User talk:Gnangarra/archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Uploads[edit]

Commonist isn't working for me. Don't know why. I can think of two solutions: wait a while, or clean them up and upload them manually. I'll probably do a bit of both. Hesperian 07:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

might have something to with a software upgrade, I was unable to connect to WP/Commons before 7:30 am local yesterday. I'd say wait a couple of days then see hwat happens Gnangarra 20:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The techblog is saying that Commonist problems are related to the upgrade... and that file moving has been turned back on. Hesperian 02:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Indigenous Australians[edit]

What the heck is going on? If I'm not much mistaken, neither Category:Indigenous Australians nor Category:Australian Aborigines nor Category:Indigenous people of Australia nor Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia exist. Is there something I'm missing, or is Commons years behind the time here? Hesperian 06:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There a few occurances like this where the category structure just hadnt been made because nobody has seen the need or taken the time. Gnangarra 09:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Every time I talk to you I remember those photos I was supposed to upload, and feel dreadfully guilty for not having done it... and then forget again. :-( ) Hesperian 11:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I finally puilled my finger out. There's uploading now. Hesperian 02:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. They're all yours, to rename, or delete, or feed to your goldfish. Hesperian 03:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have started moving images and adding to description categories etc, wont do any reorientation/cropping etc until later. Gnangarra 02:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page[edit]

A chilled variety seems to have me computed as having no cats against a range of images - yet I detect em - is there something I am missing?? SatuSuro (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Daviesia_horrida I have had 2 images with wrong name - what is the best way to change the name of the files - as they are not gastros! SatuSuro (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also on wikipedia en - I have http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:RailwayReserveHeritageTrailSignBoard.JPG - i wanna get it out of en and to here - the best way to do that is...? SatuSuro (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bre Pettis photo[edit]

Hi,

thanks for your rating on QIC. The original is here or here (RAW). I don't do much postprocessing, so I would appreciate hints on how to postprocess it better if you have some. Thanks. --AlexanderKlink (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help replace this outdated license[edit]

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

BotMultichillT 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Feel free to alter it to what ever you like but they arent {{PD-self}} there isnt any section within the Australian copyright act(1968) that causes copyright to subsist with these. As a template is required IMHO the use of {{PD}} is appropriate. Gnangarra 13:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wtf?[edit]

I thought we had sorted this out ages ago - dont we have perth, tassie to thwart this idiocy? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Perth,_Western_Australia what a lot of bollocks SatuSuro (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tis two years and a wee bit since Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/10/Category:Perth, Australia where what amounted to a discussion decided the current format. As consensus can change feel free to start a fresh CFD Gnangarra 13:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a bit battered by real world issues might delay just a wee bit.. thanks for your reply anyways - would appreciate your giving my 2 b and w uploads mst recent - do you think they should have been gold mines in or of western australia? SatuSuro (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well instead of CFD, did an archive on my tired looking talk page - isnt it amazing 5 years already! I cannot think where the time has gone... SatuSuro (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modern kitchen gnangarra.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Modern kitchen gnangarra.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 15:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Normally straight verticals are required for architecture shots. --Iotatau 20:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2010021610052123[edit]

Remember when you had asked me for a ticket # pertaining to the permision that was granted to me by Stanley J. Anderson. Well I had gotten one, its OTRS ticket# 2010021610052123. It is genuine even though he had me write it on his behalf. Someone had disabled my talk page for no reason what so ever, and I'll need that undone in order to put a unblock request.

Here is what it should look like in case you deleted the message


To permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following:

· Cemetary.jpg

· Holly river.jpg

· Senior center.jpg

· Potato knob.jpg

I agree to publish that work and future works under the free license Public Domain.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

February 16, 2010, Stanley J Anderson

Thanks JTS

I've reviewed the OTRS Ticket, you have been sent an email please follow the instructions that it contains and the issue will be resolved quickly. ALso while you are blocked please refrain from posting to commons using an IP as this can be interpreted as sockpuppeting, you previously sent me emails I happy to recieved further emails about resolving the issues. Gnangarra 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know I wasn't socking, and I'll let you know when I recieve it.
No offense but are you sure you sent it? I still havent recieved it. (No sockpuppetry) JTS

