User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2014

File:Cleome viscosa by kadavoor.jpg

Why you did that way? In fact, I requested just opposite. :) File:Cleome viscosa by kadavoor.jpg was the new version with background extended with the help of graphics team. The small file size is due to denoising. I forgot the old upload, and only found today and so the request. Or, you can simply upload the one with extended background over File:Yellow Spider Flower Cleome viscosa.jpg as you already deleted that file. Thanks. Jee 10:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Or simply undelete File:Cleome viscosa by kadavoor.jpg so that I can apply {{Superseded}} on File:Yellow Spider Flower Cleome viscosa.jpg. I had even improved the file description of File:Cleome viscosa by kadavoor.jpg too. :( Jee 11:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We generally keep older or higher quality files for duplicate requests (as per the explanation). If the request is outside of those parameters, then it would be useful to add that information to the request. (I failed mindreading)  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; and thanks for the revert. I will be more careful in future. Happy new year. Jee 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Creator:Thomas Theophilus Metcalfe

hi there, thank you for the template, it's a good idea. Gryffindor (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome @Gryffindor: . If you need more, and don't feel comfortable making your own, give me a bell. To note that they are traditional pages (containing a template and in the Creator: namespace) that are transcluded rather than a template. The page doesn't take parameters, note the colon in the middle, not a bar, and it inserts the page in its entirety.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Phil Fish dupe

Is there a reason why you kept the tagged File:Phil 15.jpg instead of File:Phil Fish - gamma 3D (2008).jpg? I thought the latter was used more often, had a more precise title, and had the actual Flickr confirmation.  czar ♔ 04:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Without looking at it all again …
quality/size >> (if same quality/size) age >> (if same quality/size/age) most linked && descriptive naming
We can {{Rename}} if required  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, but I could have sworn the other one was older or otherwise would have taken precedence. Anyway, renaming would be a good idea, I think—something like Phil Fish at GAMMA 3D 2008.jpg czar ♔ 07:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. FWIW this file was 130kb larger to the same dimensions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

delete one version

hi Billinghurst,

could you please delete one of my double uploads here [1], which was done by mistake. They are both the same version, so you can delete whichever one. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you also please delete the middle version in this image [2], the crop wasn't done properly, so I uploaded the corrected version after noticing it. Gryffindor (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to delete it, no value to delete it; nothing will be gained.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

let it be

to rename my Files. It is absolutely superfluous. All files areused in articles and have correct categories. Rename it retour! There are thousands of files with this pattern of name, put your hands off. --Ralf Roleček 10:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ralf Roletschek: Commons:Renaming. You are welcome to suggest files with a generic naming to be renamed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As an addendum. Others suggest the renames, and admins undertake them, which what happened here and those are within the guidance, and it is hard for me to refuse renames when it makes the files more usable crosswiki. If you have an issue with the approach, then you should address it to the community, at Commons:Village pump  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Deletion

@Billinghurst: You recently deleted File:Polygaleae distribution.svg and retained File:Polygalaceae distribution.svg. Unfortunately you kept the duplicate and deleted the file that should've been retained. (This can be verified by consulting the reference information, which has a map of Polygaleae, but not Polygalaceae.) I tried to prevent this from happening before the deletion took place, but apparently I missed a step somewhere. To fix this problem I have proposed on the File:Polygalaceae distribution.svg page that it be renamed to File:Polygaleae distribution.svg. If this move is within your administrative capabilities, please do so as quickly as possible. Thanks. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Specificity is a marvellous thing. If you mark something as duplicate, that is a very specific request about the images being the same where we only have the descriptions to work from, and they were a bit of confused mess. If there are errors in names and problems, then being specific about what is the problem, and what is the resolution is helpful. Here the request should have been a deletion, and based on {{Bad name}}.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Gene sequences

Hi,

This relates to your deletion of File:PBB GE MYH6 204737 s at tn.png and redirecting it to File:PBB GE MYH7 204737 s at tn.png, as well as a bunch of other similar files you deleted. I declined this particular delete and redirect twice in 2011, because although the files are identical the subjects are different. Specifically in this case one was of w:MYH6 and the other was of w:MYH7.

While deletion policy supports deletion of identical files such as these, but they haven't been correctly executed as the description from the deleted duplicate should be merged across.

