User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2021

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Canadian field-naturalist (IA canadianfieldnat1969otta).pdf

Thanks.

I've added the appropriate tracking category to the closed DR. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

If you wanted to look over the related DR's for other years of the same journal see , I will not object. I can recall placing a LOT of DR's over journal issues recently.. see Category:IA mirror related deletion requests/deleted for these and a number of other DR's related to the ongoing IA books upload project. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Truth be told, there would be value in wrapping each up as batches so they can be deleted together and have a year for undeletion. Though I still wonder on those planning for undeletions in 20 years. That is a lot of internet years. But hey. And no, I have no special interest in the files, I was just doing clean up.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

LOC works from 1925...

On a more positive note:- Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Books_in_the_Library_of_Congress/unchecked/1925

Due to the backlog at DR, these were now acceptably PD, so I detagged. I didn't know how to do a Category move though, so as to remove the unchecked portion of the category name. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please delete Image

Please delete this image because it is an image that was uploaded before. File:BCA Asia Afrika.jpg

Willy2000 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Willy2000: process at commons:Duplicates, no requirement to land on anyone's user talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

GLOBO2021.png

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. That logo is protected by copyright. See the logo presentation page, below is marked "© Copyright 2000-2021 Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A.". The user who uploaded the image has already had several images removed from the commons due to copyright infringement. Commons does not allow loading of restricted use images. A.WagnerC (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@A.WagnerC: It is a claim that they make, but it doesn't mean that it is true. I declined it as a speedy, due to the tag and the possibility of actuality, the process thereafter if you disagree is a DR. Not fussed how you progress.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jake Angeli January 2021 (crop).jpg

Hi Billinghurst. Can you also take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jake Angeli January 2021 (crop).jpg. Since you deleted the source image per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Persons of interest Washington DC 6 January 2021.pdf, this extracted image probably should be deleted as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a deletion discussion, I am happy to let it run. It will reach the same conclusion, and time taken isn't an issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Delete other personal files that I no longer use. I thank you infinitely File:Porta Nuova, Milano.jpg Flavmi (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Flavmi: I typically don't manage requests from my user talk page that should follow the process. If you wish to have a file deleted, then please nominate it through the relevant process as explained at Commons:Deletion policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks too. I know I was direct but I don't think I was rude. I didn't feel like apologizing so I didn't ask again. Imho, he's done a sort of unwanted vandalism and won't recognize it. I prefer categorizing than loosing time in arguing. Better correct things myself and let go. Have a nice Sunday. --Birdie (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear Billinghurst

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Billinghurst,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Henle-Logo Claim Schwarz 3.svg

Hi, you reverted my duplicate tag on File:Henle-Logo Claim Schwarz 3.svg. Yes, technically this is a SVG file. But it is not a vector file. This is a PNG image embedded inside an SVG file, as you can notice by simply zooming in or by looking at the source. It was likely created using one of those dubious JPG-to-SVG converter websites and provides zero value in addition to the already existing JPG file. On the contrary, it might be mistaken for a true vector file. intforce (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not duplicate, if it is not educational/wrong, then please use a deletion request. Ideally files like that should not be jpg either.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a duplicate. COM:Dupe is clear about this, it talks about vector files, not SVG files. The file in question is an SVG file, but it is not a vector file, an important distinction. I have started a formal deletion request. intforce (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

DR is the right process for this to follow. It is not an exact duplicate per the policy to allow for speedy deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Need help here

Hi, @Billinghurst: ! Could you help me, please? Wikimedia Indonesia will organize an infographic contest with European Union Delegation in Indonesia, start in March 2021, named EUforia Wiki4Women. Can you help us to set up the campaign page (Campaign:EU-Wiki4Women-id) here?

The example page is WikiKaleidoskop: Campaign:wmid-wikikaleidoskop-2021

If you need the header and thank you template, we already made it.

Template:Upload campaign header EUforia Wiki4Women

Template:Upload campaign thank you EUforia Wiki4Women

Thank you for your support. Best, Raymond (WMID) (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Raymond (WMID): The Campaign: namespace is not one in which I have played. I can assign rights per Commons:Upload Wizard campaign editors with the instruction at mw:Extension:UploadWizard/Campaigns / Commons:Upload campaigns, and plenty of knowledgeable people at Special:ListUsers/upwizcampeditors available to guide.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: , Is there any requirements to get the rights? Because the competition will be start soon in March, so we need the Campaign page as soon as possible. Thank you... Raymond (WMID) (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems that you have resolved this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Counties in Northern Ireland

