User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2024

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

Deletion nonsense

I'm sure you have better things to do. My own work "Muriel Robin" comprises several photos that I took with Muriel's permission. What's your problem? Francis Hannaway (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Francish7: Please don't make me guess or explore. I have been doing 000s of pieces of maintenance, so please specifically tell me what I am looking at. If I deleted something there will have been criteria added by whomever requested deletion, and it will have been accepted, or added to if I thought extra information was required.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Francish7: I assume you are talking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muriel Robin 1.jpg. billinghurst is not really the person who nominated this for deletion. If you look at that page, User:FMSky asked for the image to be speedy-deleted as a duplicate of File:Muriel Robin par Francis Hannaway 2016.jpg. billinghurst rejected that call for speedy-deletion, remarked "Not exact duplicate, though the cropped part contains a copyright statement and the bottom of the image," and then started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muriel Robin 1.jpg to get consensus, because he was rejecting someone else's call for speedy deletion. In other words, he started a discussion about whether or not to keep the version with the watermark. You can comment on that discussion; here is not the most productive place to comment, because whatever admin decides whether to delete the watermarked version probably won't see this user talk page. And, either way, some version of the photo will certainly be kept. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Migration of The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language files to English Wikisource

I've noticed that the files The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language (Volume 1).pdf and The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language (Volume 2).pdf were migrated to English Wikisource for copyright violation. While they are obviously in public domain in the United States, they are also in public domain in the source country (India), see {{PD-India}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Chatterji died in 1977 to my understanding, which is 47 years ago, so not certain how they are PD-India. If you think that they can be undeleted here, then please follow the process at Com:UNBLOCK.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I believe you meant COM:UNDELETE. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Yep <sigh> late nights <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Renaming of file "File:Shane Taylor in November 2014 (cropped).jpg"

Hello - I am just getting in touch about renaming "File:Shane Taylor in November 2014 (cropped).jpg". The Flickr page states the image was taken on November 27, 2014; however, you will see that the image is located in a folder titled "Showcase of Champions Winston Salem, NC 11-27-15". Additionally, the following links shows that Taylor is not recorded as having wrestled on 27 November 2014 but is recorded as having wrestled (in Winston-Salem) on 27 November 2015. Therefore, there is evidence that the image is actually from 2015 and the reference to 2014 on Flickr is an errors. McPhail (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@McPhail: The metadata says 2014. Who am I to dismiss that information? When there is concern over a naming or information, we then lopok to ues {{Fact disputed}}, and put information onto the file talk page. Evidentiary steps are better documented and consensus, rather than forcing something through, and occurring edit wars later. At this stage there is no "obvious" criteria that I can apply, hence my not renaming it at this point. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Renaming requests

Hi! I've noticed that you declined some renaming requests, maybe I was unclear and I would like to explain better. The italian municipalities of Alano di Piave (map) and Quero Vas (map) have been unified last January 22nd, under the new name of Setteville. The standard name adds an "ex-" before "comune" to indicate that it's no longer a municipality, so the name for these historical maps should be Map of ex-comune of XXXXXX (province of Belluno, region Veneto, Italy).svg. Also, this map should not indicate "since" (because it's no longer current) and should be renamed File:Map of comune of -blank map- (province of Belluno, region Veneto, Italy) until 22nd January 2024.svg, as was done for previous maps. If there's anything else wrong, let me know. Thank you in advance :) Arrow303 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arrow303: While it may have been a commune, I am guessing that there is no such thing as an ex-commune. We need to manage that a different way. For a file that is a map, put some years against as ab exanple, so (YYYY-YYYY) for start and finish. Also update the description. The name describes what it is or was, or puts boundaries around it, not starts to create new terms. The map is usually as of a point in time, or covers a range if we are looking retrospectively. So if we have a start date, then append 2024, put the fine detail into description.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Casa Ghiringhelli

Why do you delete this category as wrong named? There is a Wikidata and italian Wikipedia article https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Ghiringhelli about this building -- Arch2all (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arch2all: I deleted per request to delete. Twice the category has been created, and twice the contents moved to different places, with category redirects.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
But it seems that the original delete request doesn't make sense (anymore). --Arch2all (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Have a chat to @Arbalete: , their request both times to remove the category redirects, once for their creation. If it is that notable, then we can have the category, and have it linked from Wikidata. Though please resolve this prior to recreating, as there seems a fundamental disagreement here somewhere. I will remove the protection now that a conversation is occurring.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Sámi mythology shaman drum Samisk mytologi schamantrumma 112.png


 File:Sámi mythology shaman drum Samisk mytologi schamantrumma 112.png has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: waste)

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Mewa767.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved sections

Hi. What criteria do you use to consider sections resolved like here?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

