User talk:Billinghurst

"Da mihi basium"

This user has an alternate account named SDrewthbot.

If you are looking to get my attention, you can use a {{Ping}} that will trip my Notifications place a {{Talkback}} at the bottom of my talk page. This is big and bold and will ensure that I see it and respond.

Archives 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Number 10 Twitter photos

Hi, I got a ping from you on File:Rachel Reeves July 5 2024.jpg for uploading the original higher-res image from the Twitter source. If Number 10 Twitter images really aren't freely licenced (I thought they were but didn't check), every other upload from BURAN 1314 should also be taken down, the user was filling out cabinet articles yesterday using Twitter announcement images. Rachel Reeves was the only upload of theirs that I fixed, the rest seemed to be quickly superseded elsewhere. Belbury (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury: I was processing queues, not exploring. I could see nothing on that twitter feed that gave an alternate licence. If you can find something on the UK Gov that says its twitter feeds have the open gov licence then we need to document it. We cannot presume unfortunately. If there are other items that are considered problematic, then they should be marked accordingly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding a deletion you carried out

Hi @Billinghurst, With all due respect, is it ok to delete a file just for the sake of not editing 2 pages? Even if I take that, the deletion by you and then not renaming the duplicate file, despite baseless claims on naming by the uploader. Is it justified? This is like giving in to his demands despite him being at wrong here. Bcoz he got exactly what he wanted. ShaanSengupta^Talk 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It is neither of yours image, you both just uploaded it. Please be an adult about this. I am not here to soothe egos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You took me wrong. There is nothing about ego from my side. Its just that this has resulted in a red link in my upload log. Have you mentioned the discussion for reference in the deletion log. If yes then its all ok. Its just that these things are noticed when asking for rights. Also can you move it to the name I uploaded under? ShaanSengupta^Talk 11:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A red link in an upload load is your concern? Please focus on the things that matter. Definitely not that. I have never judged anyone by their upload log, if I have ever even looked at people's. More likely to go and look at your xtools [1]  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Billinghurst I just expressed my concern bcoz I have been asked about a deleted file uploaded by me for granting autopatrol. But, since the reason for deletion is mentioned in the log there stands no issue. Thanks for this. I hope I will continue to contribute more effectively. And, I will stop here. Things will take care of itself. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 11:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Lucas Cranach the Elder - The Crucifixion - Google Art Project (679844).jpg

That's not a duplicate of File:Lucas Cranach d. Ä. - Kreuzigung Christi - GG 6905 - Kunsthistorisches Museum.jpg. Colors are different. Please restore. Multichill (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Simon Vumbaca

Hi, if you open the link to the page https://www.simonvumbaca.com/pictures/, it shows images are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. So confused as to why photo taken down. Thanks for any help :) Inhertbows (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Inhertbows: No real point in putting these indirect sort of comments on a user talk page. They belong in situ to the issue. I have deleted hundreds of pages, merged other, etc. No way do I keep any of that in the memory banks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

sorry - here’s the info

there’s no talk page for the image as the image has been deleted, so contacting administrator which is yourself.

01:20, 15 June 2024 Billinghurst talk contribs deleted page File:Simon-Vumbaca-01.jpg (Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site (F1): https://www.simonvumbaca.com/pictures/) Inhertbows (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Use Com:UDR which is the process for requesting undeletions, and please cite how the image sits within Com:Project scope  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

18th(-)century maps

Hi, I saw your comment here about "18th century maps. There is already a Category:18th-century maps redirect (written correctly with hypen) which serves just as well in HotCat (hyphens and spaces are treated the same). --Enyavar (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And what is the issue with both existing? Practice is to have useful redirects, and it was purposefully created, so not one we typically unilaterally delete as a speedy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the typo is less useful than the correct spelling, and encourages users to create more misspelled categories that follow the established pattern that is prominently displayed to them in HotCat: " " comes alphanumerically before "-" . This mistake didn't only happen to me. --Enyavar (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

RE: speedy delete

There's nothing to discuss about it because the person who opened it was globally blocked a few years ago. In the meanwhile I gave for deletion tens of her galleries (always flawed, full of errors, etc.) and all was deleted. --Orijentolog (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: It is not eligible for speedy deletion. Please follow the deletion process to which I pointed you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time for it now, I'm editing complicated artworks. Someone else will delete it later. Thank you. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Do as you need to, though please follow the policy. It is the admins who are accountable for speedy deletions, so please follow the process and only request speedy when it should be. Trying to sneak something through, or using "whataboutism" is truly not a good defence.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Haha, give me a break, it's only laziness. ;) --Orijentolog (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion removal

I'm confused by this edit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AOnCreativity_interview-_Al_Jaffee%2C_Part_2.webm&diff=896667184&oldid=896403053 I had tagged it as an author deletion request within seven days and it was an unused file. What am I missing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If you put a DR on something, then I will say use the DR. If you want to have it speedied, then just ask for a speedy, and not DR.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't put a DR on something. What are you talking about? Are you saying that I can't request speedy deletion as an uploader because someone else used DR? Where is this documented? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Grammar apologies. When there is a DR on something, the DR will usually take precedence over the speedy. Please stop making a mountain out of a molehill.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think that I was. Thanks for explaining. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

06h16min de 7 de julho de 2024 Billinghurst discussão contribs apagou a página Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth 2024 in Brazil - Pará (empty categories per other deletion requests) (agradecer)

Who request that???