Counties in Northern Ireland were abolished for administrative reasons starting in 1974 as indicated en:County_Antrim#Administration. It was then split into various districts which again consolidated in 2015. It is used historically in the same way that Category:Historic counties of Wales, Category:Shires of Scotland and Historic counties of England are useful but that doesn't mean that they need to be kept forever. In contrast, Ireland still uses the counties as the main reference point. It does not make sense to ignore all the district changes for an historical categorization especially when the boundary lines continually have changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a series of categories. Please deal with the series as a collection through a discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I will also note that some of the works can be aligned with the old county system, so it is not just for you or for I to decide.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow what is happening here. Counties in NI still exist. For the purposes of categorising images, identifying whether one falls into a particular county is straightforward. This task is made much more difficult if it is by reference to a historic area, difficult to ascertain by reference to modern maps and of no particular help for users. This a wider issue which should be brought to the attention of those NI users who are more familiar with these kinds of issues. Thank you Billinghurst for stepping in. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lamberhust: In what way do they still "exist"? According to en:Counties of Northern Ireland they existed until 1972 until districts were created. The use of them for car number plates seems like an odd thing to care about. Does it actually make sense to try to figure out which parts of Belfast are in County Antrim and which parts are in County Down for a line drawn almost 40 years ago? But either way, I'll list them for discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not prosecute a case on my user page. I won't speedy delete them, and I have directed you to have a community consensus on the subject. Such a discussion is a far better place for that resolution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. Please comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Counties of Northern Ireland. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Greek Catholic churches in Poland

There are no "Ukrainian" Greek Catholic churches in Poland. There are only Greek Catholic churches in Poland. The official name of this creed is "Greek Catholic". The believers are not just Ukrainians. This is eastern rite catholicism. None of these churches are called "Ukrainian". See please here Kościół greckokatolicki w Polsce 2A01:C22:9026:5C00:3478:5DD7:93FE:65F5 10:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow the community-designed process to address it. I cannot speedy delete these on your say so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User "Sanya3" has started to rewrite Greek Catholic churches in Poland to "Ukrainian" Greek Catholic churches without any consultation with the community. Such a thing is not acceptable because the churches were never called "Ukrainian". See please here [1] and here [2] and her [3] 2A01:C22:9026:5C00:3478:5DD7:93FE:65F5 10:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand very well that not everyone is familiar with everything. But is it really necessary to explain that "black" is really "black"? 2A01:C22:9026:5C00:3478:5DD7:93FE:65F5 10:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Who are you, and how do I, as an administrator, know that you are an authority on anything? Or more expert than the person who created the categories? So we take out that these factors and work on the basis of a community consensus. Please use it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, please. But I gave you the information about the pages that the user "Sanya3" changed these names at the beginning of February 2021. If you have the time, take a look at this category Category:Greek Catholic churches in Poland, Category:Greek Catholic churches in Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Category:Greek Catholic churches in France. User "Sanya3" has started changing the real names that have existed for years. He did that without "any" disagreement with the community. 2A01:C22:9026:5C00:3478:5DD7:93FE:65F5 11:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

And I am saying that the issue needs a discussion, not a speedy deletion as there Wikidata links and the like involved. I am not speedy deleting them, it needs a bigger resolution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The Day of the Tentacle

I wonder about your moving File:The Day of the Tentacle (original camera resolution and aspect ratio).jpg to File:The Day of the Tentacle.jpg, deleting the cropped version.

I think the original should be retained, but the cropped version (removing some of the black area) is much more useful in any articles not about this specific shot. You might have some more thorough reasoning, but please explain.

–LPfi (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: Uploader requested deletion of recently uploaded file they had replaced with a better quality image. Feel free to derive a new form and use it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So I suppose there would be no problem with a lossless crop. OK. I am a bit busy now so I hope somebody else will be faster to it. –LPfi (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi sysop, you thought it funny to revert my request at Peroxisome ua.png? Whithout any explanation why you did not like my edit? The least courtesy had been a short reasoning. I understand the rules - also valid for sysops! - that when you do not want a speedy-delete, you may change it to a delete discussion. May be that you are sufferung of too much boring time, but sure you looked not carefully enough to understand. Actions like this, reverting instead of helping, cause the widespread animosity against admins.
You may revert this contribution, too. -- sarang♥사랑 07:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You found a redirect on a file, and then used a template with a link to information about speedy deletes and gave me somecommentary about "outdated". Have you read the policy? [Note that it was linked from edit page to be helpful]. If you have a question about the implementation of the policy then come back and ask, but please don't give me the injured party or unhelpful sysop drivel. Help:Redirect is also good guidance. Redirects are cheap.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reasoning. One or two words at your revert had been helpful. I am still thinking that speedy deletion is justified but I can do it otherwise -- sarang♥사랑 08:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You have not identified a valid reason to speedy delete.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Magellan cross renovation02.jpg

Commons never had a file with that name. There was a file uploaded to enwiki and cebwiki and then deleted for lack of licensing information. I found it in a cebwiki page, and because it was protected I couldn't edit it to replace the deleted file, so I created a redirect to another file depicting the subject of the article. I subsequently found I could edit the page, and replaced it. I also found that the original file probably depicted the kiosk, and not the cross. Peter James (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter James: okay, it was showing up as used, and we don't delete redirects in use. I have removed the usage at the cebWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

File:-View of J. Couglan & Sons Ship yards in False Creek destroyed by fire- (5456680773).jpg

I used flickr2commons to upload the flickr image at https://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouver-archives/5456680773/

Once flickr2common had uploaded it under the standardized name flickr2commons supplied "File:-View of J. Couglan & Sons Ship yards in False Creek destroyed by fire- (5456680773).jpg", I would have considered renaming it something more descriptive.

But, having uploaded it, I found it was a duplicate, so I marked it as a duplicate.

I expected a redirect to be preserved, from the deleted new version -- but you deleted it.

