User talk:Billinghurst

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

Dcoetzee talk pageEdit

Could you unprotect the talk page please, or raise this page protection at AN? Many volunteers who are not Commons Administrators work with Dcoetzee's legacy of uploads, especially the Google Art project images. Using their user talk page to flag notices for deletion requests and other issues is useful and putting the information anywhere else makes no sense. Commons has no policy for stopping all edits to a banned user's talk page even when the banned user can no longer edit it. Thanks -- (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to raise it at AN. (Obviously) I believe having contributions on the talk page of a banned user is counter-productive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I saw the you deleted the logo of ICCROM that I uploaded to the Spanish language article about it. I work for ICCROM, therefore I am the rightful owner of the logo, but I understand that the Spanish language Wikipedia forbids fair use images. However, isn't there an exception for logos of organizations? Many thanks --Akozlova

That you are an employee of an organisation does not allow you to own the copyright of a logo. If your organisation is willing to put the design of the logo into the public domain then please have someone authoritative within the organisation follow the process at Commons:OTRS. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
So there is no way to upload the logo under "fair use"? It has to be released into the public domain? I know exceptions are made under the Wikipedia in English and in other languages for logos to be uploaded under a "fair use" policy.  — Akozlova
English Wikipedia has an allowance for fair use through w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline as it limits how and where an image can be used. Commons, however, is the central point for all wikis to store files, so has a no fair use statement in its Commons:Project scope. If that is an issue for articles at Spanish Wikipedia then you should address that matter at that wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

deletion of videoEdit

Can you please explain your reasoning for deleting the video of the challenge please? This is work done for Wikimedia levant. --Tarawneh (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Audio was already removed. --Tarawneh (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Please restore links in different Wikipedia projects. --Tarawneh (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Saw that now, have already repatriated it. Wasn't noted, and I missed it. Apologies.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Toollabs doesn't show any links to revert.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Perfect. I thought the revert was done after the link removal. Now, I need to calm the already very very very angry students for he removal of the video :D --Tarawneh (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, well, <shrug> demonstrates none of us are perfect, though the system works in the end, AND our value to upholding copyright. FWIW the CDL log.

File:An old trade card (George Inn, Southwark).jpgEdit

Hi, sorry to bother you but while looking for something else I’ve seen your upload “An old trade card (George Inn, Southwark).jpg” file. I’m interested in the history of printing and I have to say it looks at least fifty years later than is claimed in the source.

The styles of font used in it - a display face on “R. Hammond” and slab-serif on “stage waggon” - are reported in history books I’ve seen to have only really come in in the nineteenth century. In addition, I’ve looked up the printer’s name on Google Books and I can find sources for them existing in 1828 and 1826 (printing editions of a pamphlet about conjoined twins) but not any other date. (If you compare with other trade cards on Wikimedia certainly from the eighteenth century, they’re of a very different design-often custom-engraved to replicate elegant handwriting or in lettering styles of the time.) So this is just a quick impression, but I think this is later than claimed. Let me know if you need more sources on this. Blythwood (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: The image was taken from the published work "The George Inn, Southwark" which I have reproduced at English Wikisource. At the bottom of the image page you will see links to the reproduced page at Wikisource, and the chapter. It states 1750, and that is the labelling I applied. I would suggest that you add your commentary to the talk page of the image, AND apply one of the pointer templates to point from the file page to the file talk page, eg. {{Factual accuracy}}. Thanks for the note.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, sounds good, done so. I've seen this image elsewhere so I've tried to add a good explanation of why I think this is wrong. To be clear, obviously I'm not trying to criticise your work uploading this at all - this is the date the source says. Blythwood (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Blythwood: I fully understand it was from academic interest and a desire for accuracy in where you are coming on the matter, and I appreciated the indication of interest. The intrigues of the argument of our images can often be lost in this place. <shrug> That should not stop us adding the minutiae of life to such these images. :-) Actually the thing of greater interest to me is the the debate of the (in)accuracy and how that propagates through history, and the real importance of good source information here, and why we encourage provenance details. (Yes I am totally boring.)  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Billinghurst!Edit

Return to the user page of "Billinghurst".