My uncertainty about how to handle the merging is reason why I declined in first place. For a start, the redirect itself is potentially misleading - why should something about MYH6 redirect to something about MYH7? Saying this file is the "Gene expression pattern of the gene MYH7" is correct but neglects MYH6 entirely. Saying its "of the genes MYH6 and MYH7" is confusing - does it show the combination of the 2, or do both have the same expression? What happens if there are several genes involved?

I tried pinging the molecular biology wikiproject on en.wp when this came up before, but got no response. My feeling is the correct action would be to find an overarching name, but I'm no molecular biologist so not a clue what that would be.

As an analogy: If these files were global distribution maps of two animal species in the same genus with an near-identical range (say Nimbochromis livingstonii and N. fuscotaeniatus - Cichlids restricted to Lake Malawi), the global maps would be identical. The same issues as with the genes would arise if the livingstonii map was redirected to the fuscotaeniatus map. However, I can identify a generic file name eg "Nimbochromis species distribution map", and redirecting both files there along with a description that says "Distibution maps of the following Nimbochromis species: ... All are restricted to Lake Malawi." would resolve all those issues adequately.

I'm not sure what the analogous approach for these (strongly-related) genes would be...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

NOGALLERY

Why did you add _NOGALLERY_ here and not here? Why use _NOGALLERY_ at all (in this case)? - dcljr (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you had a look at the images? Once you had, it would be pretty evident why, and why a listing of names has more benefit then seeing the images.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no difference, on the whole, between the images at Category:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism Volume I and Category:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism Volume II. So, again, why do things differently in the two cats? Also, IMHO, even though the images are of scanned text (mostly), seeing the images would be more informative to browsers of the category than seeing only the file names. - dcljr (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I added the tag, at that time, so I could get a straight list of the contents of the gallery and work through issues of missing scanned pages. The thumbnails are practicably indistinguishable pages with names that say A Treatise on Electric.... If I recall I was working at Wikisource, and it was a by-product maintenance act at this end, and only one brain, one set of hands. Feel free to change the other if you want a pigeon pair.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

duplicate

Hi Billinghurst, as I pointed out in my duplicate request both files have the same time and pixels, only differ in size, which IMHO makes them duplicate. Regards--Oursana (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Side by side the images are not exact … different perspectives. It is not time or the pixel account that is pertinent in this case.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Abuse Filter 122

You appear to be the editor who most recently updated Special:AbuseFilter/history/122 As I said at Commons talk:Abuse filter#Namespace not required for images The error was "It appears that this gallery contains no images", which is mistaken since I had just previewed the galleries before trying to save the page. There's an easy workaround but since gallery syntax does not require images to include a namespace, I think the abuse filter should be changed. 72.244.204.17 23:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit didn't hit abuse filter 122, it only looks to have edit filter 16. Filter 122 has a different purpose from which you believe and it seems to be functioning perfectly well.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: The thing about duplicates

Ok, thank you for warning me. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 21:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What was the perceived problem?

Hi, what was your thinking here initially? We expect to be using that and the others I organized a lot, so I need some feedback. Email works. Right now I'm mostly hanging at Wikibooks so answer there (here) if you would. Thanks // FrankB 04:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fabartus: Oh, forgot to revert the notification from your page. It is unusual for someone with sixteen edits to start creating templates, linking them to categories, and leave them sitting there empty with external urls, where the same urls have been removed from the pages at enWB. I was starting the process of clearning up, and then decided to leave it and watch for any development.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Why removed duplicate template?

Hello, I'm just wondering why you removed the duplicate template when the images are exactly the same. The only difference was that the rotatebot got to one and not the other. However, you'll note that they are still exactly the same. If you could please remove one, that would be good. Thank you, The Haz _talk 13:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Was waiting for things to be sorted.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, The Haz _talk 12:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