May I point out flickr2commons won't allow an image to be uploaded, again, if a file -- or a redirect -- already exists? If the redirect is deleted this protection against uploading duplicates won't work. May I suggest this is a very strong reason to not delete the redirect?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

<meh> recently uploaded files as duplicates will often just get deleted, just easier and quicker. There is no perfect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

image

I´m sorry It will not happen again--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a biggy. A place of learning. A place of discussion and consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Reason for moving subcategories?

Hi! I just noticed, that you moved some of my Berlinale-Subcategories from Berlinale 2020/Empfang der bayrischen Landesregierung to Berlinale 2020—Empfang der bayrischen Landesregierung, which doesn't correlate with all the files I already tagged for upload on my local computer anymore. Is there a reason (or even rule) that required this renaming? // Martin K. (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Martin Kraft: It was four months ago, so not something stuck in my memory, and I would have been managing deletion requests. A forward slash means something in a technical sense in mediawiki world, so the category was moved to a category name per Commons:How to create new categories or subcategories rather than a subpage to a category. In short, please don't use a forward slash at Commons in categories.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

cats on top

Two things that I learned from a source admin here. Hesperian made categories [[Category:The Title (YYYY, publisher)]]. That is the best way when juggling the same author with different illustrators. I started to put known first editions as [[Category:The Title (YYYY, author)]] then all other publications can be subcatted at that point. Even if there are no materials for the first edition, all others can tidily start there and links to other wikis work well in that scheme. There needs to be an easy way here to separate Rackham images from Cruikshank images (two illustrators with similar works I am dealing with right now).

I am at a loss often when I search for a specific scan at Open Library. The two tier structure fails. Either the "W" is for the whole (like the 10,000+ versions of Grimm or there is a W for houshold tales, and another for Wunderkinder and no way to get from one to the other. Wikidata does not allow editions of Grimm now, that is due to the consensus, not to logic or tidiness. I would like a property for first edition.

There was a chapter in Encyclopedia Brown where the mystery was solved because the object had "First Battle of...." printed on it and EB knew that firsts never even consider a second and don't give themselves that title. I think about that a lot lately.

Please consider Hesperians example here.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hi. Thanks for the deletion of [redacted|this] but could you please hide it from the logs as well? It's an attack against me by an LTA and I don't really like the thought of having "very ugly rape pedo *my username*" in any logs. Thanks. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@EstrellaSuecia: I don't have that ability. Sotiale is contacting Commons OS which should sort it out.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

OK. That's fine. Thanks for deleting the user page as well. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@EstrellaSuecia: Absolutely never issue. If you want a different protection on that page then let me know. I also have a special global AF (global-181) for small and medium wikis for when the attack dogs are out. I will add your username to that as a preventative measure. In a moment I will revdel the intervening edits to remove the file link.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Yes, this last week I've been hit every single night with very mean and malicious attacks. You can go ahead and semi-protect my userpage on here. I have my Meta-userpage, maybe one day I'll make one for commons specifically but for now I'm happy with just using my global meta page. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Already protected that, was not even going to wait. It was more whether you wanted it fully salted, though that is evidently a NOT. :-) Best of luck.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and understanding. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate policy

OK. Let's take the "non spedy" way, then. :-) --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay with me that you do what you think is required, just explaining why/what/where.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Re:

Sorry, I was unaware of that policy and massively marked the files of this user. In the files I placed it should have been marked for what it is: copyright infringements and not a presumption of it.

In fact I'm concerned that most of the uploads of this user are copyrighted material. I already warned him about this on Spanish Wikipedia and I had no response. Best,--ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey ProtoplasmaKid, no issue, I was managing expectations with regard to my actions.

If it as you say, then adding the information to one of the existing DRs will expand its scope. Always worth pinging the nominating person, especially where they are an admin, to raise the issue higher in management, and stating what you have done elsewhere.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Stella Dallas (1923 edition)"

This was ineffective as a title. There's no need to disambiguate anything where nothing exists to disambiguate from. We wouldn't disambiguate this way for anything else, so why does there need to be an exception for novels? Do we need Category:Stella Dallas (1925 edition of 1925 film) instead of Category:Stella Dallas (1925 film) too? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

My apologies as I actually did find another version here, which did not seem to be online before. Pretty cool; it actually has shots from the movie as images. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Why is it ineffective? The issue that we have had is that Commons and WD have been hijacking our categories for the works, when they belong to our editions, so it is naming clarity so they don't. So an image may be in categories for three editions, but not a fourth; there may be no images in the English edition, however, the American edition has images. Re movies, if you see a director's cut it is a different edition, and you may wish to separate images from a director's cut from another cut.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

USS Omaha video

Why did you delete my video File:Declassified Complete UFO footage - USS Omaha - San Diego - July 15, 2019 - Temp upload.webm as "license laundering"? The video is a work of the US Navy which is free from copyright (as tons of military videos that are uploaded on Commons, including similar UFO videos). The fact that it is a watermarked version makes no difference, the person that watermarked it doesn't own the copyright of a Navy produced video (and he doesn't claim to). The Pentagon confirmed this video was filmed by the Navy here [4], if you warned me I could have easily explained this. --Loganmac (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that it was incorrectly deleted, please lodge a undeletion request, see Com:Undeletion request. We can all claims things, however, it is the source and the evidence that matters. If you have a navy source and copy then that would be accepted. I have no idea about the veracity of your claim, or the video, so please get a consensus for its undeletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Pentagon itself declared it as a work of the US Navy, hence in the public domain, it's not "MY" claim. --Loganmac (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please rename

