User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2019

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

Localization

@Billinghurst: You made a comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Freedom of panorama/AllEurope about translation. That got me thinking: presumably the copyright rules for each country should at least be given in the main language of that country, since many of the contributors of images for the country will find that more useful. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan already has a translation - I have no idea how complete it is. I just did one for Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mali, which took a couple of hours. For me it would by easy enough to translate the rules for the other countries where French is an official language, and for a Spanish speaker it would be easy to translate the Latin American rules. A lot of it is either boilerplate or cut-and-paste from the current law.

Question: Do you know of guidelines for how this should be done? I can't seem to find anything. I am trying to meet two goals:

  • Contributors should automatically be shown the rules in their preferred language if available, or in English if not
  • There should be an easy and obvious way for subject experts to change the rules in their language

Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The lines I am thinking along are:

  • It is better to give no advice than wrong advice
  • It may be practical to maintain versions of general guidelines on topics like FOP, TOO, Stamps etc. in the major languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Russian, although even these pages are at risk of being incomplete or out of date.
  • It is not practical to maintain general guidelines in less widely used languages. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/ast should probably be deleted.
  • It should be practical to maintain country-specific rules in the main official language of the country. An English version of the rules for Brazil may in fact have to play catch-up to a Portuguese version.
  • It will not be practical to maintain country-specific rules in languages other than English and the official languages of the country.
  • A summary table like Commons:Freedom of panorama/table can be internationalized and included in non-English general guidelines pages like Commons:Libertad de panorama. If it is maintained in one place, it is likely to stay reasonably accurate
  • Specific rules like Commons:Freedom of panorama/fr#États-Unis d'Amérique are likely to become outdated, and should be replaced by transclusion or pointers to country-specific rules in English or one of the official languages.

But these are just personal opinions. I am relatively new to WM apart from uploading files. I feel that there must have been a discussion on this years ago, with the principles thrashed out and documented, but cannot find anything much apart from Help:Autotranslate. Where would it be discussed? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

[1] Please, let me know when everything is set. Although I'm lack of free time, I will do what ever would be possible.--Ma▀▄Ga 10:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

[2] What is the procedure? Request on talk page or something else?--Ma▀▄Ga 10:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Done.--Ma▀▄Ga 16:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Is an unblock ever possible?

Seeing as I'm excluded of a conversation about this wiki taking place on Meta, is there a chance that I will ever be unblocked there? Are there any tips you could give? As I saw users like Colton Cosmic getting unblocked there. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

asked and answered  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Watcher Barnstar
Thank you for the notice, I made sure it was fine, and the picture of the mascot was approved. 
Danfloyd1 (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Duplicates

Dear Billinghurst, I regularly label images as duplicates. In most cases, it is quite clear which one should be the remaining image. In some cases, it is debatable or doesn't really matter. Today you chose a different image from the duplicate I indicated. No problem, but I think I have to make clear why I didn't choose the one that remained: the image you chose had an incorrect licence, incomplete categories and a missing archival number. I have added that information now. Vysotsky (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: The kept file had been here some more years than the file you identified, and otherwise the image was similar in dimensions and quality. Typically the age old practice and instruction is where files are the same to keep the older.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree. But one of us should then improve the incorrect information of the "old" file. Vysotsky (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The duplicate script is a tool that does a great deletion, redirect and the wiki fixes, it is not a great merge tool for information merges, comparative components, or license checks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed again. That's why I always choose the most complete image (also re licence, descr. and categories) to be maintained. Vysotsky (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem if you make different choices from the ones I propose, like in this case. But then you also have to change licenses etc. to the correct ones. Vysotsky (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm, no I don't. They are the existing licences, why should I be changing them, what evidence do I have to assume that? If you think that a licence is wrong there is a process for changing a licence, see template:wrong license.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I also wonder why you try to keep the newer version of a file, rather than the earliest uploaded.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Billinghurst, In general I like to keep the earliest upload. But if it would take a lot of time to improve the metadata of the old file (wrong license -as in this case- or incomplete description) I'd rather keep the newest. Vysotsky (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
That you wish to keep the newer is not my concern. The original uploader will generally and should be kept. So you can leave both in place, or not, that is up to you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete request