redundant files

We have obvious redundancy between File:Jupiter.Aurora.HST.UV.jpg, File:Satellite Footprints Seen in Jupiter Aurora.jpg, and File:Hubble Jupiter Aurora (NASA) (420376085).jpg. Now my suggestion is to delete the latter two, because as I said, they are obviously upscaled by a factor of 4. Obvious squares of 4*4 pixels show that. So the resolution of the first mentioned file is actually higher than that of the other two. (2842×1617 pixels after crop, divided by 4 equals 710.5×404,25, which is lower than 752×417.) The first mentioned is also the original file NASA released here: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2000/38/image/a/, where they give it out as "The best resolution available". The encoding we have here is encoded at -quality 98 with no chroma subsampling. So there is little possibility of significant quality loss. File:Hubble Jupiter Aurora (NASA) (420376085).jpg has the same content and resolution as File:Satellite Footprints Seen in Jupiter Aurora.jpg when we strip captions and borders - which I believe we want to do because we don't want hardcoded borders in the file and for the caption information we have metadata in file descriptions and image annotations. I already moved that information to the file description of the first mentioned file. Can you follow that? What do you think?--Scanmap (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Scanmap: Once we start going through opinions and hypothesis we move out of the zone of speedy to normal, such that the files just need to go through a normal deletion process, rather than a speedy deletion process. It should be a fairly simple deletion request and I would invite you to take the above reasoning to a DR. As a note, the obvious is not always obvious, so as you have seen above it is the conversation that is important. Also to note that the {{Duplicate}} has ha sthe ability carry commentary, so it is always worth adding commentary if you have opinion to add.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

File:LotharRichardII10thcentury.JPG @enwiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3ALotharRichardII10thcentury.JPG

Can you please tell me what comes after "centur[y]"? The log doesn't display the full description. I need it for File:LotharRichardII10thcentury.JPG. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

From enWP, the information template is

== Licensing ==

{{PD-old}}

@Michaeldsuarez:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

flag of russia (your "cite the files" request")

am confused when i put a edit request on english wikipedia they said i have to go HERE (commons) but there are two files,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Russia.svg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Russia.svg

and as i said i made a request there but they told me to go here so telling me to go back (english wikipedia)and do my request there is unhelpfull i also made a rfc on file's commons talkpage and on the Commons Administrators noticeboard 90.129.76.37 20:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

First step is to get a file with the colours that you believe are correct, so upload a separate copy to a differently named file, and on the file quote your sources for the colours used. Your file will be at Commons. Using this file at your wiki of interest is a different process and will need your debating skills in that discussion, though at least it is uploaded and available.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

they almoust certanly wont use a separate file as the one i want to change is one of "100 most-used files on the English Wikipedia" so i was rather asking how and where to do that 90.129.76.37 21:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Until you have a separate image you cannot mount the argument, getting an overwrite of the file will not happen. Each wiki is able to choose which version of the file they wish to use. Start with your local wiki, and then the community can validate or discuss onwards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

but other users overwrite flag or other national symbols many times it very common that they do that! just see file history of many flag or national symbol files, they overwritten the flag of russia file and i wanted to restore the original 90.129.76.37 21:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am presuming that you are the two accounts listed there on that history. The initial file version is the same colour as the last version, and the interim attempts to change the colour of the file are wrong as per Commons:Overwriting existing files and those interim edits were properly reverted. This is why you need to have a separate file, with separate history. Deal with what we have and the means to progress, don't tell me about other behaviours. As I have said, upload your version of the file to a new file name. Are you listening yet?  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

VIAFDataImporter

Hi again,

In trying to re-balance the various VIAF data-gathering schemes across wiki-world, I just noticed you made a well-intentioned change to Commons' MediaWiki:VIAFDataImporter.js that didn't really solve anything (SSL is needed for certain routines @ Viaf.org).

Please undo the change (... or manually update the line's syntax while you're at it by matching the following )

		return 'http://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.personalNames+all+"' + encodeURIComponent(query) + '"&stylesheet=/viaf/xsl/results.xsl&sortKeys=holdingscount&maximumRecords=100';

The lines you really want to force SLL (https) on to stop the split security bangs/errors when running the Auth Control gadget, should be this one (exactly!)

			//using autosuggest (clumsy, but we can use JSONP)
			$.getJSON("https://viaf.org/viaf/AutoSuggest?query=" + encodeURIComponent($('#viaf_query_input').val()) + "&callback=?", function (data) {
				myself.display_query_results(data);
			});

Finally, do a string/text search in the script for <div/>

( should be a proper div closing-tag; </div> )

... then search again for margin-bottm and add the missing letter ' o ' back in margin-bottom .