Hi, for a more complicated task help of an admin is needed. It depends the Stadtwappen der Stadt Duisburg.svg. Because the German "Wappenforum" concluded to a naming system, it had been renamed in 2013 to DEU Duisburg COA.svg. Later in 2013 the original uploader did not like that and it was renamed back. Nowadays both names are used, one directly and the other one as a redirect. The original uploader Ludger1961 is not any more activ since long, so he cannot be asked - and we must not take his opinion into account any more.
Please, would you change the function of the both names, that the now redirect becomes the name, and the now name will become a redirect? After that, we can continue with housekeeping and correcting. Thank you -- sarang♥사랑 12:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sarang: That German WP, or any wiki, has a naming system is separate from Commons renaming it. That the uploader has a preferred name and that it is compliant with the naming policy AND that a redirect works, is usually sufficient to keep it in place unless a community consensus says otherwise. What is not currently working with the current arrangement? I am not provided with the tools to meet one person's preference, they are to do the community's work where a consensus exists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Question about User:David-waterways maps

Hi Billinghurst, I came across some maps by User:David-waterways which I nominated for speedy deletion (File:Sambre river location.jpg & File:Marne-Rhine Canal location.jpg) but then noticed that you had some prior involvement with the same topic four years ago and stopped. Do you still think the uploads are legitimate? If yes, I will withdraw the nomination. Calistemon (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

No idea. Cannot remember it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries, just saw the 2017 conversation on User talk:David-waterways so I thought it might prompt some memory. Calistemon (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

reconstruction

Hello I see you deleted all my maps this maps was for the he wiki because we have anth another policy. pleas recover the maps thank you. ויקי4800 (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I deleted duplicate png files, and a jpg created file which had a vector svg. I think that you are better bringing up the matter at Com:Undelete and better explaining what is that is needed, otherwise it will just happen again as this is the local policy. Please feel welcome to make the request in Hebrew and we will find the appropriate person to address it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

But this map was not duplicate. ויקי4800 (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I only deleted duplicates.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"block"

Hello, please unblock me @C Mirəli2001 Bakı 1999 (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are editing here, you are not blocked.  — billinghurst sDrewth 17:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

please.Bakı 1999 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are editing here on this page, you are not blocked.  — billinghurst sDrewth 17:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@C Mirəli2001 I want a profile. Bakı 1999 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No such username exists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 18:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@C Mirəli2001 -Bakı 1999 (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You are editing around a checkuser block, that is sockpuppetry and that is not acceptable. See Commons:Blocking policy and follow the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 18:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: to note.  — billinghurst sDrewth 18:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Category redirects

Please wait, let me explain. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with category redirects. Just leave them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Several years ago there was an unwise idea to rename all Iranian provinces and counties to lowercase (X province, X county), and later it was reverted to original (uppercase) version, but some categories (minority) still have lowercases in names. In last several months, I'm trying to fix it. Why should we keep redirects? There's nothing useful about it, for example I type "North Khorasan p..." in searchbox and both of them jump out (category and redirect), so I must open both and check which one is redirected. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: If you want to remove a whole lot of category redirects please use the proper processes for deletions rather than trying to think that your opinion alone is what matters, especially rather than doing it by misleading requests.<>p>If you are using HotCat to categorise it will automatically foloow the category redirect and populate the directed category, that is why category redirect exists rather than straight redirects. Please read Help:Gadget-HotCat, and you will see that you don't need to reopen the links.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In fact I was using such processes before, and then some 40 days ago Missvain gave me an advice to use speedy deletion. Hundreds of category redirects have already been deleted, and there was zero complaints. Usually I put "Useless redirect" or "Empty" as short explanation, sorry if it was misleading. Btw I don't use HotCat. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Well, I am not in agreement with Missvain's advice as I don't see that it reflects the deletion policy, especially as if you think that there are a whole lot of dud names, just get them all listed in the one deletion request and done -- too easy. Also, use HotCat, make your life easier, it is specifically designed to make life easier.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, usually I don't accept tips from users with less than 1,000,000 total edits, but in your case I'll make an exception, considering you're on -0,4% margin. Just joking, sorry for taking your time and wish you one easy-life party this summer, I'm sure Wikimedia has some proper millionaire policy.. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Oh, am I near there am I? I am pretty certain that I can scrape the extra edits together in private wikis for checkusers and stewards; and abusefilter edits which don't get tallied if that makes you feel more comfortable about my shortcomings. If not that, I can pretty well fill barrels of admin, checkuser and steward actions for another one to two of hundred thousand actions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

How come?