Dear Billinghurst, I hope you can remove following redirects that were caused by my blunders when I uploaded images:

  1. File:180213-N-SX614-016.JPG
  2. File:USNS Burlington (T-EPF 10) pulls into Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek–Fort Story on 14 February 2019.jpg
  3. File:USNS Burlington (T-EPF 10) pulls into Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek–Fort Story on 14 February 2019 - 2.jpg
  4. File:USS Sam Nunn (DDG-131) artist depiction.jpg

Finally, I would like to deliver my thanks to you for you work. — 隐世高人 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@隐世高人: I am only comfortable removing redirects for the 2nd to 4th as they are recent creations, the oldest file has been here a while so the redirect should remain. Also you may be interested to note how we create links, rather than images, by starting the link with a colon, eg. [[:File:180213-N-SX614-016.JPG]]  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of the image Insigne de la 3ème Compagnie Divisionnaire de Réparation.jpg

Dear Billinghurst

You have asked today the deletion of this image, and it has been deleted by Túrelio. You said that the author died un 2010. But the name that I put in the description of the picture Roland BERTRAND (1920-2010) is not at all the author of this insigna. He was only a soldier who had this insigna on his uniform as every soldier of the company (He was my father).

Coud you "re-authorize" this image ?

Thank you for your answer. Best regards.

--Patrbe (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Patrbe: . Excuse the confusion. To bring the image back we need to discuss the copyright of the image. Is the image still in copyright, or has it entered into the public domain? What can you tell me about the designer of the image, or whether the copyright was owned by the Republic of France, etc. That one owns an object doesn't mean that we can publish an image of the object where we are infringing on the creative rights of the designer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Billinghurst:

Thank you for your quick answer. The "3ème compagnie de réparation divisionnaire" has been created in 1943 and definitively stopped in 1945 at the end of the WWII. This insignia has no identified designer. It is a "collective" work. According to the french law (Article L123-3 of French Intellectual Properties Code), this work is in public domain, 70 years after the First January of the year following its creation (1943). As we are 75 years after, this insignia is in the public domain. Have a good day. Best regards --Patrbe (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Tabernacle Agneau sans Tache, Notre-Dame church, La Bastide-Clairence

Dear Billinghurst,
Enfin un Anglais qui comprend le français... L'objet de mon tourment est une péposition qui me parait nécessaire
L ’Agneau sans Tache qui orne le tabernacle représente le Christ dont le sacrifice nous délivre du péché originel* …, donc s’agissant d’un ornement il est nécessaire de conserver la préposition à et renommer la catégorie en Tabernacle à l’Agneau sans Tache, Église Notre-Dame, La Bastide-Clairence. (whole in french) Toutefois Agneau sans Tache est synonyme d’Agneau de Dieu à quelques nuances près, c’est la traduction littérale de ce que l’on chantait avant Vatican II :

  • Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccáta mundi, miserere nobis … (en Latin)
  • Agneau de Dieu, qui enlève les péchés du monde, ayez pitié de nous. (in french)
  • Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. (in English)
  • Cordero de Dios, que quitas el pecado del mundo, ten piedad de nosotros (en Español)

C’est pourquoi on peut préférer Lamb of God à Lamb without stain. À voir la frénésie avec laquelle sont renommées les catégories en langue vernaculaire je pense que dans un futur proche, des données structurées et un {{LangSwitch}} bien compris devrait donner satisfaction à tout le monde et dans cette perspective la catégorie pourrait être renommé en
{{LangSwitch
|fr= Tabernacle à l’Agneau sans Tache, Église Notre-Dame, La Bastide-Clairence. ( whole in french)
|es= Tabernaculo con Cordero de dios, Iglesia Nuestra Séñora, La Bastide-Clairence, ( whole en Español)
|en= Lamb of God adorned tabernacle, Our Lady church, Labastide-Clairence (in English delfaut language)
}}
Encore une discussion byzantine, Sacré froggies ! .. Daniel Villafruela (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Billinghurst/Archives. You have new messages at [[User talk: Daniel VILLAFRUELA| Daniel VILLAFRUELA's talk page]].
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

  • c’est la raison pour lesquelles les tabernacles des chapelles non voués à un Saint peuvent être ornées d’un Pélican.