They have an exact answer and we aren't changing our filter for them. The fact that they cannot be bothered reading their error message. I don't believe that the page is the scenario for issue resolution where we are not going to change the filter, or we think that the filter is wrong. Nor is that page the help page for how to circumvent the filter, we should be pushing them to standard help pages at that point.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Saint James Church, Stepanakert

Is it not a Saint James church? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Hi. Category:Saint James churches is a disambiguation category page, it is not a category for collecting files or categories of churches named St James. Its purpose is to list categories of the same name. We don't have that category specifically for collecting files "Churches named Saint James", and I doubt that there is a particular need for one, though happy to hear your opinion on how it could add value. In this situation, at some point someone has mistakenly added those aspects that have allowed for the categorisation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
so churches that have St James the Greater as a patron saint should be diffused to that category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Why did you revert my edit at [1]? You omitted adding an explanation in the summary field. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: you removed a category redirect that was purposefully added by the move script, per its design. I am not sure why you did that either. I would think that it would be reasonably obvious why we would have a redirect for a long-existing category. FWIW my change back had as much subject summary as your edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The template I added explains why the redirect should be deleted and not kept. Not all "long-existing category" should be kept as redirects. For standard users, there is no "suppress redirect" function, so the way to go is to add the template (but I guess you knew that). Enhancing999 (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I did not say we would keep it because it was long-existing, I said as it was long-existing that it we would keep it. This one could not be easily found through HotCat following the change of name, and as such should be kept. The indicative nature of the category redirect should be reasonably apparent that there should be a good reason to delete it. They are not problematic, and if you think that they are problematic, we have a quite reasonable deletion request process. That you added bad name template is your opinion, it is not overtly meeting that criteria.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Enhancing999: See also COM:CATRED.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Malloween

[2]: why? What is the connection? - Jmabel ! talk 21:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

<shrug> ✓ Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Text categories

Thanks for adding the nocat parameter to all those text categories. That will make it easier to work on the non-empty dab cats. Do you want any help with doing that? -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Took me a while to find that the "nocat" parameter was already coded into the template. Anyway, help yourself, I am just working through maintenance categories, none are mine, and it is nice to see them empty.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I took care of all but one of the ones that were in the non-empty dab cats. The one I didn't do was Category:New York (text). That one uses a different template, {{2 word text cat}}, that doesn't seem to have the nocat option. It's getting late so I'm not going to look at it right now, but if no one else does I'll look at it later. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I have added an override for topic/$3 of nocat for {{2 word text cat}}  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! So that takes care of the ones in dab categories.
As for others, I don't know if they should be addressed. Do we ever want to categorize the text categories this way? I would think not, because they deal with pure text, not the meaning(s) of the text. The images in the text could conceivably have nothing to do with the main subject of a term, or even of any of the alternate meanings. What do you think? -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I haven't thought about it, though well worth the conversation. I think that the best space for these in front of the community, so here [[Com:VP]. Trying to find the balance between good categorisation, and make work; sensible <=> nonsensical; do no harm <=> focusing on best use of time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

deletion request

Dear Billinghurst,

please delete File:Megabunus_sp_♂_adult.jpg and First_Local_Verified_Observation_Record

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena Regina (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Question about closure of Mother of the seals

You recently closed a deletion discussion about a photograph taken by a colonizer of a likely coerced nude indigenous woman in favor of keeping the image by stating [t]he dignity standard would not apply to a historical photo. I would like to ask for clarification about how you arrived at this interpretation, that the guideline doesn't apply to historical photos. COM:DIGNITY does not seem to mention exceptions for historical photographs and emphasizes that that portion of the guideline is not about the legal complications that pertain to the privacy rights of living individuals but rather about how decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law. This seemed like a case in which the provenance of an image may taint its use irredeemably. Hydrangeans (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The wording of that guidance is for contemporary and personal submissions, please read and cite the whole guidance in context. As an administrator I have to assess the guidance against the purpose. The image is widely available in the public domain, we are not talking a sole copy of the image. It is not our job as administrators to reinterpret and censor history, and as such we have to look at the image in the corpus of the collection with its like works.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I have added to my closing remark special:diff/867574829 in light of your request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Italian discussion