Please help[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eastern_Goldfields_Railway - could you please help re-name these buggers thanks SatuSuro (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also I am almost certain text in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Swan_Tunnel_%28230412544%29.jpg is copyvio SatuSuro (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
more info please Gnangarra 16:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 I strongly suspect it is a now lost CALM/DEC web page info - but cannot find yet - it might be on pandorra but have to get off for the mo SatuSuro (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text was from DEC here, but unknown on the image I'll remove the text Gnangarra 04:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding it! cheers SatuSuro (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small Favor (No Socking here)[edit]

Hello Gnangarra:

I need you administrative opinion on this, its a draft of an unblock request:

To all admins on Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons:
As you all know by now, On February 1st been accused of copyright violations, edit warring exc and was blocked for it. Since then I had talked to the copyright owner and was granted perission to use those images that were deleted. If you want a copy of the permission, I will gladly provide a copy of the permission, as long as you provide me an e-mail address. Gnangarra has already reviewed the permission and I waiting on an e-mail from him
As far as the edit war, it was just a simple misunderstanding of what was relevant in some articles, happens all the time. I should not have added to it, it was inexpiable behavior on my part. I am more mild-mannered than that.
I should not have socked at all, its inexplicable even for me to do that just to prove a point, make it inexcuseable. It sould not have beeen done at all.
I take full responcobility for everything that I have done wrong.
Lets put prior history where its supposed to be, in the past, and lets not cut each other's throughts either by bringing up anything that happened in the past. I take lies and Personal attacks very seriously. I still consider myself a newbee,compared to other users, and other users have been biting me. I've still got a lot to learn about all of the wikiprojects and I will be a good boy on every single one of em, and you'll get what you get, no questions asked. As long as no one gives me grief, we'll get along just fine. A copy of this message will accompany the unblock request that I'll leave on my wikipedia talk page as soon as its unprotected.

Is there anything that i need to change or add, and don't hesitate to edit it.

JTS

Another[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aussie_Easter_Egg_-Hakea_petiolaris_%28446828172%29.jpg is a laurina SatuSuro (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell the difference myself. What makes you so sure it is H. laurina? Hesperian 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
leaf maybe? Gnangarra 02:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every time the leaf of a laurina is narrow and a petiolaris is broader - check - youll see i lived with a near forest of both types for 20 years SatuSuro (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it from the petiolaris gallery but I'm reluctant to rename as its the name of the photograph at the source[1] Gnangarra 14:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the secondary venation between the main longitudinal veins [2] is not prominent like in this example of petiolaris. It has quite a resemblance to this example of laurina. Melburnian (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a disbeliever Gnngg!! - once recognised - its a bit like trying to do a jarrah versus redgum difference explanation and then calling redgum a jarrah from the bark. Laurina leaves are always striated and narrow and periolaris leaves have little or no lines and are always lighter in colour and broader - comes and check em out up here sometime you disbeliever :) SatuSuro (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had no doubt on id, but as the file isnt from a comedian i prefer to see the source file name kept. Its how i find the off wiki usage of works Gnangarra 09:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about my disparaging response - remind me to get hesp to shout us a round for disbelief next meetup SatuSuro (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually look forward to find another furphy again soon - swan tunnel and wrongly named flowers - its a definite minefield down here when checked carefully :) SatuSuro (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what would you do?[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Scaevola_taccada there are at least 10 if not more photos in this category that are unrelated to the issue/subject/or even smell SatuSuro (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

presume you mean File:Starr 010526-1341 Scaevola taccada.jpg these type, I tag for deletion as out of scope // not my space. Gnangarra 15:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion about this issue at Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 2009/2#Habitat pictures, own categories? Hesperian 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Starr_010526-1342_Scaevola_taccada.jpg - I mean to say? not a leaf in sight - they iritate the hell - I'll get around to putting some up for deletion soon - but short of time tonight SatuSuro (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

odd shaped eucalypt bark/trunk[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GreenmountHillNP_Eucalyptsatu4.jpg - what sort of category would make sense? malformed tree bark, malformed eucalypt trunk, anthropomorphical tree shapes, ...??? hopefully hesp will turn up with a good turn of phrase - but I thought I'd leave the question here :) SatuSuro (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am somewhat perplexed why we have 2 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Eucalyptus_erythrocorys cats for the one thing - is there anything easy about making just one rather than 2? SatuSuro (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one category and one gallery page? Gnangarra 22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if you 2 cats the same name how do you get the arts out of one into the other? SatuSuro (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Burls? Hesperian 04:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that- just what I needed SatuSuro (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was[edit]