About File:Coat of arms of Matthew Kia Yen Wen.svg

I use a wrong Archbishop Template in a bishop coat of arms, so I turn it in correct version. The coat of arms when Matthew Kia Yen Wen was useing in bishop, now his is archbishop, and I misunderstanding, he never use this coat of arms in a Archbishop Template, now I turn it right.--Iflwlou (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Iflwlou: I am not exactly sure what you are saying above, so let me try a full conversation.

It is not okay to change the image and overwrite that image with another (read Commons:Overwriting existing files). If you have an updated image, then please load that separately and at the name which it needs to be. If this person was a Bishop and then upgraded to an Archbishop, the coat of arms of both exist as both are relevant and within scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Marthazheng

Marthazheng (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hi! This user uploaded everything from a photo contest.--Roy17 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: I cannot speedy based on the presented evidence. I think that it is better to take those via a standard DR. Face value is that they are without watermark and some uploaded on a date prior to the published page that you linked.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Did you even use Google translate or pay some attention? All the photos in the link have a credit line that attribute to different users.--Roy17 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking action! As a side note, I had not tagged all photos, but I just found out the remaining ones also came from the same photo contest e.g. [3]. How Marthazheng obtained the raw copies is beyond me. (Using Google reverse image search does not always work for things from China because the webpages may not be crawled by Google.)--Roy17 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Logo of the Communist Party (Switzerland)

@Billinghurst: Hello, I would like to understand why do you think that the logo of the Communist Party (Switzerland) (File:Partito Comunista (Svizzera).tif) meets the criteria for speedy deletion. I represent the Communist Party (Switzerland) and I would like to know how to publish our logo on Commons with the following licences: {{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}} I think that our logo meet the criteria to be labeled as a simple design. Thank you in advance for your kind reply. --EgonCanevascini (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Need to look at the licensing of the original upload, and that an author can still claim production copyright on their (derived) work. So, deleted as not your production and as the site claims copyright of their productions. So, it is a case where you will either need to produce your own version, or get permission.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama Copyright

Hii, both File:Alia Bhatt at the promo launch of 'Student of the Year.jpg and File:Alia Bhatt at PCJ Delhi Couture Week 2012.jpg are proper copyright violation. They were reviewed at the time of upload, at that time both files were available on Bollywood Hungama but now they are deleted due to copyright issues. That means both files are also copyright violation for Commons. And you should open both file's source: They are not available! Thanks and please delete both files. CptViraj (Talk) 13:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

+ 3 files are already deleted because of the same reason:

• File:Alia Bhatt & Karan Johar at PCJ Delhi Couture Week 2012.jpg
• File:Alia Bhatt in 2014.jpg
• File:Alia Bhatt at the promo launch of 'Student Of The Year'.jpg
CptViraj (Talk) 14:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@CptViraj: Due to the circumstances these should progress through deletion requests, rather than speedy deleted. 09:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Got it! Regards --CptViraj (Talk) 10:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

LG GW620

File:LG GW620.png

No, the PNG is the inferior duplicate. The uploader converted the source jpg to png for no reason. Png is more blurry when thumbnailed to allow text scaling, because of that any photo should be jpg. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, clearly missed that extension. @Alexis Jazz: JPG is not PNG so they are not exact duplicates, as such they need a deletion discussion. I have put in a universal replacement command to move them over as jpg images are obviously preferred for photographic images.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll try to remember that next time. Thanks for moving! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

deletion of water bottles

Excuse please, my english is very bad. Thank you for deleting the files of water. I only want to upload nice pictures, was attaced because it be advertising. --Ralf Roletschek 21:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ralf Roletschek: Hi Ralf. My German is worse, you are welcome here. Not a problem to delete; we all change our minds at times about uploads.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense deletion request

Hi billinghurst. Can you do something about this?