Hi, can I ask you for your opinion on this discussion? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bar_italiano#API_e_IP The two categories were moved without consensus, and furthermore (as explained in the discussion) for reasons that personally seem wrong to me. I'm asking you, because you had already intervened for another category shift without consent, and no one else intervened in the discussion. I would like to have an administrator's opinion regarding both the method (lack of consensus) and the motivations (a more subjective question, which deserves further opinions). Moxmarco (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxmarco: I think that getting one of the administrators who is fluent in Italian to that page would be more appropriate. You can find someone via the list on Commons:List of administrators by language.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please @Billinghurst: , kindly assist in closing the deletion nominations for these two photos: File:Ann Jane Arko Anny Photoshoot in Yellow Top in April 12 2015.jpg and File:Anny (Ann Jane Arko) on the Runway of Mercedes Benz Fashion Week.jpg Both photos in question portrays a model who lacks notable recognition or relevance within Wikipedia’s scope. They don't contribute meaningfully to any relevant article or topic. The photographer remains unknown or not an established artist in the industry as well. The the photo was uploaded for self-promotion. Moreover, it's a copyvio. Several photos uploaded by the user have been already deleted. Wikipedia aims to provide accurate and valuable information to its readers, and including images of individuals without notable recognition detracts from this objective. Newrobertsparks (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Newrobertsparks: Please don't prosecute the case on my user talk page. They have DRs, and that is enough to get the community's attention and processes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Elena Regina

What did she do? Trade (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Problematic only. User keeps top loading here requests for action that don't need to be put on an admin's user talk page (as collectively managed by our processes). I'm away and don't have the ability to babysit. Seems non-English as first language and may need someone in her language to explain what I couldn't, when I tried.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Industrieschool de Wiekslag aan de Talingstraat, 1956.jpg

Hi Billinghurst, thanks for all your work here. I wonder if you could reconsider this refert. I uploaded the same image twice from the same source, the original (6.5 months ago) and the trimmed version (I uploaded yesterday). There seem to be no reason to keep the untrimmed version, but maybe I am mistaken about the Wikimedia policy. -- Mdd (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mdd: The file does not qualify for speedy deletion as duplicate for numbers of reasons. You can nominate it for a standard deletion per the polich, though I don't see any issue with both versions being available and letting users decide which they wish to use. Free choice is a marvellous thing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanx, this is fine with me and I will keep this rationale in mind. Best regards, Mdd (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of files from Category:Höltigbaum

I placed the files intentionally in the disambiguation category that they can be found and maybe identified and sorted into the correct category. Now they are totally uncategorized. GPSLeo (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Please do not categorise to disambiguation categories, that is totally against the practice. The purpose is to empty those categories. If required, please create the category for where they belong. If it is not known to how they should be categorised, then they probably are lacking educational purpose and should be considered for deletion. If you cannot get them exact to such a term, then look to use the other aspects of the country which apply.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @GPSLeo: Or you can create a maintenance category somewhere appropriate under Category:Unidentified locations. - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion requests

Why is File:Bradley square mall entrance 1991-2012.jpg and related images not eligible for speedy deletion? As the original uploader, I'd like them deleted. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: 2017 files. Please reread Com:CSD for the criteria for speedy deletion, it fails. Take-backs have a very short shelf-life.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I thought I've had another one from that time deleted. The issue is, I think they may be copyright violations. To the best of my knowledge, they came from Flickr (I probably incorrectly attributed them to myself), but someone else has determined that a lot of my uploads from this time belong to Google. I can't confirm that, but I couldn't find them on Flickr anymore, and there's no reason to have this many images of these subjects anyway. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bneu2013: I doubt they belong to Google. They are not eligible for speedy on the criteria you provided. Com:Deletion requests is the process now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Another user has since confirmed that all of the Greenway photos have come from Google maps. Since I can't find evidence of them being freely licensed elsewhere, they need to be deleted. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Why did you delete this file?

Hi, you deleted the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dom Jones.jpg. Why? What do you mean, "no suitable license to keep at Commons"? The file is my own work. It's from a video I took. I linked the full video to prove that. What's the deal? Was there a rule change that I'm not aware of where people are no longer allowed to upload their own work to Commons? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @BottleOfChocolateMilk: : are you saying that YouTube user alethiology is you? Because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfTBAVeyNbo doesn't offer a free license, and https://www.youtube.com/@alethiology8321 doesn't give any indication of being connected to your WMF account. If you fix one of those two, then the image can presumably be undeleted. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes, that account does belong to me. I have added a Creative Commons license. Note that the video is unlisted and has 9 views. It's my video and my channel. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: thanks! @Billinghurst: may I assume that as the deleting admin, you would now be willing to undelete this, instead of making this user go through a formal UNDEL request? - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: : undeleted File:Dom Jones.jpg and amended the deletion discussiopn. Please update the license to use {{YouTube CC-BY}} and please update the source to point to the work at youtube. This will also allow us to validate the license as being at youtube at the time, so if it ever is removed, we can utilise our verification process. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: just to be clear, you should like link your YouTube video as the source, and you should include the license of the YouTube video as at least one of the available licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