My gut tells me the local Commons-based version of the gadget/script could get away with just some minor refinements but Inductiveload (or ?) really needs to address/refine whichever version of the gadget we could benefit from more over on en.WS. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

File:A German civilian looks at a large poster portrait of Stalin on the Unter-den-Linden in Berlin, 3 June 1945. BU8572.jpg

Hi Billinghurst. Could you please fix the parameter errors caused by your edit? --Leyo 18:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Pity that you were unable to see yourself able to do it yourself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the point. I've fixed thousands of images in Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter during the past couple of months. --Leyo 20:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

… and thanks for what you do in that space. At the same time, I would suggest that tracking additional parameters is pointless. The use of that template with those unattached parameters were doing zero harm, and causing zero problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the other way round: All parameter names except the ones defines are tracked. I've fixed many spelling errors in parameter names, things such as missing “=” or broken syntax and a lot of (old) vandalism. --Leyo 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And that wasn't my point. My point was in the tracking superfluous parameters. The design and workings of templates is that superfluous parameters are ignored, noting the words by design. So now you are telling me that something that should be managed by design, is now a manual and purposeful requirement, that is a little unusual.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is another example why such maintenance categories are useful. --Leyo 14:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, Billinghurst/Archives. You have new messages at Jarekt#They_have_the_copyright_tag.2C_just_incompetently_added's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jarekt (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump#Files_without_license

You might be interested in this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Phil Fish dupe pt. 2

I contacted you about the Phil Fish photo earlier in the year (User_talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2014#Phil Fish dupe). My concern was that the non-Flickr version was chosen when resolving the duplicate. It turns out that the chosen image had a face lightly superimposed in the top right corner. [3] Also the permissions are now messed up and I've uploaded a higher resolution version. Can you delete the old photo and let the Flickr bot run again? Thanks czar ♔ 02:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the older version, and we should just let it stand as it is. One could argue that both versions have legitimacy within the scope of Commons, and they should both should be separately maintained, however, not one that I am willing to pursue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The superimposed face is a derivative of [4], so the older version (the composite) doesn't meet the license. czar ♔ 04:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Then we delete your upload, we resurrect the other image, and you can upload over the top of that.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your overwrite, and restored the image that was initially and mistakenly thought to be the duplicate. Please fix them as appropriate.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello

The difference is that this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federata_Shqiptare_e_Futbollit.svg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Federata_Shqiptare_e_Futbollit.svg have the same name so i can't paste the new one from wikimedia commons in the article.

Regards, AceDouble (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@AceDouble: The instructions are pretty specific about this, get it renamed at the wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Billinghurst/Archives. You have new messages at McZusatz's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--McZusatz (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:3InfRegtDUI.PNG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:3InfRegtDUI.PNG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary

Source: http://www.mondes-normands.caen.fr/angleterre/histoires/1/zoom/richardII.htm

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information).

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse

Richard II of Normandy (right), Lothair of France (left) and the abbot of Mont Saint Michel (middle), cartulary of Mont-Saint-Michel 12th century

Bibliothèque Municipale, Avranches

Request 2

May I please have the text for the last version of en:File:Ukraine_eparchies.png? Some information was lost during the transfer to Commons. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

{{GFDL}}

a fairly crude map of the territorial structure of the [[Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church]] within [[Ukraine]].

Selfmade based on an empty contour map of Ukraine ([[:Image:Map of Ukraine political simple blank.png]]) and information from printed sources.

{{Image label begin|image=Ukraine eparchies.png|width={{{width|600}}}}}
{{Image label|x=-220.0|y=-160.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text='''[[Archeparchy of Kyiv]]'''}}
{{Image label|x=-100|y=-150.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text='''[[Archeparchy of Lviv|1]]'''}}
{{Image label|x=-105|y=-195.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=[[Eparchy of Ivano-Frankivsk|2]]}}
{{Image label|x=-145|y=-165.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=[[Eparchy of Ternopil-Zboriv|3]]}}
{{Image label|x=-70|y=-170.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=[[Eparchy of Sambir-Drohobych|4]]}}
{{Image label|x=-110|y=-130.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=[[Eparchy of Sokal|5]]}}
{{Image label|x=-102|y=-168.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=[[Eparchy of Stryj|6]]}}
{{Image label|x=-130|y=-230.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=[[Eparchy of Kolomyia-Chernivtsi|7]]}}
{{Image label|x=-150|y=-195.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=[[Eparchy of Buchach|8]]}}
{{Image label|x=-430|y=-200.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=''[[Exarchate of Donetsk]]''}}
{{Image label|x=-300|y=-270.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=''[[Exarchate of Odesa-Crimea|Exarchate of<br/> Odesa-Crimea]]''}}
{{Image label|x=-120|y=-80.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=''[[Exarchate of Lutsk|Exarchate</br> of Lutsk]]''}}
{{Image label|x=-30|y=-225.0|scale={{{size|-1}}}|text=[[Eparchy of Mukachevo|Eparchy of<br/> Mukachevo]]}}
{{Image label end}}