How come [5] it's not eligible? To me it looks like a clear case. GPinkerton (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Please take it through a deletion request and provide your reasoning for why you consider it out of scope. Consensus of the community is better than the opinion of one administrator in cases like this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Dear Billinghurst, can you check the requests of deletion which were started by me and yet not concluded? If you can i can immediatly send you the links :) - Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No. They will get handled when they are handled, don't fuss it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I ve waited for 3 months and can wait couple of months too. Thanks for answering (^_^) -Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is uploading a Just Dance logo a copyright violation? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If you don't own the copyright, quite possibly. I don't know the image nor its history, so the best place to ask is Com:VPC.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing FIles which has not been from a long time

Billinghurst Hey Billinghurst,

Can you please review these files as they are not reviewed from a massive 3 years. I think every image is correct and should be accepted by commons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abp_Marek_Jedraszewski.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Everyone_holding_hands.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giraffe_In_South_Africa.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_Giraffe.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cape_Buffalo_Africa.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunset_Zanzibar.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_Waterbuck.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elephant_Feeding.jpg

My second picture is not that old but you can just review it.

Warm Regards,

Contributers2020 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not a trivial concern

I didn't see your reply, when you left it.

You wrote deleting duplicates was "just easier and quicker", and seemed to think my concer was trivial.

The decision not to leave a redirect is guaranteed to generate a highly annoying waste of time, at least statistically, at least part of the time.

Automated tools, (I don't think flickr2commons is the only one...) will reliably use a predictable generated name.

No one wants to waste their time uploading a duplicate of a file that has already been uploaded. If the first person to upload the image uses the predictable name semi-automated tools like flickr2commons, that protects subsequent contributors wasting time trying to upload it a second time. They can't do so, because the name is in use.

If the first person used flickr2commons, but over-rode the default name, or they uploaded it without the aid of an automated tool, a second uploader is likely to have their time wasted, if they come across it, and like it. But, when they recognize it was a duplicate, once they finished uploading it, and mark it as a duplicate, leaving the redirect protects subsequent admirers of the image.

I have uploaded many images from flickr. I don't know how many. I am sure it is more than 10,000 images. How many times have I uploaded duplicates, when I could have been protected if the first person had used the standard name? Dozens or hundreds of times. A significant fraction of the time I made the first upload, but before I started using the automated tools.

It is pretty common for automatically generated name to be a less than ideal name, because the original flickr uploader picked a non-descriptive, idiosyncratic name. When I upload a flickr image with one of those less than ideal names I go ahead and upload it under the name that would be used by the semi-automated tool, so other admirers of the image are protected from uploading subsequent times. Then I move it to a better name. That leaves a redirect, which protects it wasting the time of subsequent uploaders.

So, sorry, I don't think my concern is trivial. I very strongly discourage you from choosing to not leave redirects. Geo Swan (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

SD F10

Hi, you denied this speedy. Just so I won't make the same mistake again, could you tell me why this one isn't admissible? It's a personal photo not used anywhere. Not contesting, just trying to get a better understanding. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a picture of presumably father it is not themself, and as a professor could be preliminary to WP article as would likely meet notability. So I don't see that I can speedy it as clearly personal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, got it, thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

About tagging User:Ezekiel53746 for deletion...

There is a link to a YouTube account on there in the history, the name of which I no longer want to associate myself with for complicated reasons. That's why I wanted the page to be deleted. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, I was wrong, it's on the Simple English Wikipedia. Not Commons. My bad. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zeke Essiestudy: whichever, I cannot speedy the page as it does not meet the criteria for that action (it would need a DR when there is no evidence that it is your page). If there is a component of previous edits that are problematic it is possible to delete earlier/specific revisions of edits without deleting something entirely.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I would also recommend that you not edit at Commons if your block was to prevent you from editing at Commons. I haven't investigated and will leave it as this head's up stage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

DR

Hi Billinghurst, Not sure if you're aware but the DR never closed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aurismotors.jpg, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

File:R142A 4 train of LCD Screen.jpg And File:Is an R179 A train at West 4 street Wash square to Brooklyn bound.jpg

Unexplained is either deleted now or I'm gonna have to keep changing it into non deletion I suggest delete it now I'm keeping it until you delete the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.197.145.240 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok Gaggedgayboy (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

User:COIBot/Settings

This needs protection as well, but not sure what would enable me to edit it if needed. Beetstra (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra: For show I have put light protection on editing, and hard protection on moving. I have written an abuse filter that stops editing except by you and sysops. I would think that at some stage we may wish to loosen that grouping to other rights groups, though I am guessing that may require specific settings, so I have left it tight at this stage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

For now it is fine. If ever COIBot is starting to edit we have to find a way. Make me and COIBot template editors and template protect? Beetstra (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Villagemagicuuu.png

Isn't it PD-text? — Racconish ^💬 14:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It's just plain out of scope. A string of out of scope from this bloke and his socks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just surprised by the deletion rationale... but I guess I should have thought it through before disturbing you. Cheers, — Racconish ^💬 15:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

False duplicates

File:Sé de Miranda do Douro.jpg is not an duplicate of File:Sé de Miranda do Douro 2.jpg and File:A barragem de Saucelle do miradouro de Penedo Durão.jpg is not an duplicate of File:Embalse de Saucelle (27930035271) 2.jpg, but the other way around. Please undelete the true originals (that were in use) and delete the true duplicates. Tm (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This user is unbearable, very unpolite. He's obsessed with me. I think he should be banned from here. --Lojwe (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Comment The question here is pretty simple. What as happened is that you nominated to deletion, as duplicates, versions of images previously uploaded by other users and mark them as duplicates of more recent versions of the same image but uploaded by you. This action of you is what i call a "very unpolite" action by you in relation with other users. Tm (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see necessary to have all those editions, which are pretty similar, but if you want to keep them, it's okay, you've just reuploaded them. Don't think there is bad faith in it and stop acting towards me like an obsessed person. If you find this bad, why do you do it here and here? This is madness --Lojwe (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tm: Apologies if I deleted images that looked the same, or the system regarded them as the same when the comparative components of the system overlaid. It is not helpful though for you to ask me to undelete them and then to find that they have been reuploaded. Make up your mind and have a little patience.