File deleted by mistake - not a copyright violation

Hello. The File:Peter Jordan em 2022.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation and was deleted, but it wasn't a copyright violation. I linked the YouTube video source, which is under a Creative Commons license. I specifically put in the license which the image was under, both in English and in Brazilian Portuguese, so that this wouldn't happen. Pato ilógico (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pato ilógico: I checked the file at YouTube and there was no permissible licence showing. When there is a suitable licence, please use the undelete process to have the file retrieved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you help me out with some information

I'm curious which files you found [[File:Dallas Cowboys (51156284890).jpg]] and [[File: San Francisco 49ers (51155408668).jpg]] to be duplicates of, so that I can properly categorize the files that remain on the project. Help would be appreciate. Thank you. SecretName101 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Cannot tell once deleted, the matching machinery doesn't work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Actually, billinghurst, it can be done. You download the image to your machine and then copy-paste or drag and drop into Google Lens. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The system machinery of Commons doesn't work for deleted files, it just worked for find the duplicate. Not certain that the stalker comment is that helpful as I definitely didn't sign up for using the hit and miss of Google Lens to help users bulk uploading folders from websites of other people's files to find the duplicate files that the system already identified. Definitely got better things to do with my time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories with "potential to be populated"

Hi.
I appointed Category:Lucy G. Acosta for speedy deletion, but you Reverted because the category has a link to Wikipedia and so it has "potential to be populated". But Lucy G. Acosta died on 8 March 2008, if it wasn't populated yet, it won't be populated too soon.
The same happened with Category:Vashti McCollum, who passed away on 20 August 2006. It won't be populated too soon.
Having a connection to Wikipedia, for itself, is not a good reason for maintaining a category. They are different projects.
And if, at any point, an image of these people is uploaded to the project, we can just recreate the category.
Minerva97 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Minerva97: These are linked categories to Wikidata and they have potential to be filled, so on face value they are not eligible for speedy deletion. The purpose of speedy deleting empty categories is to allow for the removal of unuseful empty categories, not solely empty categories. What value do you see in deleting them? As with anything else that is not valid for speedy deletion, there is a process for reaching a consensus for deletion, and that you opinion fits in the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Finnish army equipment photos

Hello, the picture uploaded of the Sisu GTP vehicle here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sisu_GTP_4X4.jpg has since been deleted. The reason stated for this was "The material cannot be used for advertising or marketing purposes or to make profit". I fail to see how usage on Wikipedia constitutes any of these. Usage on that self-proclaimed encyclopedia is not commercial or profit-seeking (there are no advertisements to view). I would call this use informational, even educational.

The Finnish Defence Forces website features an equipment gallery, where it is stated in Finnish, that:

Ladattavan materiaalin käyttöehdot Kuvia saa käyttää uutisia ja muuta tiedonvälitystä palvelevissa tarkoituksissa. Kuvia voi käyttää myös blogitekstien yhteydessä, samoin kuin sosiaalisessa mediassa. Kuvien käyttö on maksutonta, mutta edellyttää käyttöehtojen hyväksymistä. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää mainonnassa, markkinoinnissa tai ansaintatarkoituksessa. Käyttäjä ei saa siirtää eikä myydä julkaisuoikeutta kolmannelle osapuolelle. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää hyvien tapojen vastaisesti. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää mihinkään lainvastaiseen tarkoitukseen tai mitään yritystä, yhdistystä, henkilöä tai tuotemerkkiä loukkaavassa tarkoituksessa. Lähdemerkintä on annettava muodossa (Puolustusvoimat) hyvän tavan mukaisesti.

There has been a wrongheaded fixation on the "no commercial usage" clause, which doesn't even apply here. Yet the first part, about "purposes serving the transmission of information", news and blogs and social media, is being ignored. Those latter points seem closer to "topical decoration" and articles on Wikipedia certainly could benefit from that.


In addition to the above from the equipment gallery, a site-wide policy is laid out here: https://puolustusvoimat.fi/tietoa-sivustosta

Kuvat ja niiden käyttöoikeudet Kuvien käyttöoikeudet ovat Puolustusvoimilla. Muu käyttö esimerkiksi koulutusmateriaaleissa ja oppikirjoissa on mahdollista. Kuvan julkaisun yhteydessä tulee mainita kuvaaja ja käyttöoikeuden haltija. Kuvia ei saa manipuloida tai muuttaa ilman lupaa, eikä niitä saa hyödyntää sopimattomalla tai hyvän tavan vastaisella tavalla eikä käyttää markkinointi- ja mainostarkoituksiin tai muihin kaupallisiin tarkoituksiin. Käyttäjä ei saa siirtää julkaisuoikeutta kolmannelle osapuolelle.