This is a bad idea for the contest! We set these categories for a reason – to avoid unnecessary warnings. Let's not mess with that. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 19:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: It will have been in a pile of many. It is a C2 deletion, which allows you to recreate it. The solution is to populate it, and please don't fuss it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, it is in the middle of a contest; people will populate it, and the solution is to wait. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 19:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, "Who requested that?" You mention a "requested by" but nothing linked, which may lead us to believe that it was a false allegation.. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The who is irrelevant; didn't look, and not going to do so. I bulk deleted that among tens of other empty categories. It's a mistake, easily remediable, please move on. Don't leave empty categories is always the solution; or tag it for non-deletion if it is empty; ready solutions exist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Explanation regarding the deletion of my files

Hello @Billinghurst,

I hope you are doing well. I would like an explanation regarding the deletion of my logo and visual files for my Wiki Olympic 2024 project.

No license was violated!

Why were they removed?

Can you restore them? Kod B (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Example : File:Logo-wiki-olympic-2024.png Kod B (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Olympic rings are protected by trademark, and my understanding is you cannot just go start putting them into other images or associating them with product, even when they are not protected by copyright. Once at Commons they need to be fully compliant with commercial usage. If you believe that the deletions are incorrect, then Com:UDR is the place to request undeletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok Kod B (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Art not duplicate

Hi Billinghurst, thanks for handling the duplicates, but can you please be a bit more careful and strict when it comes to art? You deleted File:Rembrandt van Rijn - Stone Operation (Allegory of Touch) - RR-102 - Leiden Collection.jpg as a duplicate of File:Touch, by Rembrandt.jpg. If you open both files, you can easily see that the colors are different so this should never have been deleted as a duplicate. To make matters worse: The target file was uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn, a user known (and blocked) for "improving" colors and "adjusting" EXIF data. That might have happened to that file too. I see multiple other images also have been deleted. Can you also undo these too? Multichill (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Multichill: I do check colours and regularly reject due to colour or tone difference. In this one, I have undeleted, and I am only seeing a very slight perceptible colour difference with these two on my screen when I look hard in some parts of the image very carefully, and not overtly obvious in the duplicate comparison, though maybe it is just my laptop screen. <shrug> Thanks for the note.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Oursana: From your duplicate notifications, so worthwhile you noting the conversation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Request

Can you help me please

Commons:Deletion requests/File:07 2024 Памятник героям Армяно-Турецкой войны (1918).gif

Thank you!!! Well-read MountainMan (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

They will get dealt with when they are dealt with. Don't fret they won't go missing  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Request

Re: File:Chicago_Portage_National_Historic_Site.png

Hello @Billinghurst. On 8 Jul 24 you deleted an image that I had developed for an article on the Chicago Portage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Portage I am a casual editor and am just now seeing this. I would like to have this image un-deleted. I am not sure how this process works, but I believe I must start with you. The image deleted was a map that showed how the Des Plaines river had changed since the time that native Americans and others had used the portage. I hoped that this would help visitors to the actual site better understand what they were seeing. The image showed an aerial photo of the current geography of the Portage site as it looks today with an overlay that shows what the river looked like originally before it was straightened by the Corps of Engineers. The source of the aerial photo is “United States Geological Survey”. I did the overlay. When I loaded the finished image up to Wikimedia, I showed “source” as “own work”, meaning that I had done the overlay. User Enyavar flagged the image for deletion on 14 May saying “Satellite maps cannot be ‘own work’”. Of course, he is correct. So, my mistake. If I had instead showed source as “United States Geological Survey plus own work for the overlay”, would that have been acceptable? Thanks for your attention to this matter. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Bfsplk: The place for undeletion requests is Com:UDR. On that page you need to explain 1) it is within com"project scope (educational), which for a professed map would be the sources of information 2) that is not covered by copyright, and 3) in this case that the components of the copyright of the derived parts per Com:Derivative works.

Next time I would advise you to participate in deletion discussions rather than not. Guidance is best sourced from Com:VPC.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedydelete

Hi @Billinghurst,

could you explain, please, why is this file Малороссийский родословник. Том 3 (Л-О.). Модзалевский, Вадим Львович (1882-1920). - Киев, 1912.pdf not eligible for speedy deletion?

According to the Template:Speedydelete, reason G7 reads "author or uploader request deletion". Angel Miklashevsky (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Angel Miklashevsky: Com:Speedy deletion, the template gives a synopsis, please read the detail for G7. It is not a recent upload. Please nominate it for a deletion request per Commons:Deletion policy  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Your decision to keep a copyright violation

As you stated by yourself, the drawing is merely a "variation of this image" and thereby clearly COM:DW. I recommend that you read this excerpt of the page:

In either case, unless the underlying work is in the public domain or there is evidence that the underlying work has been freely licensed for reuse (for example, under an appropriate Creative Commons license), the original creator of the work must explicitly authorize the copy/ derivative work before it can be uploaded to Commons.

You cited no evidence that this was the case, therefore your decision to keep the painting is illegal and against the rules of Commons. Please revert your mistake. Sincerely, Chianti (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your answer to this question. --Ailura (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)