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

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

That is anybody's job. No requirement to be an administrator to fix licence tags.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. 0x0a (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

np. Thanks for flushing the ones I add, btw. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• File:SkyPlaza Kashiwa Tower 1F outdoor stairs 20230101.jpg
• File:SkyPlaza Kashiwa Tower 1F outdoor lighting 20230707.jpg
• File:SkyPlaza Kashiwa Tower 1F outdoor stairs 20240117.jpg

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]