@Lojwe: Please don't take that approach. You should not be throwing around terms like banned about established users. Have some more tolerance and hear what people are trying to say.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I need my images uploaded deleted -- I did not give consent of authorize a free-use license to use them as I was not the one to upload them.

I forgot to log out of my Wikimedia account and my roommate thought these pictures are being wasted (since I do not use social media to upload them to), so he thought he'd "surprise" me by putting on Wikipedia. Needless to say, I want then taken down (I don't use social media for a reason), as now my account has lost much of its anonymity, which makes me very uncomfortable. Please take down the pictures I (the content owner) did not authorize nor release under a free-use license. I will take legal action if I have to. Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC) PS, I did upload the Eilat Mountain photos and A. Rubidunis photo, but those are it.

No idea about what you are talking about IP address. If I have rejected a speedy deletion request that would be due to their not evidently meeting the criteria, so then the process for resolution is Commons:Deletion requests. If you don't wish to be identified then utilise the direction at Commons:Volunteer Response Team to contact them to make your request. Please don't make legal threats at me or anyone here (see w:Wikipedia:No legal threats) as we have done nothing wrong, what you do with your roommate is your business.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

there fixed it; what do you mean my pictures are not eligible for speedy deletion? I, the content owner made the request, which is valid enough according to the deletion article. This is technically copyright infringement at this point as I did not authorize their use, so my "legal action" "threat" is not directed at you but the Wikimedia organization, and yes I stand by it, if it means my concern will be addresses seriously. This is a major privacy concern. I'm going to ask again for my pictures I did not authorize to be taken down. I'm not going make this into a huge bureaucratic investigation. One of my pictures did apparently "qualify" for deletion, so I don't understand why the rest don't... Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy: Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion

G7. Author or uploader request deletion
Original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content. For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older[1] a deletion request should be filed instead.

As it is used content you need to lodge a DR as was stated in the decline summary. Simple process of a single DR and listing them all.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

DR

Hi Billinghurst, Hope you're safe and well,
When you have a spare 5 minutes could you very kindly revdel the first 2 thumbnails at File:Ranscombe Farm walk, 5 November 2020 (98).jpg and close Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Davey2010/Walk 5 November 2020 please, Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks kind sir, Greatly appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Kind? Knife through the heart. :-))) YW.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha oh wait sorry, Thank you for nothing you cruel horrible person, Is that better :P, –Davey2010^Talk 14:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

DR - Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy

Hello user:billinghurst.

I made the deletion request as per your recommendation from my previous discussion with you. Please delete the photos at earliest convenience, if possible. Since the the photos were added to each article with this account, I may remove them from the article, myself, if needed. Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures uploaded from jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy's account (stolen pictures)

Thank you in advanced.Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. are you able to delete the original picture I uploaded to File:Egypt from Mt. Tzfachot, July 2013.jpg that I replaced with the current version? I'm uncomfortable having the image of people on the internet without their permission...

Whomever deal with DRs will deal with yours, it is not my current activity. The edits you make at other sites are yours to make to that wiki's rules, I cannot advise you from here on your editing elsewhere. I have deleted the initial image from the link per your request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

and how long does it usually take to process DR requests? It looks like you deleted the person's request above this one. Is there anyone else I should contact for a speedier result? Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Datei löschen

@Billinghurst: Warum weigert du dich, meine Datei zu löschen: Bernhard Onken Stein.jpg? Dieses Bild ist schlecht und unbrauchbar!!

Das Dublikat lautet: file:BernhardOnkenStein.jpg - also ohne Zwischenräume. Diese letztere würde ich gern behalten. --Fibe101 (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fibe101: I didn't speedy delete this file as it in use. Please read further about com:speedy deletion and what an administrator can do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Kannst du die Erläuterung für com:speedy deletion auch in deutsch ergänzen? --Fibe101 (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fibe101: It is not a duplicate per the criteria for speedy deletion. Please take the image through a normal DR as I stated in the edit summary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Railway line 451 (Poland) in the 1980s

Hi, I have a question regarding this deletion – why was it a "wrong category"? Upior polnocy (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Upior polnocy: That was the text used by the nominator. I presumed they meant that it was too deep categorisation as the parent category was essentially empty, and it didn't replicate the similar categories. I didn't fuss correcting the text.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explaination Upior polnocy (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

png != jpg

Good morning, You rejected my deletion requests of File:(Charles) Dollfus, aéronaute - (photographie de presse) - (Agence Rol).png and File:21-5-24, à l'Elysée, (de gauche à droite, Willem) Mengelberg, Mme Loudon, général Lasson - (photographie de presse) - (Agence Rol).png. I tagged them as duplicates of File:(Charles) Dollfus, aéronaute - (photographie de presse) - (Agence Rol).jpg and File:21-5-24, à l'Elysée, (de gauche à droite, Willem) Mengelberg, Mme Loudon, général Lasson - (photographie de presse) - Agence Rol.jpg. I know the difference between jpg and png. However, these two png files are actually print screens of Gallica website. It is not easy to download high resolution versions of Gallica images, because the best version of a photograph is located at a hidden url (for instance https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b531305545/f1 corresponds to https://gallica.bnf.fr/iiif/ark:/12148/btv1b531305545/f1/full/full/0/native.jpg). There is no need to keep deprecated png versions of photographs, except if the png had been modified, which is not the case here.