Thank you. 大诺史 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Done by another  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests closure

Hii, can you close following deletion requests? All requests are more than one week old.

Thank you! -- CptViraj (📧) 13:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone will get to them when they have the time and inclination.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Bureaucracy VS Communication

Regarding this, [4].

"You can call that bureaucracy, or we can call that a fair process where there is a level of discussion where you wish to amend another person's contribution."

It is called "bureaucracy". Communication was done, I did inform what was wrong both to the community and to the uploader. That is fair. I did that by adding a template you did not think was adequate. Then, communication was broken and I had to start the kafkaesque process again. Hoping I informed the same thing again in a correct way. That is not fair. That is really bad bureaucracy. That is putting bureaucracy before communication.

I do believe you mean well, but such bureaucracy will kill the Wikimedia-projects.

That is proabably bound to happen to any project/organisation when it becomes too big. At least that is what history teach us. What will be left, after bureaucracy kills the culture, is pyramides, great walls, long standing bridges and cathedrals. Maybe that is good enough, but I do believe in trying too keep what makes the project click as long as possibe. And that is good communication. Bad communication is: "use form A46t(k)53B, take it to room 26 floor 8, get six stamps. Leave three copies, put them in a 5467-file and take them to room 5, floor 4, the reciepts should be put in a brown envelope the other two in separate white envelopes, etc. etc. Oh ypu did it wrong? Sorry, start over again." All the templates, all the processes, all the "You have to use this form" makes me sad and frustrated. It is better for any person who know the drill to accept the information given, and then take it to any process if necessary, than to enforce every user to know the process. That is if you want many users. And I believe we do want many users. And we want them to easily improve the content. Not to know what form to fill in.

Please handle bureaucracy with care. It is a killer.--LittleGun (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@LittleGun: Mate, I do. My aim is fairness to parties, not bureaucracy just for the sake of it. We don't do something just because one person asks or tells us to do so, we do it in line with the requirements of the wiki to get the right decision, and that is based on consensus. To your sassy comment, hmm, sure, whatever, I really want to play silly games with my time. I asked for you to follow a simple process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. I am not sure what you mean with "your sassy comment" or what part you mean is sassy. It is not my meaning to play silly games, though. The process is not simple or intuitive. That is the problem. And communication should be simple and intuitive. You have done the right thing, you have followed every protocol. You did that instead of acting on the communiction. With acting on the communication, I do not mean just to do what I wanted, but to put it through the system instead of just deleting it.
You have left at least one user frustrated by the bureaucracy. It is your call to figure out if you still think it is worth it, and that it is the best way to run Commons. Maybe you will come to the conclusion it is. But please assume good faith and do not just wave my concerns away. If you hold me for a troll, pain in the butt and querelant, I can only assure it is not conscious.--LittleGun (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I understand that you are here in good faith.

Again you call it bureaucracy, and I again say it is about procedural fairness. There have been the disputes over renames "he said, she said" arguments, so we have a process to allow for fairness, and the communities operate on consensus. Allow it to play out, what is wrong with that? I have not said that you were wrong, I have not queried your intent, I have not criticised you and I have not said "piss off", I simply asked to go through a dispute process, and I pointed you to the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, you did not simply ask and point. You deleted the communication I started. You could have asked for clarifcation and proof for the renaming using information already in that template, or anyone could have disputed it on the discussion and we could have reached consensus in the same way that is happening now. The procedural fairness would the be equally fair.
But, you deleted that communication, that was equally fair. Just because I was using the wrong template. That is what is wrong with that.--LittleGun (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no intervention means with that template, there is no "on hold" ability, there is no intervening "go to some other template" means. The rename is removed whilst the matter is resolved. The discussion is still there in the history, and the talk page is the means to a discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
But there is means! There is a discussion page. That is what the discussion page is for. Any rename suggestion can be disputed, and you explain why you disagee or need clarification on the discussion page. That is what discussion pages are for. Otherwise, since any rename suggestion can bedisputed the renaming form is obsolete and useless (but still is there to be used to enhance the kafkaesquity). What you did was deleting, stopping, communication. Due to what template was being used. Not because the improvement suggestion was rouge or bad or wrong. Due to wwhat template was being used. Instead of taking it up for discussion and what clarification you thought was needed. Again, you stopped communication because, and only because, it was the wrong template. That is bureaucracy gone bad.--LittleGun (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your reverts

