User talk:Gwillhickers

Files with missing information may be deleted

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

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

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, and 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

★ 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.

review

•  Comment The scope is too broad. It must be reduced to this particular stamp.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed scope to the stamp itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

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 leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. 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 see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

INeverCry 04:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Over-uploading again

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

★ 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.

review

 Support Best within the described scope.--Godot13 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

★ 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.

review

•  Comment There is already one nomination for this scope: Commons:Valued image candidates/Washington Revenue $1 1862 issue.JPG. Yann (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for the review. It would seem an image can still be valuable, in its own right, regardless if there are other valuable images in a given scope. Should I withdraw the other nomination, or change its scope? Are you also saying that multiple images (the other beer stamps) can't be submitted for VI nomination using the same scope? I'm new at this sort of thing. Don't mean to be difficult and will do what's best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment A fellow editor has just added a detail to the scope. Does this help? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good. Yann (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support for good measure. Gwillhickers- Scope is tricky until you get the hang of it. I learned a bit about it from Yann in fact...--Godot13 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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.

review

•  Comment There is already one nomination for this scope: Commons:Valued image candidates/Hamilton Beer revenue stamp $2 Hogshead.JPG. Only one nomination for one scope, and only one scope for one nomination. Yann (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for your review and comments. Obviously I'm new at this sort of thing. Over the years my use of images has been for purposes of bettering articles and/or making them available for others to use in articles. What scope would you suggest I use for this nomination? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment What was this stamp used for? (the beer stamps was for beer, this one doesn't specify, did it have a specific use or more general?) Does the $1 denomination come in other colors or have other portrait combinations?--Godot13 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Yes, the use is specific, as is indicated in the lower circular banner that surrounds the portrait. (i.e. 'Manifest') There are other usages, such as Proprietary', Mortgage, Foreign exchange, etc for this (and similar) revenue stamps of this period. To get an idea of all the different usages (there are many) see the caption in the dual image at right in the Civil War section on the Revenue stamps of the United States page. Though there are many varieties, we only have one such design/image in Category:Revenue stamps of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Given all the varieties, is there any hope for this particular image? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)    additional : Have just added 1 dollar Manifest tax stamps so the scope is specific to that series. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good now. Yann (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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.

review

•  Comment Interesting but the image is not in Hi-res. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Archaeodontosaurus: Thanks for the support! Just out of curiosity, at what point does an image become 'hi-res'? Is there some official standard? This image is 660 × 1,546. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The resolution is not a criterion for VI. The average resolution is 2Mpx. Below the resolution is low; images are not admisent for QI and FP. :) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In the future I'll simply refer to 'details' without reference to resolution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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.

review

•  Support Good. Yann (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

★ 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.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oregon Swallowtail

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

eBay images

You may not be aware that we have this template: {{Ebay item|number}} for eBay lots. Ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Yes I'm aware but haven't been using them like I used to. After awhile they don't help because the given lot-listing doesn't last very long after the item is sold. Since the stamps are in the PD I would think it doesn't matter much whether the eBay number is used. If this somehow will cause some sort of issue I'll go ahead and supply the numbers where I can. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

File:1851-1861a US Postage 20 cents.jpg

You did not update the source for the new version of this image. So where did it come from and can you please update it? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Lt commander Phelps.jpg

File:Lt commander Phelps.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

GELongstreet (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

CropTool

Hello! Regarding File:William Williams, detail,1787-1850.jpg and File:William Williams signature.jpg, for future crops you might consider using CropTool, which quickly and faithfully transfers all existing author, source, and license information to the cropped image, as well as any EXIF file metadata and categories, and updates the original file description accordingly (I've updated the first file already). Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Eugene Stock, 1916.jpg

File:Photograph of Eugene Stock, 1916.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyrighted in UK, per COM:UK#Known author (Walter Stoneman). Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Eugene Stock, 1916.jpg

File:Photograph of Eugene Stock, 1916.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

 — billinghurst sDrewth 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)