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!

File:Vlad Tepes 001.jpg[edit]

Hi. Thanks for looking into the File:Vlad Tepes 001.jpg, I understand that is not an exact duplicate due to some coloring, but why not universally replace it with a much better quality File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg, and keep it in Commons if necessary. It is used in 52 articles and they will all benefit from its replacement. Thoughts? --Codrin.B (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Because it is a nightmare of choices by looking at the both images and their histories. The wikis are free to choose which version of the image they wish to use without me, or others second guessing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that they are free to choose what they use, but this is what happens many times (I would say 90% of the time), including in this case: 1. Picture of low quality uploaded, 2. Picture of low quality used in many articles, 3. Picture of high quality uploaded, but separate and not instead of the old (user didn't know how to replace the old one or didn't know about it). 4. Article authors never know about the new picture (there is no notification system). So in such cases isn't it better to replace the bad quality picture as duplicate even if it is not 100% identical with the better quality one? Or at least, replace it in articles and yet keep it commons, just in case someone really wants it.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This case is not a normal case, as the file overwrite is problematic and the colours are different. In this specific case I am choosing not to act. In others, I may.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough :-) Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleting duplicates[edit]

Hi billinghurst, I see that you've deleted File:043L20020878 Breitenlee, Umleitung Linie 24A, Oleandergasse, Typ U10.jpg, rather than its duplicate File:043L20020878 Bus, Breitenlee, Umleitung Bus Oleandergasse Rautenweg, Typ U10, Linie 24A.jpg which I marked for deletion. May I ask why? IIRC the new file you deleted had a better description and better categorization, which is why I marked the older one for deletion. darkweasel94 13:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We generally keep the older files where they are duplicates and delete the new files. The new files will not be used off-wiki, so we don't need to create redirects which keeps it cleaner. Descriptions and categorisation are easy things to change.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting duplicates2[edit]

Hello Billinghurst,

sorry, you made here an unclear explanation: File_talk:Communauté_silhouette.svg (and you had not responded). (Maybe it was probably thought too much that admins verify the files that you delete.) So I must reupload the deleted file? User: Perhelion22:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Answered in situ  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry with all due respect, can you understand that I feel me a little bit mocked by you!? User: Perhelion05:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
No, why would I want to? AGF.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done User: Perhelion 14:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding File:Flag of the City of Nanjing.svg[edit]

I noticed that you recently declined a rename request for this file. Just to let you know that the image isn't used in any templates within any Wikipedia projects, and in all cases they are simple image placements. --benlisquareTalkContribs 04:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

File:WWETag Team Champion Cody Rhodes November 2013.jpg[edit]

Hi, I saw you tagged this file as a copyright violation. However, the bot confirmed the license was correctly applied at the time of the upload, so I added {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. I wanted to remind you that this template exists, so you can mark flickr license changes if you see them in the future. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sprejem 315 ranjencev na ljubljanskem kolodvoru.jpg[edit]

Hi, you've closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sprejem 315 ranjencev na ljubljanskem kolodvoru.jpg as 'deleted', but the file has not been deleted. Can you please correct this? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The file has been deleted, there is now a redirect to the other image, as per the statement "treated as a duplicate".  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion reasoning[edit]

I understand that you do not believe having a superior SVG version is a reason for an inferior JPEG/PNG to be deleted, but perhaps you should just ignore my DRs when I use that reasoning in the future, because everyone else seems to disagree. This reasoning is consistently accepted by other admins. See these DRs where other admins all agree: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; and when I renominate your closures they are deleted.

I only nominate newly-uploaded images under this reasoning when there is a pre-existing SVG version, I do not nominate JPEG/PNG images that are already here (unlike some users) because that does not meet the deletion criteria. Fry1989 eh? 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


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)