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

Why did you delete this file?

Hi, you deleted the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dom Jones.jpg. Why? What do you mean, "no suitable license to keep at Commons"? The file is my own work. It's from a video I took. I linked the full video to prove that. What's the deal? Was there a rule change that I'm not aware of where people are no longer allowed to upload their own work to Commons? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @BottleOfChocolateMilk: : are you saying that YouTube user alethiology is you? Because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfTBAVeyNbo doesn't offer a free license, and https://www.youtube.com/@alethiology8321 doesn't give any indication of being connected to your WMF account. If you fix one of those two, then the image can presumably be undeleted. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Yes, that account does belong to me. I have added a Creative Commons license. Note that the video is unlisted and has 9 views. It's my video and my channel. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: thanks! @Billinghurst: may I assume that as the deleting admin, you would now be willing to undelete this, instead of making this user go through a formal UNDEL request? - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: : undeleted File:Dom Jones.jpg and amended the deletion discussiopn. Please update the license to use {{YouTube CC-BY}} and please update the source to point to the work at youtube. This will also allow us to validate the license as being at youtube at the time, so if it ever is removed, we can utilise our verification process. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: just to be clear, you should like link your YouTube video as the source, and you should include the license of the YouTube video as at least one of the available licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

File deleted by mistake - not a copyright violation

Hello. The File:Peter Jordan em 2022.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation and was deleted, but it wasn't a copyright violation. I linked the YouTube video source, which is under a Creative Commons license. I specifically put in the license which the image was under, both in English and in Brazilian Portuguese, so that this wouldn't happen. Pato ilógico (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pato ilógico: I checked the file at YouTube and there was no permissible licence showing. When there is a suitable licence, please use the undelete process to have the file retrieved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you help me out with some information

I'm curious which files you found [[File:Dallas Cowboys (51156284890).jpg]] and [[File: San Francisco 49ers (51155408668).jpg]] to be duplicates of, so that I can properly categorize the files that remain on the project. Help would be appreciate. Thank you. SecretName101 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Cannot tell once deleted, the matching machinery doesn't work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, billinghurst, it can be done. You download the image to your machine and then copy-paste or drag and drop into Google Lens. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The system machinery of Commons doesn't work for deleted files, it just worked for find the duplicate. Not certain that the stalker comment is that helpful as I definitely didn't sign up for using the hit and miss of Google Lens to help users bulk uploading folders from websites of other people's files to find the duplicate files that the system already identified. Definitely got better things to do with my time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories with "potential to be populated"

Hi.
I appointed Category:Lucy G. Acosta for speedy deletion, but you Reverted because the category has a link to Wikipedia and so it has "potential to be populated". But Lucy G. Acosta died on 8 March 2008, if it wasn't populated yet, it won't be populated too soon.
The same happened with Category:Vashti McCollum, who passed away on 20 August 2006. It won't be populated too soon.
Having a connection to Wikipedia, for itself, is not a good reason for maintaining a category. They are different projects.
And if, at any point, an image of these people is uploaded to the project, we can just recreate the category.
Minerva97 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Minerva97: These are linked categories to Wikidata and they have potential to be filled, so on face value they are not eligible for speedy deletion. The purpose of speedy deleting empty categories is to allow for the removal of unuseful empty categories, not solely empty categories. What value do you see in deleting them? As with anything else that is not valid for speedy deletion, there is a process for reaching a consensus for deletion, and that you opinion fits in the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Finnish army equipment photos

Hello, the picture uploaded of the Sisu GTP vehicle here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sisu_GTP_4X4.jpg has since been deleted. The reason stated for this was "The material cannot be used for advertising or marketing purposes or to make profit". I fail to see how usage on Wikipedia constitutes any of these. Usage on that self-proclaimed encyclopedia is not commercial or profit-seeking (there are no advertisements to view). I would call this use informational, even educational.

The Finnish Defence Forces website features an equipment gallery, where it is stated in Finnish, that:

Ladattavan materiaalin käyttöehdot Kuvia saa käyttää uutisia ja muuta tiedonvälitystä palvelevissa tarkoituksissa. Kuvia voi käyttää myös blogitekstien yhteydessä, samoin kuin sosiaalisessa mediassa. Kuvien käyttö on maksutonta, mutta edellyttää käyttöehtojen hyväksymistä. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää mainonnassa, markkinoinnissa tai ansaintatarkoituksessa. Käyttäjä ei saa siirtää eikä myydä julkaisuoikeutta kolmannelle osapuolelle. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää hyvien tapojen vastaisesti. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää mihinkään lainvastaiseen tarkoitukseen tai mitään yritystä, yhdistystä, henkilöä tai tuotemerkkiä loukkaavassa tarkoituksessa. Lähdemerkintä on annettava muodossa (Puolustusvoimat) hyvän tavan mukaisesti.