Hi Billinghurst, I'd saw your reverts on a couple of my redirects (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2019_LDMK_Oberfl%C3%A4chenwassereinleitung_bei_der_Schleuse_42_01.jpg&oldid=prev&diff=355662253). I'll know the rules but in this cases no need to keep it. The pictures are only used from myself in some wikidata lists and no use in any Wikipedia somewhere. I'm sure that nobody outside using these pictures. So please keep it for SLA. thx & rgds --Derzno (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

thx a lot --Derzno (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Your reverts

Hi Billinghurst, I'd saw your reverts on a couple of my redirects (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2019_LDMK_Oberfl%C3%A4chenwassereinleitung_bei_der_Schleuse_42_01.jpg&oldid=prev&diff=355662253). I'll know the rules but in this cases no need to keep it. The pictures are only used from myself in some wikidata lists and no use in any Wikipedia somewhere. I'm sure that nobody outside using these pictures. So please keep it for SLA. thx & rgds --Derzno (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

thx a lot --Derzno (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Acanthus mollis (Gottorfer Codex, bind 2, planche 9).jpg duplicate

both files have the same pixels and have the same quality. The size of the file is extremely big compared to the pixels, while the other file with the same pixels is not. The reason are metadata concerning camera details which we do not need. We discussed that with another example before. If you cannot follow my argument, we should perhaps discuss it more broadly. Please delete this file, which is blown up by other information besides the photo quality, which is 5.660 × 7.500 for both files. In that case we usually keep the smaller, as it doesn't only save data space but by this is much easier to reuse by users, who are scared by unnecessarily 28 MB versus 8 MB by same pixels = quality , File:Hans Simon Holtzbecker - Acanthus mollis - Google Art Project.jpg--Oursana (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oursana: one is a scan and the other is a photograph. We don't just delete on your reasoning. Space is not an issue, and we don't save space by deleting it, it still exists. Also with how thumbnails are derived, it wouldn't make a difference. The metadata is not going to make a difference of that size, and you will probably find that there are other components in play. Please mark it as {{Other version}} and allow users to have access to the other if required, or take it to a DR.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
No, both are photographs, so far to your technical Knowledge. Both files are obviously duplicates, and you are the only one not to consider this. The smaller one by Dcoetzee is a photo by Google Art Project, also the other one as Hasselblad (Metadata) is a Camera. So your decision was made on a wrong base. Why should I mark a duplicate that you refuse to delete as other version? --Oursana (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Tbonny contact

(Журнал удалений); 00:08 Billinghurst обсуждение вклад удалил страницу File:20190125 Alye parusa musical-Shkoldichenko2.jpg ‎(Copyright violation: Not "Own work". Metadata shows Author and Copyright holder as Andrey Bagryansky) (Журнал удалений); 00:08 Billinghurst обсуждение вклад удалил страницу File:20190126 Alye parusa musical-Kastor, Koryakovski.jpg ‎(Copyright violation: Not "Own work". Metadata shows Author and Copyright holder as Andrey Bagryansky)

{{PermissionOTRS|id=2019061310005657|user=Dogad75}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbonny (talk • contribs)

@Tbonny: please make the request at Commons:Undeletion requests and reference the files and the permissions. I gave up access to the OTRS queue ages ago, so someone with access will need to manage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Kadyr Yusupov article

reply to|Billinghurst Hi, sorry to contact you, but I just wanted to check on my article "Kadyr Yusupov" that you've been reviewing. Is there anything I can help with content-wise? It's my first article on Wikipedia so am still learning the ropes and also look forward to having it published. Thanks! Alfred Dash 1975 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Renault d'époque.jpg

