This user is an administrator.
This user has a bot.
Email this user.

User talk:Billinghurst

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


Je suis Charlie
"Da mihi basium"
This user has an alternate account named SDrewthbot.
If you are looking to get my attention, you can

About those deletion requests

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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

@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)[reply]
Why was it out of scope? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is there for you to read.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete deletion closures

[edit]

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)[reply]

✓ 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)[reply]


Category:WikiKedis

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Oh, I was waiting for it to reappear in the queue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:1‎

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Zweifach_verworfenen_L%C3%B6schantrag_revidieren? FYI.--GerritR (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Logo_der_Schlossbrauerei_Hirschau.svg FYI. GerritR (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs_by_Willem_van_de_Poll_in_Marseille_(1935)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Template Is Not Creating The Loop.
Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It adds a parent category and when one goes there, the redirect leads back .. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

DR of committee C-SPAN

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Deletion of duplicates

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Lizamavel.jpg

[edit]

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]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billinghurst&oldid=883305921"