Notes: 
# The [[Eparchy of Mukachevo]] is not a part of the [[Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church]] but a distinct [[Ruthenian Catholic Church]].

== Now commons ==

{{NowCommons|1=File:Ukraine eparchies.png|2=no}}

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Aloha! :) Since you are admin on en wiki and source you might be interested in this RCU: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Retaux Best regards, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: as this user is working xwiki it might be worth sharing your data with the esWP and enWP checkusers. I cannot see this sort of abuse is going to be limited to Commons. Thx HinW, I will let the person with the data pass it on, rather than me generating fresh case notes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

IWM 'upgrades'

Hi, thanks for sorting out recent duplicates. There may be a few among the 50,000 IWM images as they updated their on-line versions with slightly better quality. At the time, it was impossible to automatically detect these. My recent uploads of higher resolution versions did not intelligently think about duplicates (it was a test run of sorts), however I have now added in a bit more memory for what has been done so it does not do the same thing twice in the same run.

One could argue that doing the upgrade on non-identical duplicates was a good thing, as we have now identified duplicates on the basis that the Commons Wiki itself identified digitally identical duplicates. I'll ponder this if I get to do a large run; probably after attempting to talk to the IWM as a cautious step to protect myself from being accused of doing something wrong by a government body... --Fæ (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fæ: If they are manually notated (use extra parameter available in {{duplicate}}) that they have been checked for quality/size/... (the criteria that we use) that makes it easier to just run the duplicate script. Otherwise I will run those checks manually, and if seem the same, I will take the oldest. If there is some guarantee that these checks have been taken then I am more likely to button press, and just compare descriptions. Thanks for the note and slight tardiness in response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Your DR closings

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beba Idelson Ada Maimon1952.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abba Hushi 1956.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aharon Meskin - Ben Gurion - Israel Prize1960.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Avraham Shlonsky 1952.jpg

When Steinsplitter's closed the AN/U section on these DR's he made it clear what should happen and I quote The files schould be renomonated for deletion and the DR schlould be closed by an not involved admin after at least 7 days. Can you revert your close. LGA _talk^edits 05:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA too. Jee 05:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not necessarily see the need for renomination, and especially not by you, which was my statement. If it needs to be reopened, it should be by others (similarly non-involved), not by you citing the same argument. I am not an involved administrator, I read what was written in the three places and I have closed it based on the argument. If another reopens it (again not you), then so be it, the discussion will reoccur. I would also ask that you reread Commons:PRP, as you seem to quote it as a throwaway line, there is some clear emphasis there that you seem to have missed.  — billinghurst sDrewth

You are then perfectly entitled to !vote keep on the DR rather than close it, please respect the process Steinsplitter asked to be followed. LGA _talk^edits 06:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your reopening the request is somewhere between problematic and vexatious. It is closed, and should not be reopened by you. It was unfortunate that Steinsplitter was less clear on that point. Others are perfectly able to follow Steinsplitter's advice, and there is clear instruction about how and why to reopen DRs. I will add some further information to that close to assist.

