User talk:Gwillhickers

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Washington Head2 W-F.jpg

Files with missing information may be deleted[edit]

File:Mariner 10 1975 Issue-10c.jpg and File:Pioneer Jupiter 1975 Issue-10c.jpg which you uploaded are missing source, author, and date information. Please complete the documentation to prevent deletion of these files. O'Dea (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Cutthroat trout thankyou.jpg[edit]

Hi, the source information is missing resp. insufficient. --Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I added what I hope is the correct info, taken from the original file. Is this what you're referring to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. That was what I was looking for. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted upload at File:30cTR.jpg[edit]

I have reverted your upload to File:30cTR.jpg and ask that you upload your new image under the name that you indicated that you prefered. The reversion is due to the information that can be found at Commons:Overwriting existing files, and your change is more than a minor update. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I would prefer to simply upload a better version of the existing file, rather than having two files of the same image with different names, which is redundant and a waste of wikipedia/commons resources. What would be the point of keeping the smaller poor quality image when there could be a much better one with a name that wasn't so cryptic? Don't mean to be difficult but could you please be more specific and cite the actual policy that is at issue here and explain what harm would have been done, as compared to what good would be accomplished here? I have been improving images for years. In cases where a file is renamed, a redirect is employed. Some of the editors who have renamed files I requested moves for use a bot that automatically goes to the article where the original filename is being used and installs the new (moved) filename. Even if they didn't a redirect would still display the moved file. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I pointed you to the official page. Yours is a new image, it is not the same (torn corner on stamp, colouration, etc.) There is plenty of scope for multiple images of similar objects, and it is no waste of space or resources, as both images are still there, so an overwrite uses the same amount of resources, and just lessens availability. Thinking that we should be limiting ourselves to one image of each stamp is limiting your vision of the site (please look at our scope). If you have been doing that for years, then you should have been pointed to the community document before, and you should consider reverting to previous versions, and uploading your versions separately. If images are significantly of a lesser/unsuitable quality, then there is a process to undertake to address that that the community has decided upon, and undertakes, and is a consultative review process. The issue of moves and redirects is not relevant to the point that I am making (and truly you don't need to tell me that process, and underlying, I am well aware of those aspects).  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, NahidSultan, Marcus Cyron, Green Giant, Hindustanilanguage:. -- Bbillinghurst, each image has a link for uploading a "new version". i.e.'Version' -- as in 'different'. Are you suggesting that any new image be 'exactly' the same as the original? What would be the point of uploading a new image if we're not supposed to introduce improvements? There are many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of images that have been improved over the years, uploaded by many different editors where the previous image is still available for viewing in the file history. It would help if you could cite the actual item in policy rather than linking me to the entire page with the assumption that I have violated some sort of policy. Meanwhile, I'll upload the image separately and go along with your wishes here. Don't mean to be a problem. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Graf Zeppelin stamp $2 60 1930 issue.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Graf Zeppelin stamp of 1930, $2.60.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.


Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

Commons File mover.svg

Hi Gwillhickers, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch | English | 한국어 | മലയാളം | Русский | +/− INeverCry 04:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Over-uploading again[edit]

It's a little disconcerting to see a File:Stamp US 1862 3c revenue proprietary.jpg that is completely different from the stamp in my own collection. Not only is my own image effectively deleted, we get bizarrities like my gallery of uploads depicting stamps I've never owned. I see that other people have pointed out Commons:Overwriting existing files that forbids overwriting in this case, and in response to your concern about space, Commons has enough spare terabyte to record hundreds of individual examples of every type of stamp ever issued. So if you'd re-upload your image to a different name, I'd appreciate it. Stan Shebs (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stan Shebs: My apologies. Should have looked at the links to this image. I have reverted the image to its original. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Washington stamp 2c 1903 issue.JPG
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Stamps of the United States 1901-1910, Washington portrait (front view).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Hamilton Beer revenue stamp $2 Hogshead.JPG
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Revenue stamps of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Beer Stamp, Series 1871 (Hamilton).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Washington Revenue $1 1862 issue.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Revenue stamps of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 1 dollar Manifest tax stamps.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Washington revenue $10 1872 issue R149P4.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Revenue stamps of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service; 1871 third issue of U.S. revenue stamps, $10 denomination.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Newspapers periodicals set4 1879.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Newspaper stamps -- High value denominations of U.S. Newspapers & Periodicals stamps in 1875 series.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Newspapers periodicals 25c 1895.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Newspaper stamps of the United States; 1895 U.S. Newspapers periodicals stamps, 25c.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Newspapers periodicals 10c die proof 1915 issue.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
1915 U.S. Newspapers periodicals stamps, 10-cent, die proof.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Oregon Swallowtail[edit]

Hi there, can you add source info for this image: File:Papiliooregoniusstamp.jpeg? Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Hello, one of the pictures (Apollo 1975 Issue) had a satisfiable level of quality that I would be so glad to share it inside my book. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project#mediaviewer/File:Apollo_Soyuz_1975_Issue-10c.jpg While its a governmental work however if you think that there is any copyright issues which you should describe me more about, then you can inform me only during next few days. Thanks again for your contributions and for what you shared, Lt. Ghasemi --88.227.237.138 15:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)