I would interpret all of this in a way that usage on Wikipedia, with a source and credit provided as requested, constitutes good faith usage, and that these photos should not be deleted for reasons of supposed copyright infringement. Granted, the exact copyright or license tag to be used should be figured out. No specific policy like CC or public domain is explicitly stated in the source.

I had time to upload three photos from the equipment gallery in a similar way. This one has been deleted already: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sisu_GTP_4X4.jpg

These other two should also be deleted for completeness' sake, if this unfavorable interpretation of the FDF's image use policy stands: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FNS_Kallanpaa.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FNS_Isku.jpg MOSTKA87 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MOSTKA87: this is actually a little tricky. There are several different things going on here which play against each other. On the one hand, Commons accepts only material which (in copyright terms) "can be reused commercially". On the other hand, we allow non-copyright restrictions, such as moral rights and personality rights. The question here is basically how we interpret the "make a profit" issue.
Many images cannot be used in advertising on a moral rights/personality rights basis because of the implied endorsement of some product or service, and we'll host images where that is the only limitation. But does the limitation against making a profit mean this cannot be used in a commercially published book? As a postcard? Printed on a mug that is sold? If it means any of those, then this becomes really only a non-commercial license, and as a matter of policy (not law), we don't allow those on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems a little backwards for a free, non-commercial encyclopedia (which doesn't even feature advertisements) to require a commercial license from hosted media. It would make sense to me that licenses permitting non-commercial usage would be acceptable for this mildly educational, informational use.
I have emailed the public information department of the Finnish Defence Forces, to ask if they can specify a license for the imagery they publish on their websites. I have to say, the slightly vague terms on the site so far, align quite well with "CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED"... MOSTKA87 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@MOSTKA87: Commons is not an encyclopedia, it's a media repository, and very early on the decision was made that we would only host media that (1) permits derivatives and (2) allows commercial use. CC BY-NC licenses are specifically not allowed (except as secondary choices when a freer license is also available). - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
You might want to read Wikimedia Licensing Policy. Note that Commons is singled out as not even being allowed an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) on this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment @MOSTKA87: Firstly, please do not confuse Commons <=> Wikipedia <=> Wikimedia <=> other WMF sister wikis and try to overlay a single element in this regard. While images at Commons are available across all wikis, we cannot take all images, and in cases some of the wikis allow a local upload. Secondly, I don't make the rules of the Commons community and I wasn't here at the time of the founding principles. If a work is (CCn.n-by)-NC we essentially cannot host it at Commons as it needs to be able to be commercially reused (all from the founding principle and the rules). Most of the Wikipedias have a fair use exemption, so look to follow the respective WP guidance where you are editing articles on local uploading for fair use retention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll just fix typos in articles from now on. Media is just impossible to deal with, I'm just going to end up banned... MOSTKA87 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@MOSTKA87: I don't think that there has been any sort of reprimand or any personal reflection on you. We all have files deleted based on further research, information, so please don't take this as anything personal. <shrug> Your pictures that are educational are welcome. If you are unsure about uploads or have any questions about copyright, try Com:VPC. Bans are not put in place for good faith edits and uploads, even when there are mistakes, it is simply being open to discussion and learning, and that is for everyone.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

About those deletion requests

Should i just use deletion nomination better than using speedy deletion? So it doesn't be disruptive. Adinar0012 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No. You just leave them alone to exist. They are not problematic. I pointed to the guidance, and that they are created automatically when they are moved which should be enough indication that they are fine.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

File deleted by mistake File:TransJakarta roundel 6B.png and File:TransJakarta roundel 9C.png

Hey, what's Going on with both icon of Transjakarta Corridor 6B & 9C? Now both file are gone i can't overwrite it. Desta231206 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I marked File:Transjakarta BRT Route 6B Icon.png and File:Transjakarta BRT Route 9C Icon.png as duplicates, respectively, and Tùrelio deleted them and redirected them to File:TransJakarta roundel 6B.png and File:TransJakarta roundel 9C.png, respectively, however I think Billinghurst did the same thing in the opposite direction for some reason. I guess human error and misunderstanding. Jonteemil (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
We both acted at the same time. It happens occasionally. Resolved. Plus why do you think that we need enormous com:PNGs of such a simple icon? Seems gross overkill for no value at all. 10:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs)

Deleted election map

How come my map on my user page was deleted but this is ok? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alistair McBuffio: your image was deleted as it was out of scope, it is not an election map. I don't play the "whataboutism" game, if you think a file is out of scope per Com:Project scope, then please follow the deletion request process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Why was it out of scope? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The criteria is there for you to read.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete deletion closures

Are you using a user script to close these deletion requests? I'd like to file a bug report about the "&" issue; this has been a recurring problem (not specific to you). Omphalographer (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done and yes, it looks as the mass process is getting stumped by the ampersand and its different possible connotations  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:1‎

