User talk:Billinghurst

Je suis Charlie
"Da mihi basium"
System-users.svg This user has an alternate account named SDrewthbot.

Kiko system imageEdit

Hello why have you deleted the Kiko system image from the Linn Products page? The image was supplied by Linn themselves and is copyrght free. TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andburslem (talk • contribs)

@Andburslem: There were two images, and one was a duplicate of the other, and I removed the image of lesser quality. I also marked the second for review by another administrator, and they subsequently deleted it.

For Commons to host an image we need to know its providence, and to know that it is able to be hosted with a free licence (see Commons:Scope). The image that you uploaded had no providence (you uploaded it, no evidence that it was Linn), and there is no evidence to show that it is freely licenced (no source, no exif data, etc.), so it gets deleted. Please read the scope page, and you can have any questions answered at Commons:Village pump  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment on phab:T106516Edit

I removed my comment after some reflection because it was not germane to the discussion regarding the bug, and not because I disagreed with it. Respectfully, I do not believe an apology is warranted in this case. I also don't think communicating via deleted comments is a great idea at all, hence this message here. If AKlapper_(WMF)'s inquiry regarding whether you would want to shepherd a patch set was genuine, rather than snark, I would reconsider an apology; I may have misunderstood or misinterpreted his comment. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to have managed to derail it despite my comment removal, unfortunately. For that, an apology to all of the bug subscribers may be in order. Storkk (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: My reply in that Phabricator task was pretty direct and frank (which can also be interpreted as snarky in some cultures or backgrounds) - I am sorry for that. Plus I did not realize that this could be worked around (as bawolff pointed out).
Still I don't see why WMF was explicitly mentioned - I assume it's not related to technical aspects of that specific bug but rather related to a variety of individual opinions and expectations in our community towards the WMF, somewhere between the two poles "It would be best if WMF did not exist" to "WMF shall fix every single bug out there because they get paid." (Obviously this is my very personal impression after years in this community, hence I'm using my personal account to add this comment instead of using AKlapper (WMF).)
If there is some expectation that some WMF folks should fix that bug, everybody is welcome to find someone (whether WMF or not) to work on it by explaining why the problem is important / urgent / should have higher priority. Given that manpower is not unlimited (neither in WMF nor in our entire community), some bugs simply get less attention than others, and different individuals have different priorities. I know that's not the answer that makes people happy but it's the reality in free software projects. --Malyacko (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: If there was a snarky comment, a snarky comment back is completely unhelpful, and just causes tensions. If anyone was being poked, then it was me, and I am able to handle it. I am more interested talking about resolving the bug, and knowing who, what or where, I need to cuddle/information/forum to progress the matter.

I found your comment insulting to a staff member, not only should it not have been made on the ticket, it is my opinion that it should not have been made in any open forum. You may or may not agree, that is your right, and now you have an opinion again to reflect upon.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Further Andre is between a rock and a hard place on many days, with much to do, if his approach is not graded "A" on every occasion, I am the last person to criticise. AGF AGF AGF, and compassion and understanding for a person who has been doing a really hard job.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that my comment was unhelpful. That is why I removed it. I'd like to note that as a programmer by trade and a user of Linux and other *nixes, I'm much more likely than the average person to be able to create and maintain a package to upgrade Wikimedia's imagemagick, although I've never written a deb package before. Taking at face value Malyacko's assertion that I misunderstood his intent, which was direct and frank rather than snarky, and to demonstrate some willingness to help solve the problem rather than escalate the snark, I volunteer to attempt this, which shouldn't be too impossible. @Malyacko: assuming I can get a debian package working, are there instructions on how to get it updated/installed? I'm not volunteering to become the upstream (debian/Ubuntu) imagemagick package maintainer, however. If this is something I should pursue, perhaps my talk page would be a better place to continue this conversation. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi: I don't see the need for the personal comments whenever something I do doesn't please you. It would be most beneficial if you would be so kind as to stick to the situations and omit personal remarks. Just above here you are reiterating AGF, AGF, but I feel you are omitting that with me. You really do not know what is inside my head; I do not presume to tell you what you are thinking and I would always assume that an error was made before considering any sort of comment such as you made today. This is a process. If mistakes are made, just point them out, leave the 'go for the jugular' moves to Dracula, ok? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Files restored; links restored; note left on the DN. Have a great day! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Thanks for the undeletions. To the rest ... umm, you deleted image(s) that were not part of a deletion discussion; you used tools, and didn't review the actions; your commentary against the deletion conversation was uninformative. So please don't categorise that as "something that doesn't please me".
I wish for Commons administrators to lift the quality of their work and their decision-making, and for them to remember that their actions and decisions spread wider than Commons. You evidently do not understand the impact of a deletion at a sister site, and the amount of work that it takes to detect it and to resolve it. That your expectation (implicit or explicit) of administrators at other wikis is to run around, and to hang out requesting undeletions is troublesome. You clearly do not understand the difficulties that admins at other wikis have when a Commons administrator deletes an image that was uploaded many years ago, and then is deleted seven days after a nomination. Even worse when it isn't even nominated and is deleted by use of tools without adequate observation, and review.

