User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
"Da mihi basium"
System-users.svg This user has an alternate account named SDrewthbot.

TUSC token d91ad562a2ec917955d6510fb2e7bdc6[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Thanks for moved that. Uğurkent (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What ?[edit]

Why did you reject this request ? There is no evidence (reliable sources) to prove that the women was Rukiye. If you have such sources, please provide it. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is premature to do yet another rename. Have the conversation, and let us see what is the outcome. Re your proposed name, as the image is specifically a close-up of the man and the woman, and it is a derivative of an existing file, it is not reasonable to exclude the woman so easily. The woman is clearly prominent, and related in some sense to Ataturk, so we let the conversation continue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. It's very clear taht there is no evidence for Rukiye. So not you but other filemovers must control my reguest. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Takabeg. I am not an involved user, beyond I have renamed it once per a request. So please stop your forcing an issue where an administrator is simply asking you to wait and discuss it and resolve it on the talk page. Once that discussion is concluded then we can make a decision what to do with the blessed file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop POV pushing action. Only an user claimed that this women was Rukiye without reliable sources. However you move filename without any source. Moreover, you are an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. I'm sorry but I cannot understand why you accepte sourceless name and reject sourced original caption abusing INVOLVED and POV ? 11:42, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takabeg (talk • contribs) 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Get off your high horse and listen. The file name is in dispute and should not be renamed until that is resolved. So have your conversations, await responses and when the conversation is completed, we will know where to go. I have no particularly opinion, so take your accusations that I have and put them some place else.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I say to you "Get off your high horse and listen." If I had proposed to chane the name "Rukiye" to "Fikriye", you were right. But the file name that I proposed is not disputable. You've changed from a disputable name to another disputable name. Please go to bed and leave to other filemovers. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Take it to the talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


As I thought I had already shown, past history informs us that a knowledge base isn't going to change the way Stefan4 files DRs like this - that's why this was a user issue. All it can do is perhaps save the time of the people forced to deal with them, by helping others get to the correct outcome quicker. That doesn't justify continuing to allow him to make these kinds of speculative/hype-theoretical nominations, whose rationales will continue to look like this one did, whatever knowledge base is built up in future. I don't know why you directed me to the DR itself, I had no real interest in the actual issue at all, just the way Stefan raised it (since it reminded me of the past disputes) - I wouldn't have been upset at all if it ended in delete - but I'm not seeing any good reason why it should have been closed as keep either, because both the rationale and the ensuing debate are completely devoid of any real evidence or compelling points either way, as you seem to have recognised. Fixing that systemic problem is desirable, but in this case, it would have been better for Commons all round if this exercise in repeated time wasting was prevented at source, by either changing Stefan's approach to ensure he only begins DRs once significant doubt has properly been established, or topic banning him if he can't figure out how to do that or why it's desirable. Ultra7 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

People are people, and we are better to fix the system. You will see in my response that I said to fix the system, and the processes. Blaming people for having a different approach to you, is just going to lead to nothing but a fruitless battle; coming into it citing it as a user problem without accounting for lack of system, and then proceeding on what seemed like a spray was going to solve nothing. If we have a page that addresses the topic matter, then we don't have to go around and around the same roundabout.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


You are deleting the wrong copy of the files marked duplicate (File:Flickr - - Basic education programs build skills for the future in Rwanda.jpg and File:Flickr - - Chairwoman Rose Peter of the Upendo Women Growers Association.jpg). You are deleting the larger files! Instead, you should be deleting the file where the duplicate template is. --P 1 9 9   14:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@P199: Actually, you are mistaken, I kept all the larger files (by size). I double checked them as I did them (as I always do). There was one that was deleted that was larger in dimensions, though less image dense.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I trust you know what you're doing. Regards, --P 1 9 9   16:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@P199: Remember that if there is a better quality copy of the same image at Flickr, then we can grab it and overwrite the file. Often people grab a smaller dimension file by accident.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

DR page[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:EAA.png should be deleted, since the image is now gone. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done thx
Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 01:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)