Dear user @Billinghurst: Thanks for reviewing my renaming request! I now understand that i should link to the discussion on the English wikipedia. However, i have 2 questions: 1:<<and label with {{Fact disputed}}>> (a part of your edit summary): Where i should add this template? 2: Now i should make a new renaming request, or follow a new procedure? I await your reply, Enivak (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Enivak: Thanks for the ping. Generally this is added to the File: ns page, with the discussion to take place on the corresponding talk page. It gives an opportunity for anyone watching the page to have some input, and it acts as the history of why something is renamed. Leave it in place for a week or so, and then add a new rename request, and note the talk page. Apologies for it not being a cleaner process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. If i understood well, about the talk page, the template is linking to the file's talk page. So, after a week, i should make a redirect on the talk page on the english wikipedia, and anyone could make a comment there. Best regards, Enivak (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a disputed fact...

Hello, about [5], it's not at all a disputed fact. It can be checked easily in the Joconde entries linked from the respective files. The initial uploader realised the confusion by himself and fixed the Wikidata item from which the Artwork template draws metadata. I just wanted to help and avoid further confusion by putting the filename in line with the info displayed below. But if you don't think appropriate to take action, ok let's just keep it as is, I have no specific interest in getting things fixed. --Nono314 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nono314: I am seeking a reasonable justification for the rename and one in which users who wish to see why a rename was undertaken can understand the reasoning. As WPs have citations, if a file is renamed it can have that justification. So some links, some evidence, something that supports a rename.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes I understand that. As said above you just need to click on the Joconde link displayed in the References section of the Artwork template to have that justification. What more is needed? Maybe I could have stated it in the original request yes, but I though it was pretty accessible just under the file. So, now I have pointed to it, I think it's rather crystal clear? --Nono314 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

identity

Hi Billinghurst - it is obvious that File:Wood storks.jpg is not a Wood Stork; that does not have a red/yellow head and bill, and does not occur in India; Painted Stork does and does. I'd have renamed it myself straight away if the file renaming system was not down; I only tagged it so as it wouldn't get forgotten when the rename system is back up. - MPF (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted flag file

Hello. You deleted files(File:Flag of Bolivia (state) fixed.svg, File:Flag of Bolivia (military) fixed.svg) I uploaded a while ago, how about replacing the file(File:Flag of Bolivia (state).svg, File:Flag of Bolivia (military).svg) I requested with a new file(File:Bandera de Bolivia (Estado).svg, File:Bandera de Bolivia (Guerra).svg) after deleting it? I have also posted on the discussion(#1, #2; and please also refer to this discussion.) and request of each file, so please review these files properly and replace them. --Tcfc2349 (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tcfc2349: Neither of these files were in use, were recently uploaded, and had duplicate copies, and processed as duplicates in that regard. That is all that is required for the task.

If you wish to have other files managed as duplicates or whatever, then please mark them appropriately using the {{Duplicate}} template. If you have a set of tasks that are specific to administrators, then please place those requests at Com:Administrators' noticeboard. If you have a set of tasks that can be completed by a bot, then please place the request at Com:Bot requests. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I attached {{Duplicate}} each file. Although it was late, I would appreciate your reference. --Tcfc2349 (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Permission to use multiple accounts

Is leaving alt account template on user page of accounts I would use the only thing I have to do to be permitted to use multiple accounts on Wikimedia Commons? --VKras (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not something that a single admin can grant or state.

Wikimedia, as a whole, has nothing against multiple accounts, though we do have issues about fraudulent or deceptive use of accounts. If you have a valid reason to have multiple accounts, and are open about it and declare their use (see Template:User Alternate Acct Name) then there is generally not an issue. Though don't expect them to be merged, and don't think that rights can be flicked between them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @VKras: Commons:Blocking policy: "Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions." As long as you don't plan on any of these things, I don't think you even have to declare the other account. Declaring alternative accounts is not always sensible. For example, if your main account uses your real name, you may want to create an alternative account to contribute to w:Cunnilingus (NSFW..) to prevent employers from connecting those contributions to your person. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
My commentary is about operating multiple accounts, not progressing from one to another. I would always encourage user's to declare alternate accounts, it simply minimises problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

regarding my request to rename a file

Some time ago you reverted my request to rename this file. I have now outlined my reasoning on the file's talk page and repeat my request. Sincerely, Bell'Orso (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Permission to use uncropped versions of Wikimedia Commons photos on other sites