Hi, Most images added to this category are out of scope. Best is to delete or nominate them right away. ;o) Yann (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Photographs_by_Willem_van_de_Poll_in_Marseille_(1935)

Any explanation as to why you deleted this? Category:Photographs_by_Willem_van_de_Poll_in_Marseille_(1935) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Meh, accident. Apologies. Someone being asking for deleting and moving of others with that base template, and restructuring of templates, and I was doing tidying. Not certain how or what I did there. :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. It's nothing to do with the template. It's just because when you rename a supercat to become a subcat, the cat redirect puts the old super in the new child. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The template created loops, e.g. with Category:Photographs_by_Willem_van_de_Poll_in_Marseille (redirect now deleted) being both a parent and a subcategory of Category:Photographs_by_Willem_van_de_Poll_in_Marseille_(1935). Enhancing999 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The template is just but ugly, especially if it isn't behaving with category redirects. Template needs to be fixed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Not really sure what to recommend (or do). If no further use of the template is planned, maybe the parent categories could just be added directly to the categories. This way, the usual re-organizations don't get hindered. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The template is just but ugly
If you're going to slag off other people's work, please at least be a bit more specific. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The template doesn't create loops. The category redirection code creates loops because it places the redirect source into the target. Which is pointless for a case such as this, where the broad supercat has been redirected to the subcat. There's not even any reason to keep the supercats around any more, although when they're deleted they seem to have come back. If the supercats were needed, then they shouldn't be redirects, but should use the template to correctly auto-categorize them. But just deleting them (if they only have one child) is more straightforward. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Creating redirects is part of the guidance for moved categories and the like; so if a template is acting against guidance, then the template should be fixed. And expecting others to know and determine the quirks of a template with flaws is not good coding or approach. Best to fix the template.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The Template Is Not Creating The Loop.
Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
It adds a parent category and when one goes there, the redirect leads back .. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Ignore the template for the moment. ... Marseille (1935) will be a subcategory of ... Marseille because otherwise ... Marseille is empty. This is the same whether you put the categories in automatically or manually. The loop is created by the category redirect assuming (why is that?) that redirected categories which are of so little remaining value that we redirected them, should now be placed into that target category. But that's beyond my pay grade.
There are two possible fixes here: delete the old category; or else, keep the old parent category and use it (as we would do if it was needed to house multiple children) rather than redirecting it. Neither of these involve changes to the template. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo der Schlossbrauerei Hirschau.svg

I'm still in doubt about the copyright of the coat of arms in the image. Is there any proof? Logo der Schlossbrauerei Hirschau GerritR (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your doubts are of interest and able to be expanded or lead to further consultation. Your doubts without an evidence base of some sort are just yours. Your doubts alone don't form a firm reason for deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PCP. I don't have to prove anything. The uploader has to prove that the file is ok for commons.--GerritR (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Please don't miscite PCP. Reread it. I didn't ask you to prove anything. Reread what I said. PCP doesn't give you the ability to throw shade and that becomes the rule and we delete things.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Hier wäre es besser gewesen, wenn sich ein anderer Admin der Sache angenommen hätte. Die erneute Entscheidung des gleichen Admins, die Datei zu behalten, hat das Geschmäckle von Rechthaberei und „Basta“. Meiner Meinung nach ist das Thema COM:PCP nach wie vor nicht ernsthaft angegangen worden.--GerritR (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@GerritR: I could say the same about the nominating that you are saying about the closing. However, yours was because you didn't like my decision; at least I can point to that there was no change in the evidence-base provided. PCP says "significant doubt" and that mark was not met. So, do the research, and come back with evidence and it can be properly assessed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Zweifach_verworfenen_L%C3%B6schantrag_revidieren? FYI.--GerritR (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Logo_der_Schlossbrauerei_Hirschau.svg FYI. GerritR (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

DR of committee C-SPAN

Hello, Billinghurst. I am confused by your closure of this DR; perhaps there was a miscommunication?

Regarding your comment at the DR, I am not seeking deletion for all C-SPAN files. There are plenty of C-SPAN files that are in the public domain because they depict debates in the House/Senate chambers (see https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/). However, the file that I nominated for deletion is not that: it is a file of a committee hearing, which is restricted to non-commercial use (see the link above).