--Le Petit Chat (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Le Petit Chat: It is my task to tell you that the request is rejected as it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion as determined by the community; different file types is specifically noted as not being a criteria for speedy. The process if you wish to follow it is a normal DR. While you say that there is no reason to keep it, some may say that there is no reason to delete it and that is the purpose of the discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will start a normal DR.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

20190531 Valgplakat Venstre Lokke i Koge 0200 (47981295706).jpg

Thanks for protecting the page from being recreated. I'm tired of Flickr2Commons constantly uploading it back up. --Trade (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No problems, when I am deleting something for the second time, I have no issue putting in a road block.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops?

Had you realized that this "useless double namespace redirect" was in use by over 2,000 files? DS (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope and from the redirect there is no way to readily visualise, with the way that system is in place; when moves take place the system was meant to fix those; and local double redirects are typically fixed by bots. I have recovered and will look at it again.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Says 33 global uses, though I cannot see any at meta, enWP, commons, outreach, WD.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

User:AntiCompositeNumber figured out a workaround, but it was seriously over 2000 files on Commons (every page that used File:Wikipedia Takes Coventry logo.png). DS (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RB

Hello, why is this by the way? Claudio Dario al Dopolavoro ☕ 16:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Claudio Dario: Where a page/file has existed for an extended period of time, we leave the redirect. See Commons:File renaming#Leaving redirects  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I see, on it.wiki we just delete redirects that have bad names and are orphan, my bad :^) Claudio Dario al Dopolavoro ☕ 22:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Willyn Timplado Trabajador a.k.a. Lyn Ouvrier.jpg

The image in question strongly resembles something from the subject's blog or social media account. If you look at the edits from the author, they are full on attacks on the subject. I find it highly unlikely they took the photo themself. --Trade (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Just added it to the DR. Best just to put it before the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Welp, guess we won't hear more to him. --Trade (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Duplicates

When you opt to delete the un-nominated duplicate rather than the nominated one (which had the same resolution, worse categorization and arguably worse description), please "merge details" more carefully. Thank you. -- Gauss (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gauss: It is not the nominated that will necessarily get deleted. My decision is not based on the categorisation, nor the description, but the image per the long term guidance for deletion of duplicates. Noting that I will typically copy over categorisation, and sometime make changes to description, depending on what is there. FYI we will nearly always keep an older file, if there is a concern for you. Best efforts are made in the limited display and comparative means that exist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thus, it seems even more important to stress that the deleting administrator should compare not just the image and the timestamp but also description and categorization and merges them properly - rather than (apparently carelessly) destroying previously added information. -- Gauss (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said Best efforts are made in the limited display and comparative means that exist. No perfection exists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Times Dispatch(Despatch) duplicate

Help me understand why you are reverting my edit of adding a template that removes a duplicate image of a postcard of the Times Dispatch Building in Richmond, Virginia? Xnatedawgx (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not an exact duplicate, there are differences, so that means is not available for speedy delete. We are not limited to any one view of an image, users can use the one they prefer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Adolf Hoffmeister, Hans Krása- Brundibár, Plakát Františka Zelenky (1943).jpg

And did you recognized, that at this file the author and the license are completely wrong?--Gampe (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gampe. I was only looking at the duplicate nature of the request, which it did not meet so cannot be speedy deleted. I have no ability, nor need, to make an assessment of the qualitative nature of either of the files' {{Information}}. There are a range of templates that you can use if you dispute that information, or to fix if you have a good source. As my decline statement said, please use a DR if you think that it is out of scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

File:SFH 1080x1080.jpg

Requesting an undeletion of File:SFH 1080x1080.jpg per Commons:Undeletion requests and User talk:Josh Burleton, where the communications manager of the project explicitly gives permission for this image to be shared, an hour after they were told it was a copyright violation. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: It needs to be Com:VRT'd and they need to provide a suitable license statement, not solely give "permission".  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Delwar Hossain

Hello, Please remove this page, for using this page he can easily spamming wikidata. He is not notable person so his wikidata page should be removed.He is a Bangla wikipedia users so he knows very which institutions has notable section on google search. Wikidata information connects with google search so he imputed lots of universities name in wikidata. I have completed my graduation from Islamic university, Kushtia. I have talked with my seniors and juniors he is not our university student, but google seach showed him, he is our notable alumni, but he is not alumni person. Already talked with wikidata administrator they agreed with me he is not notable person but they couldn't delete the item beacause of this item. please remove this item stop him to spamming wikidata ans google knowledge panel.Shanka2422 (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shanka2422: Please utilise the deletion processes outlined at Com:Deletion policy#Categories. You will be able to put that information into a deletion request and is a better way to handle these things.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Посмішка амінь.jpg

