explain your reasoning for deleting the video of the challenge please? This is work done for Wikimedia levant. --Tarawneh (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Audio was already removed. --Tarawneh (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Please restore links in different Wikipedia projects. --Tarawneh (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Saw that now, have already repatriated it. Wasn't noted, and I missed it. Apologies.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Toollabs doesn't show any links to revert.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Perfect. I thought the revert was done after the link removal. Now, I need to calm the already very very very angry students for he removal of the video :D --Tarawneh (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, well, <shrug> demonstrates none of us are perfect, though the system works in the end, AND our value to upholding copyright. FWIW the CDL log.

File:An old trade card (George Inn, Southwark).jpg

Hi, sorry to bother you but while looking for something else I’ve seen your upload “An old trade card (George Inn, Southwark).jpg” file. I’m interested in the history of printing and I have to say it looks at least fifty years later than is claimed in the source.

The styles of font used in it - a display face on “R. Hammond” and slab-serif on “stage waggon” - are reported in history books I’ve seen to have only really come in in the nineteenth century. In addition, I’ve looked up the printer’s name on Google Books and I can find sources for them existing in 1828 and 1826 (printing editions of a pamphlet about conjoined twins) but not any other date. (If you compare with other trade cards on Wikimedia certainly from the eighteenth century, they’re of a very different design-often custom-engraved to replicate elegant handwriting or in lettering styles of the time.) So this is just a quick impression, but I think this is later than claimed. Let me know if you need more sources on this. Blythwood (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: The image was taken from the published work "The George Inn, Southwark" which I have reproduced at English Wikisource. At the bottom of the image page you will see links to the reproduced page at Wikisource, and the chapter. It states 1750, and that is the labelling I applied. I would suggest that you add your commentary to the talk page of the image, AND apply one of the pointer templates to point from the file page to the file talk page, eg. {{Factual accuracy}}. Thanks for the note.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, sounds good, done so. I've seen this image elsewhere so I've tried to add a good explanation of why I think this is wrong. To be clear, obviously I'm not trying to criticise your work uploading this at all - this is the date the source says. Blythwood (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Blythwood: I fully understand it was from academic interest and a desire for accuracy in where you are coming on the matter, and I appreciated the indication of interest. The intrigues of the argument of our images can often be lost in this place. <shrug> That should not stop us adding the minutiae of life to such these images. :-) Actually the thing of greater interest to me is the the debate of the (in)accuracy and how that propagates through history, and the real importance of good source information here, and why we encourage provenance details. (Yes I am totally boring.)  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Billinghurst!

Happy New Year!

Billinghurst, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2016&oldid=375210922"