Please delete the file; you've highlighted {{PD-CSPAN}}, which says itself that it doesn't apply to the file in question. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewed and reversed, thanks for that information. ✓ Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of duplicates

Woudl you mind explaining to me how you came to the conclusion that this file's nomination was not valid, but these two were valid? The rationale was identical, in that they were exact duplicates in an inferior format of a pre-existing SVG file. The only difference was the silly and non-descript filenames of the other two. My position has been rather clear for 10+ years now, that inferiorly-formatted identical duplicates of pre-existing vector files should not be kept here, a very narrow rationale. It's not a matter of prejudice, simply a matter of maintenance and keeping Commons tidy. What is so different/special about the first one that makes it worth keeping? To me, it appears you're being arbitrary for no real reason. Fry1989 eh? 14:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The one declined had already been declined, and there was no further information that pushed it to deletion, especially when it is appropriately and meaningfully named. There is no requirement that we cannot have PNG and SVG, and the use of {{Vva}} enables us to direct. It is not up to admins to determine what people use once we are within the scope of the acceptable. They can be curated acceptably, and having them does not make us any less tidy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:WikiKedis

Could you please undo the deletion of Category:WikiKedis? User:Prototyperspective has gone out of line by asking for a speedy deletion. There was a discussion (see the talk page of this category, which has been kept) and the result was to make it a redirect, which he did not object. If Prototyperspective would yet delete it, there should be a new discussion about it. JopkeB (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have undeleted and nowiki'd the deletion request, though I believe that there is a good point made there that the name does not represent a reasonable redirect. Though I do agree with you that the placing of the speedy was not appropriate in the circumstance, and I did just bulk delete those that looked generic after I had manually reviewed others.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your cooperation and your Notes on the discussion page. I'll let you know when we have come to a conclusion. JopkeB (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
We now all agree on deleting this category, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:WikiKedis. Would you please undo the undeletion? JopkeB (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Perhaps this request has escaped your attention, could you please delete this category again? The deletion was temporarily reversed, but now we agree to delete this category. JopkeB (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I was waiting for it to reappear in the queue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry, I did not know that was the right thing to do. Thanks for the deletion again. JopkeB (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Lizamavel.jpg

Hi, Billinghurst. Did you forget to correct the license tag? 0x0a (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That is anybody's job. No requirement to be an administrator to fix licence tags.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Will do. 0x0a (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Italian PD-ItalyGov

Hi, the rule is already noted on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama Friniate (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion Redeye

This was actually a redirect (from a reasonable format). Can you restore it? Enhancing999 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It is C2, nothing stopping its recreation. I eyeballed the list and manually processed those that looked like they needed review, and mass processed the remainder.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
np. Thanks for flushing the ones I add, btw. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

SDR of some redirects

Hello, Billinghurst. SDR of these redirects were declined by you, but I think these redirects should be removed.

According to Commons:File_redirects, redirects to be removed for cases of an "obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect". These redirects include the name of unrelated nearby commercial facility (SkyPlaza Kashiwa Tower 1F), so I'm sure that these redirects are relevant to that case. I apologize for making the request using Twinkle without needed explanation.
I made similar requests multiple times and these were not declined ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). This is the first case of declined.
Please check and delete these redirects. Thank you for your administrative contributions. かしわのはみん (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Typically a clear and concise explanation is best record of why a decision has been made. Explicit beats implicit every time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gänget vid Böckaregatan i Ystad 2019.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gänget vid Böckaregatan i Ystad 2019.jpg

I have been contacted by one of the people in the picture, who wants the picture to be deleted. Unfortunately, there may be legal consequences for me, because the person now, does not want to be in the picture, for me it is perfectly fine for it to be deleted - Jonnmann (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place for the discussion. Please use the DR.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Request on File:Azərbaycan Televiziya logo.png

Hello,

I've noticed you divided both versions of this file and put the 2019 version in another file. I am letting you know that:

1) I have done a speedy deletion request for File:Azərbaycan Televiziya logo (2).png as it has now become redundant of File:AzTV (2019-h.h.).png and there's strictly no point of keeping both versions as they are uploaded in the same format and look the same;

2) I'm asking you whether it is possible to remove the revert done on June 18 as it is not a revert anymore but an useless overwrite of the same image, please?

Thank you in advance for your answers, Luchoxtrab (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Luchoxtrab: Please listen. You can think what you like, that is your thinking. Your doing is a problem.

Follow the process that is laid out, and follow the criteria that exists for the processes. If a file qualifies for speedy deletion for one of the listed criteria, then it can be speedy nominated listing the criteria it falls under. If it doesn't meet the criteria then it should be normal DR. Again, what you think should happen is simply irrelevant as it is not one of the listed criteria ... follow the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Boushra Yahya Almutawakel.png

Hello Billinghurst, you kept the file and mentioned something uploaded by the creator, what do you mean by this? I can only see one photograph which was clearly copied i.e. traced by a painter. Ailura (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Category:Akie Namiki

Category can't be empty, that's why I decided to delete it. But since you want to keep the page this way, I just prefer to step back and let others handle the situation by discussing it. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Akie Namiki.--125.230.83.62 17:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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. ShaanSenguptaTalk 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? ShaanSenguptaTalk 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 [3]  — 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. ShaanSenguptaTalk 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request

Please can you help me,

Commons:Deletion requests/File:KVB Logo.png. & User talk:Dinumalherath

There are so much Copyright Violations and Fair use not allowed stuffs going on. Please kindly check this problems.