I ask you to immediately delete this vandal photo and block its author and IP for life. Thanks --Jphwra (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

please delete the photo on it my LIVE daughter !!!!! --Jphwra (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You can make a claim, though it needs to be supported by evidence, not because you say so. You have nominated the file for deletion, and once that takes place it will continue rather than be speedied. If you concerns about a problematic editor, then please take that to Com:AN and explain the issue in detail, not just make unsubstantiated claims.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

this vandal attacked me today in Ukrainian and English sections. This is not the first time he has uploaded such vandal photos of me or my child with a wish of DEATH !!! Please listen to me --Jphwra (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

it must also be blocked --Jphwra (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted the image. I would encourage you to take this matter to Com:RFCU and seek their assistance to investigate the user and their additions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Вовка х у є с о с – it is also him. Thanks, it looks like it has achieved its goal, I stop editing Wikipedia altogether. --Jphwra (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jphwra: Fixing trolls needs a more sophisticated approach rather than reacting to their every prompt. Talk to local checkusers, and get them to coordinate their response with other checkusers and the stewards. Chasing them and reacting is giving them exactly what they want, you upset and reacting. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

it has been going on since March... I'm just tired --Jphwra (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jphwra: I understand, and from me you are getting the best advice from someone who has been there, lived it and knows how to fight it and resolve it. The checkusers exist to best address the harassment, and you have a clear case to request an investigation locally, and they can look to see what may be possible to do. Use the system set up to assist you rather than fight it on your own. I understand that it is difficult, but don't feed the trolls. @NickK: FYI. re ukWP  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, busy period. Ukwiki CUs have checked him multiple times and T&S team is aware of it. Basically it is a very annoying vandal who frequently posts personal photos of active Wikimedians with offensive comments. Just delete them and block ASAP — NickK (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

OK, I'll personally ask admin colleagues to delete problematic redirects. Thanks for annoying! --Orijentolog (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? You asked an admin for action, and I reviewed your request and didn't think that it needed doing. The category redirect is perfectly fine. Admin shopping is not a good thing to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: You didn't make the case for the deletion, so please don't AT me  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Frankly you jumped at a bad moment, there was some confusion about merging wrong Wikidata items, all due to the charlatan duplicates in official cultural heritage registration files, and I spent a hour searching around one desert village for (possible) other building of the same function, which likely doesn't exist. So don't expect me to be 100% normal now. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't jump or jump you. I simply reviewed your speedy deletion request and declined it as I thought that a category redirect was suitable for the moved category looking at its age and there being no other information available to the contrary. All declined speedy deletions are reviewable by DR requests.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You did jump in, but I didn't say you did something wrong. If a watchmaker is trying to fix some complicated watch parts in his shop, and costumer suddenly rings a door and enters there, then it's a bad moment for the former. That would be a precise analogy. :) There's something odd going on about that particular item and I'm still not sure is it incorrect name/redirect, so OK, let it stay.

Speaking of this one, it's indeed ambiguous because "Masjed-e Jomeh" is variously translated as Jameh Mosque, Grand Mosque, Great Mosque, Congregational Mosque, Friday Mosque... every city (and many villages) has such main mosque, probably there are few thousands of them, including 85 on Commons. The reason why redirect stood for several months is that a year ago, when I redirected it, did not know to put a proper deletion. So I kindly suggest that it be deleted, as well as other future proposals if you see "ambiguous" as reason. Take care. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: You are missing my point … you were asking for speedy deletions. This is the third time that I have directed/hinted/said that these belong as DRs when they are outside of the obvious. if they need to be deleted do a conversation covering those that require deletion and put it before the community. There was no evident reason for me to speedy delete the category redirects. FWIW My coming to deal with a queue when I start my next list of tasks is not jumping in. I cannot know the status of any work that you are doing, or where you are in that process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Nooo, I understood all, no worry. I was speaking generally (for future) because I'm correcting ambiguous titles on daily basis, so if you see "ambiguous" as reason please speedy delete it and you'll save my time (other process takes longer time). The only your point I missed was this one, when you spoke about your "shortcomings" (???). How about we switch the roles, you locate/date Oriental art, and I'll do that "shortcoming" checkuser and steward actions, teach others how to properly delete, and so on? Well, I don't have neither knowledge nor nerves for that, it's like construction worker sitting in judge's chair. So, a million is a million, no "excuses"! :) --Orijentolog (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Thap Rua.jpg

@Billinghurst, can I ask you a question? Why did you keep this file (uploaded on 25 November 2021) instead of Tháp Rùa 6.jpg. I don't know exactly when Tháp Rùa 6.jpg was uploaded, but according to this page in Vietnamese Wikipedia, the date must have been before 16 August 2009. Ltn12345 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Duplicate}} For files that are exactly the same or scaled down. Please read com:duplicate  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Moves

No worries.

Please move the reverted File:Sulfur symbol (fixed width).svg back where it was. Thanks. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Didn't hear back, so I removed the "(fixed width)" from the file name, as it's no longer accurate. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: Please do not just renominate

I regret that you don't want to see good will in my actions. In my repeat submission of the file deletion, I explained the reason for this action. I may have been wrong. It happens to everyone. However, that should not be the reason for the harassing tone of your post in my discussion. I'm in my 80s now, and I'm not used to being treated this way yet. Regards PawełMM (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)