Re the complaint about you to which you point. It is worth paying attention to community concern, rather than continuing the same behaviour. Continuing behaviour that is considered disruptive in a community will be managed, whether you wear your underpants on the outside or the inside. A continued perception of righteousness/rightfulness will be problematic without the ability for self-reflection, and the ability to listen.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Admitted error, Need help to revert

Hi! Thanks for all the help that you have given me but I need your help again this time regarding one image that I have mistakenly asked for a rename which has been granted before by User:Hedwig in Washington, that should not have been renamed which is File:MRT3MagallanesStationPlatform2.jpg. I have committed a mistake in not considering the difficulties in the current rename so may I please seek your help to revert it to the name prior to that rename which was File:MRT-3 Magallanes Station Platform 2.jpg which is currently a redirect. Please help, Thanks! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@PhilippineRevolution: Just retag it with {{Rename}}  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I did what you have told me, hope it gets fixed soon, Thanks again man and Cheers! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@PhilippineRevolution: not sure which file you have tagged, however, it isn't the above identified file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake my internet have lagged. I have already tagged the file. Cheers! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all the help especially in my mistake in requesting for a rename for File:MRT-3 Magallanes Station Platform 2.jpg which you have reverted. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

if that is the worst that you do, SWEET!  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Gender-Symbol Intersex Alternative dark transparent Background.png

Hi there, I wanted to follow up on your rejection of the proposed name change. My request sought to match the name of the associated SVG file, but I should also have given more of a rationale about the current misleading name. There are no pages that link to this file because there is no evidence that the symbol is a symbol for intersex. Some pages in Wikipedia on intersex link to other images in Category:Intersexual symbols, but none link to the file in question. There is, in fact, no evidence to support the inclusion of most symbols added by the same user to that category. File:Gender-Symbol_Intersex_Infinity_dark_transparent_Background.png is a notable exception. Trankuility (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Use {{Other version}} on the alternative files, and categorise appropriately. The reasoning is not valid for a rename, renames are more than a user's opinion. Discuss it with the uploader if you are looking to get some traction.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Image still "in use at enWP" and kept as such... isn't (Commons:Deletion requests/File:BCfrontpage.png)

Hi,

You kept the image nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:BCfrontpage.png on the basis that it was still in use at en.wikipedia. This isn't the case. If you click the "Usage on en.wikipedia.org" link you'll see that- as I said in the original submission- the original article was deleted.

Would appreciate your feedback on this, thanks. Ubcule (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I went off the comment, and the global usage. I have overridden my previous close.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I was going to suggest it might be something to do with caching or a delay in propogating the updated usage info... but then I remembered the article was already deleted when I nominated the image two weeks ago (which was the point!) so I don't think that's the reason. Well, not unless they have *serious* problems in that area! Thanks for the change, Ubcule (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Billinghurst, thank you for deleting the duplicate File:A Eiche.jpg. Maybe, can you also close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alte Trauben Eiche.jpg in turn? that is the bigger version which is to be kept. only asking because this is a WLE image and the competition ends soon (and an unnecessary open DR looks a bit bad). Holger1959 (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure it has

A source, but apparently User:Look2See1 broke the template with his edit in 2012: [5]. Please remove the template and fix it, I'd do it but I have to run AFK IRL. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bigorre04-52.jpg

Hi,

I wrote a message to this user explaining that it is not necessary or needed to delete the image if the description is wrong or if the image is misplaced in Wikipedia. Best regards, Yann (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thx. Appreciate the help.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi! I need your input. This user is globally blocked. As far as I could find out the account seems to be related to our good old friend Geografo23 (according to NLwiki). For now I can't see any edits that are related. Do you want me to put in a CU or can you have a look without bureaucracy? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Account is locked, so it seems under control.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, question is: Is the user that's asking to be unblocked related to Geo? Do you think he's back? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Geo is around, and there have been plenty of blocks for them around the traps recently. @Trijnstel and Magog the Ogre: this seems to be something that you should handle.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Account is stale Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So, better not to unblock or AGF? *scratch head* :) Thanks for checking Magog! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I would close it not done on the advice of CU, and tell them if they wish to reopen, then to ping Magog. (show them how)  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

R: Redirects should exist for moved long-term files

Answer in my talk page. Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Vlad Tepes 001.jpg

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

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

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: Perhelion 22:28, 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: Perhelion 05:47, 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

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. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 04:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

File:WWETag Team Champion Cody Rhodes November 2013.jpg

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

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

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: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]; 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

Thanks for moved that. Uğurkent (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What ?