Thank you! IDB.S (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Please look at the this user's (Special:Contributions/Dinumalherath) uploads lots uploads are seems like clear copyright violations.
Thank you! IDB.S (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@IDB.S: a user talk page is not the place to get general admin attention, please start at Com:AN and post where appropriate, and the first admin who is available and able to act will do so. DRs get dealt with by admins as they have time. We are all vols, not paid staff.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg

Sending this to any uninvolved administrator I can find. The above deletion discussion as seen on the administrators noticeboard; an involved admin (J. Mabel) is urging someone to close the discussion one way or the other. If it’s already closed, don’t do anything. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Available people will get to it when they are available. Pinging talk pages is not the most desirable approach IMNSHO.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
They already did. It was deleted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
And normally I don’t take unorthodox approaches like that; but I did in this case because another administrator was pleading for someone anyone to close the discussion ASAP. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@WestVirginiaWX: } DRs are typically not urgent, they will get dealt with in time; if they are urgent they will typically meet speedy criteria or require oversight and those processes exist. Any involved administrator knows how to escalate issues where required; see Commons:Administrators noticeboard and related pages. Closing out DRs usually takes time and patience, and complex DRs need a lot more of those and the right mindspace.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I understand. There were just other people asking for a decision to be made soon; so I posted a ton of talk page notifications. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, unrealistic expectations and knee jerk reactions do exist even around here. Just need to focus on the reality and remember that we are all volunteers. Please don't get caught up in other people's artificial maelstroms.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Art of emperor Paramardivarman Chandel

Can you please delete the art named Hazendraksh (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please use the requisite deletion processes, see Commons:Deletion policy  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Skarone

Hi Billinghurst I want ask you a question how can I add images in Category And make it a gallery. Ahmedragabb (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ahmedragabb: Categories are Categories, they should not be made into galleries. You're doing it wrong if that is your intent. We are not looking to build a page to curate, when we can autopopulate.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

pause marker (note to self)

migrating Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Monti_by_city and will need to move into place for the Images of and then fix the last bit of the template and remaining sanity checks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Dr. Richard buses in Vienna

Hello Billinghurst, you deleted this category a few days ago as it was "improperly named". I don't understand that: the company's name is "Dr. Richard", so what's wrong of a category named like this? I just created the Category:Dr. Richard buses in Styria and a category for this company's buses photographed in Vienna is needed. (I know, Category:Dr. Richard buses is a subcategory of Category:Buses in Vienna which meanwhile has become incorrect.) [[User:|Eweht]] (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eweht: The creator created and then requested deletion. I just processed it.
 (diff) 22:16, 11 August 2024 . . Öffis Graz (talk | contribs | block) 10 bytes Tag: Visual edit
 (diff) 21:57, 11 August 2024 . . Öffis Graz (talk | contribs | block) 68 bytes (←Created page with 'Category:Buses in Vienna Category:Public transport in Vienna') Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
I didn't go digging deeper.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
All right, thanks. Eweht (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate File:Modigliani, Amedeo - Young Girl with a Striped Blouse.jpg

as I wrote in the duplicate DR I am the same uploader of the two. Important are only the pixels, if the file is bigger this is information e.g. copyright, camera.., museum etc Oursana (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Marking it as G7 would have been the easiest way.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, what is G7?--Oursana (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
com:speedy delete => uploader request  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Pass 84.jpg

Why do you revert my edits? File:Pass 83.jpg File:Pass 85.jpg It's "Pass 03" thus it's blatantly misidentified and Commons:G2. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Confusion over Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mario Party 10 logo.png

I am confused by your deletion rationale on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mario Party 10 logo.png. It said is was deleted due to rationale, but I was opposing a speedy deletion for the file. Were you referring to the original speedy deletion nomination? (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Башня Согласия (Барта Гӏала).jpg

Is there any specific reason you think it is a copyright violation? It looks like a plausible file to me. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo der Schlossbrauerei Hirschau.svg

For your information. GerritR (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Please undelete

Please undelete Commons:Deletion requests/File:G5 Aurora Borealis over Crimea.jpg. The uploader is the author, and copy at another website doesn't mean she's not the author. The uploaded file is likely to be original hi-res with EXIF while a stolen unsourced copy is not hi-res with EXIF. If you ever send her to VRT, then please read here: User_talk:Gbawden#Please_undelete (admin Gbawden is also affected). No VRT. --ssr (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2024&oldid=953757813"