Am I permitted use uncropped versions of Wikimedia Commons photos on other sites? --VKras (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @VKras: you mean what? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


@ Alexis Jazz Photos?, I forgot to add word 'photos'. --VKras (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: Whose permission do you mean? What is the license of the files you want to use? And why do you seemingly think there is a difference between cropped and uncropped images regarding required permission? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@VKras: Please read Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia and if you have any questions then please take them to Com:VP, as that is the more appropriate forum for this discussion, not a user talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Royal Society

Last November, you created Category:Royal Society of London - now with 4 files. Believe it or not, we already had AN ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS Category:Royal Society (the correct name), which you have presumably overwritten at WD and the article. Please clean this up. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

OTRS

For these images [6]

Is here [7]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I gave up my OTRS access and other identification components ages ago. If there is a permission that applies to the files, then probably best that they are taken through Commons:Undeletion requests so they can be better documented for express permission and in case this occurs again it is more central and seen. Someone needs to work the uploader to manage their uploads and permissions better.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I have OTRS but no ability to undelete. Will bring the request there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay posted [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Moving Margaret of Burgundy's files

Hi! I wanted to move the discussion here. I can prove that we take no risks in moving the files I asked. Look at this:

The images I moved are just versions of this image, as you may see. Also, you can read here "Clémence", and it's categorized under Clémence d'Anjou category. So there's no doubt we are doing the right thing.

Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mhmrodrigues: You are managing the wrong risk. Your plan would have the image of another person on Margaret's respective biography pages; that is not what we want. I have not said that we should not rename the image, it is the process that we need to take. One process if there is a replacement image of Margaret, another if we do not. As the image is already in place, I favour just removing the file if there is no replacement image and not move.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Hi! Unfortunately in this litograph series there's no portrayal of Margaret of Burgundy, so there's no direct replacement possible here. I've changed her image in the Wikidata, which is now her seal, in which we are sure it's her depiction. I would suggest to follow Wikidata's example in all biography pages. I must confess I don't understand why are there so many versions of the same image of the "supposed Margaret of Burgundy" which is in fact Clemence. If we replace Margaret's wrong image with her seal, and then rename the files wrongly called "Margaret of Burgundy", problem solved. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mhmrodrigues: Umm, I pointed to the revision history that shows the image as portrayed at http://faculty.winthrop.edu/dufresnel/ why shouldn't we return to that version by a methodology? Why not upload that version somewhere, then we can do that replacement now? Then we can move once all the links are removed.
@Billinghurst: Hi! There's no need of dealing with old versions. I'll do the replacement of Margaret's image in all biography pages. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It's done, and I'll request the name change again of the wrong files. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Re:File Scope

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

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Nokib Sarkar (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Doctor of Directions

Many files still remain?--BevinKacon (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: I did a mass delete and the system reported as deleted, and I didn't check again. (ugh) and failed in a a couple of ways. Very sticky. ... I have deleted them by other means and will check to see why mass delete is failing. Thanks for the ping.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Block request

Please block user : Special:Contributions/Commons_vs_Incubator -Ahmad Kanik (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmad Kanik: done, thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix 063.jpg

> into the German language would be against the guidelines

Which part? --Iruka13 (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello? --Iruka13 (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
For the ten years I have been an admin the practice has been to not change the language of the uploader.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
How did you determine that this language is not German?--Iruka13 (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do not be argumentative or contrary. I think that this conversation is over, I have work to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I have 10 contributions to renaming a file of type "Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix 0ХХ.jpg" to German, one at a time - in English, French and Greek. Do you still find my question inappropriate? Where can I ask him to be answered essentially? Thanks. --Iruka13 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2019&oldid=404971827"