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)

Stefan4

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)

Duplicates

You are deleting the wrong copy of the files marked duplicate (File:Flickr - usaid.africa - Basic education programs build skills for the future in Rwanda.jpg and File:Flickr - usaid.africa - 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

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)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pacific Logo.svg

The image is a not very subtle attempt to copy a copyright logo, there needs to be consensus that it is not in order to retain. LGA _talk^edits 02:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and not one supported by any other, nor clearly evidentiary that is a copyright violation. No consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the up-loader was the only other participant. LGA _talk^edits 02:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Memorlibro de la Tria Esperantista Eŭkaristia Mondkonveno ( Rio-de-Ĵanejro, 1956).jpg

File:Memorlibro de la Tria Esperantista Eŭkaristia Mondkonveno ( Rio-de-Ĵanejro, 1956).jpg

Português: Paz e bem!
Qual o suposto direito autoral que teria sido desrespeitado?

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The original publication will have a copyright, and if you are not the copyright holder, then we need permission from the copyright holder to host the work (the OTRS permission requested). If that permission cannot be obtained, then we will need to remove the work as we can only host works in the public domain Commons:Copyright tags.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File doesn't load

There is some interest on Russian Wikisource in working on Military Encyclopedia, which was published in Saint Petersburg from 1911 to 1915 (this is the 3rd edition, actually). I converted the first two volumes to djvu and loaded them (Category:Military Encyclopedia (Saint Petersburg,1911—1915)). Then I compared these files to the original pdf's and found they are worse both in text quaility and in picture. After turning on "Chunked uploads for files over 5 MB in Upload Wizard" in my preferences, I managed to upload the first volume. The second one dosn't load though, it returns me Unknown error: "unknown". On this page they say administrators may help with problems like this one, so I am asking for help. The Encyclopedia consists of 18 volumes varying from 115 to 215 Mb, alltogether 2.5 Gb. All files were published in Russian Empire and therefore are licensed {{PD-RusEmpire}}. The source of files is Russian State Library. — @VadimVMog: (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @VadimVMog: . There are two options that I would consider for works if I faced the issue for English Wikisource. 1) Upload the PDF files, and see how they look and whether their text is suitable for transcription (it can sometimes be suitable) though the file size is the issue, and sometimes the instruction is to send the files to WMF so they can be done directly (less than ideal); or 2) Upload the PDFs to archive.org, let them be taken through the derive process, then use Tpt's toollabs:ia-upload/ tool to upload the derived djvu files. There is also a good chance that the djvu files will be under the 100MB limit. The second means is one that I use regularly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. — VadimVMog (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Malaya papers

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Assorted_Hansard_extracts_and_UK_Govt_papers_on_Malaya.2C_Sawark_and_Borneo

Any comment you can add appreciated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Been handled by a different process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Brouillon1 Flappiefh.svg

Can you please describe what it is that you want done with the file File:Brouillon1 Flappiefh.svg. It looks a complete hotchpotch of files, and if the components are needed, then it may be worth saving the files, and uploading with appropriate {{Information}} and licence information, then deleting that file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is a draft for some of my previously published works. I shall delete it. How can proceed? --90.3.41.44 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Flappiefh and 90.3.41.44: If none of the components are required. Then please put {{delete|test components of files, no longer required, contributor request}} from your user account, and we can process it. If it occurs that way, we can speedy it, rather than have a deletion request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of File:BANDA'S TAMPLE.JPG

Hi, Please check the spelling of Temple in the file. It has been spelled Tample. Thats why, I have asked for the renaming process to File:Banda's Temple.JPG . Case correctness was definitely not the reason. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that prod. Clearly I was cross-eyed when reading.  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

File renaming लार्ज हैड्रान कोलाइडर.png

Hi, I uploaded a file at File:एलएचसी हिन्दी.svg. At that time I have very less time about uploading files on wiki. After few minutes I uploaded another version of same file in png format. Now, I was reviewing pictures uploaded by me. I realised that png format is not matching to the original picture File:LHC.svg. Now, I want that either File:लार्ज हैड्रान कोलाइडर.png can be redirected to File:एलएचसी हिन्दी.svg or File:लार्ज हैड्रान कोलाइडर.png can be deleted and all pages which are using this file can use another version of this file. Please let me know which action is the right one OR do this action.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We cannot redirect a png to a svg file, they are different file types. I have changed the link in the template at hiWP, so that should be updated. If you think that any file is redundant, eg. a PNG file is replaced by SVG and with the same image, then please start a discussion as per Commons:Deletion request  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)