I have repeatedly come to your actions as they affect enwikisource, and needing to have them reversed. I have been through discussions with you about deletions previously, and you do tend to be a decisive deletionist. So without any additional reasoning against a deletion, your actions and history act as the reasoning. With your considerations you don't take the time to poke someone else or a community, nor to seek advice, so that too becomes part of your actions upon which you will be judged. I see you acting solely with the consideration of Commons, not the global project, and with what I consider misinterpretation of the precautionary principle.

All admins should be looking to increase their efficacy, instead I see them trying to increase the number of actions that they take with the qualification "AGF" when they make a mistake. AGF should not be used a "get out of jail free" card. If you wish to have that applied, you need to be upholding your end of the bargain of being seen to act on community consensus; to be learning and reflecting on your decisions, and to be looking to be changing your approach and actions in light of issues raised.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Billinghurst, your arrogance is misplaced. Assigning labels like deletionists to a person is offensive and unhelpful and make it much more difficult to have an open dialogue. What you are actually asking is special treatment for your beloved en-wikisource and you seem to be quite the wikisource activist. (Is this assignment helpful and does it make you more open to reflect on your actions?)
You can’t start picking on people and start lecturing every time someone makes a mistake or makes an admin action you disagree with. I have recently come across your uncivil and arrogant comments and I see you acting only in the interest of en-wikisource instead of Wikimedia Commons. Admins who only make a handful of deletions should find ways to lower the workload instead of complaining. Natuur12 (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Natuur12: I use the Wikisource cases as examples of my experience, are you denying that these have occurred? They are also for where I am seeing the issues and need to resolve these issues, so they are perfect examples. By the way where am I they asking for special treatment for enWS? I am asking above for the consideration of all the sister wikis from Commons admins to have due diligence and mindfulness for their actions and their impact upon the sister wikis, rather than the position of Commons alone.

I find it very interesting that you say I am acting in the interests is contrary to interests of Commons. In fact, I find that very interesting, as I am clearly acting in the interests of Commons in getting the deletions right, and having Commons fulfil its Commons:Scope ... two components: available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content ✓ and acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects ✓, so, as such your argument is either wrong or mischievous.

To your hyperbole ... I have not complained every time that a Commons admin makes a mistake. And you will hardly find me complaining about decisions with which I disagree. You will, however, find me addressing issues where I find that Commons admins can lift their game; where I believe that I am seeing Commons admins only having local regard, rather than the broad regard for the Wikimedia objectives. Commons is being criticised externally for its collective actions, and actions that already have communities looking to avoid Commons due to the actions of the admins.
Deletionist is a label, and I assign no connotations to it being good or bad, just the position that is most likely to occur from the persons actions, see m:Deletionism. Why is that considered offensive? I have tried open dialogue, on many occasions. If people have cauliflower in their ears, one ends up speaking very plainly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Billinghurst,
My apologies for the late reply. My last post was partly meant as a persiflage of your posts towards Ellin to make you understand that they can be hurtful since they are so full of anger and are directed at the person instead of the action. You should not take it literal. Perhaps it is a bit unfair to do so but I already asked you nicely before.
Calling someone a deletionist can be offensive if someone doesn’t label him/herself. Just like calling someone an inclusionist can be offensive plus those labels are against the spirit of the projects anyways since they are created to divide and not unite.
You should take my comment that you seem to be acting on the behave of en-wiki source quite literal but more as me finding your examples unbalanced and your comments to harsh. Instead of tackling the greater problem you focus on en-wikisource and lose your mellowness when you criticise admins making at least the one who posted above uncomfortable.
And of course, people will always avoid Commons because of admin actions but can’t you say the same about every project? We should prevent it as much as we can (well, when it comes to chasing away good users at least) but we cannot avoid it. Simply because whatever we do, sooner or later an admin will step on some diva’s toes creating external negative comments. Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


You wrote, "It is about the argument you bring, not the argument that you have." - can you explain: What are an "argument you bring and an "argument that you have"?--Elvey (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Oh, it requires the comparison of the meanings of the word "argument". Argument that you bring = the quality of the debate and points that you make; argument that you make = is the disputive nature.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

File:La donacion de Pipino el Breve al Papa Esteban II.jpgEdit

Hello. This file was uploaded in 2007 so it can't be COM:GRANDFATHER (which has to be before the introduction of OTRS in March 2006). 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Book_illustrations_by_Beatrix_Potter has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Billinghurst".