There has been a wrongheaded fixation on the "no commercial usage" clause, which doesn't even apply here. Yet the first part, about "purposes serving the transmission of information", news and blogs and social media, is being ignored. Those latter points seem closer to "topical decoration" and articles on Wikipedia certainly could benefit from that.

In addition to the above from the equipment gallery, a site-wide policy is laid out here: https://puolustusvoimat.fi/tietoa-sivustosta

Kuvat ja niiden käyttöoikeudet Kuvien käyttöoikeudet ovat Puolustusvoimilla. Muu käyttö esimerkiksi koulutusmateriaaleissa ja oppikirjoissa on mahdollista. Kuvan julkaisun yhteydessä tulee mainita kuvaaja ja käyttöoikeuden haltija. Kuvia ei saa manipuloida tai muuttaa ilman lupaa, eikä niitä saa hyödyntää sopimattomalla tai hyvän tavan vastaisella tavalla eikä käyttää markkinointi- ja mainostarkoituksiin tai muihin kaupallisiin tarkoituksiin. Käyttäjä ei saa siirtää julkaisuoikeutta kolmannelle osapuolelle.

I would interpret all of this in a way that usage on Wikipedia, with a source and credit provided as requested, constitutes good faith usage, and that these photos should not be deleted for reasons of supposed copyright infringement. Granted, the exact copyright or license tag to be used should be figured out. No specific policy like CC or public domain is explicitly stated in the source.

I had time to upload three photos from the equipment gallery in a similar way. This one has been deleted already: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sisu_GTP_4X4.jpg

These other two should also be deleted for completeness' sake, if this unfavorable interpretation of the FDF's image use policy stands: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FNS_Kallanpaa.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FNS_Isku.jpg MOSTKA87 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MOSTKA87: this is actually a little tricky. There are several different things going on here which play against each other. On the one hand, Commons accepts only material which (in copyright terms) "can be reused commercially". On the other hand, we allow non-copyright restrictions, such as moral rights and personality rights. The question here is basically how we interpret the "make a profit" issue.

Many images cannot be used in advertising on a moral rights/personality rights basis because of the implied endorsement of some product or service, and we'll host images where that is the only limitation. But does the limitation against making a profit mean this cannot be used in a commercially published book? As a postcard? Printed on a mug that is sold? If it means any of those, then this becomes really only a non-commercial license, and as a matter of policy (not law), we don't allow those on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems a little backwards for a free, non-commercial encyclopedia (which doesn't even feature advertisements) to require a commercial license from hosted media. It would make sense to me that licenses permitting non-commercial usage would be acceptable for this mildly educational, informational use.

I have emailed the public information department of the Finnish Defence Forces, to ask if they can specify a license for the imagery they publish on their websites. I have to say, the slightly vague terms on the site so far, align quite well with "CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED"... MOSTKA87 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@MOSTKA87: Commons is not an encyclopedia, it's a media repository, and very early on the decision was made that we would only host media that (1) permits derivatives and (2) allows commercial use. CC BY-NC licenses are specifically not allowed (except as secondary choices when a freer license is also available). - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikimedia Licensing Policy. Note that Commons is singled out as not even being allowed an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) on this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment @MOSTKA87: Firstly, please do not confuse Commons <=> Wikipedia <=> Wikimedia <=> other WMF sister wikis and try to overlay a single element in this regard. While images at Commons are available across all wikis, we cannot take all images, and in cases some of the wikis allow a local upload. Secondly, I don't make the rules of the Commons community and I wasn't here at the time of the founding principles. If a work is (CCn.n-by)-NC we essentially cannot host it at Commons as it needs to be able to be commercially reused (all from the founding principle and the rules). Most of the Wikipedias have a fair use exemption, so look to follow the respective WP guidance where you are editing articles on local uploading for fair use retention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll just fix typos in articles from now on. Media is just impossible to deal with, I'm just going to end up banned... MOSTKA87 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@MOSTKA87: I don't think that there has been any sort of reprimand or any personal reflection on you. We all have files deleted based on further research, information, so please don't take this as anything personal. <shrug> Your pictures that are educational are welcome. If you are unsure about uploads or have any questions about copyright, try Com:VPC. Bans are not put in place for good faith edits and uploads, even when there are mistakes, it is simply being open to discussion and learning, and that is for everyone.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

About those deletion requests

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)

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)