Thysanotus/fringe lily - SatuSuro (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern[edit]

I can understand where your concern arises - and the potential issue. I would prefer to leave as is if possible - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine[edit]

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A.Talk 14:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classic[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Waringinbomen_langs_de_weg_naar_Fort_Vredeburg_in_Jogjakarta_TMnr_60027572.jpg so some smart cookie is going to tell me that Kassian Cephas was there in a hot air balloon above Yogya in the 1890's - brilliant - and that is actualy fort vredeburg in the picture? hmm someones up to something there - :) SatuSuro (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

might be possible, maybe you've uncovered an early(first?) aerial photograph. Gnangarra 15:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ahhh !!! Upside down for a start and my memory of the Fort Vredeburg that I remember is it is in Yogyakarta on flat ground close to/in the urban area - this photo is of a hillside and countryside - hmmm probably everything wrong :( SatuSuro (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
according to Google maps Fort Vredeburg is on flat ground in the centre of Yogyakarta...hmm unless they've move a whole range in the last 100 years I agree the photo ID is wrong, the problem is now where could it be? Check out the Tropen Musuem category, tags maybe there a contact who can help....Gnangarra 02:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unless they've move a whole range in the last 100 years do not let me start on that one - they have done that in a few places in Java in time less than that - almost like the increasing landmass of singapore in the same time :) - thanks re advice - will follow later SatuSuro (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waringinbomen is dutch for Bayan which just to west if im reading the maps right? Gnangarra 02:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep[edit]

Taking it real slow - will probably harass you very soon - thanks SatuSuro (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:New norcia gnangarra 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:New norcia gnangarra 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Telopea speciosissima dist map.png[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cirt[edit]

Is not this a bit problematic in view of all the recent drama? It started last evening when I looked at category:Trials and moved a page about a lawsuit to the proper category. This triggered a flurry of activity in Cirt. Five minutes later he redirected that page (and he/she has now also done an irregular copy/paste rename). See also Category talk:Goldman v. Twenty-First Century Democrats. And now I happen to see this self-reverted "request for advice" here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) came to this recent activity due to seeing a subcategory of a larger category I had created, Category:Landmark Education. However, it is possible that I may have been mistaken. Therefore, I chose to step back and disengage from the discussion at the category talk page. I self-reverted, and noted as such, at the category talk page [3]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look, I did notice the addition and self revert in such cases I just presume the comment wasnt necessary so I didnt even read. Gnangarra 08:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Commons is a small place, but it's also big enough for everyone, editors will cross paths especially if they have areas in common and there is nothing malicious in that. Inlight of the recent unfortunate events I think you both are going to be a bit jumpy when your paths cross, I can only recommend that when this happens take a step back have a coffee then look at whats being said not who's saying it before re-acting. I see in this case Pieter made an edit, Cirt reacted reverting Pieters edit, then thought about it and then self reverted. Somewhere in that process Cirt left the message here, then reverted after realising that it wasnt necessary because Pieters edit was what would have happened irregardless of who made the edit, as far as I'm concerned there is no reason to do anything else. I'm happy to discuss this matter further or any other concerns you might have. Gnangarra 09:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only happened to notice this because I encountered you this morning at a DR, and I recognized your name. Yes, I am glad to see that Cirt self-reverted (maybe after some advice he got on an irc channel?). But the immediate complaints about "vindictiveness", the complaint here telling you only half the story (Cirt had not created that content, only copypasted a gallery to a category page, and redirected there from a page where I was active) are indicative of deep distrust. I have no intention of pursuing this little incident any further. I find it disconcerting, but I agree that there is no reason to do anything else. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After any serious dispute its hard for everybody not to be concerned when they encounter each other, contary to all warnings advice from IRC can actually be good but you can be assured I enjoy making my own mistakes and jumping to my own conclusions its much more satisfying :) Gnangarra 09:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the good advice above by User:Gnangarra. And also, I wish to apologize to Pieter Kuiper for my tone regarding the above issues. Gnangarra is correct that it is unfortunately possible that I have been a bit jumpy in light of recent events, and I am sorry for that. Hopefully we can all move on past this. Once again, my apologies. Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Apology accepted. Let's agree to keep our differences to the copyright issues in deletion debates. But right now I seem to be on a collision course with some German contributors about war time copyrights. To some of them, it seems to be a more sensitive area than Scientology and Israel combined. So I will be busy with other stuff for a while. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brain hurts[edit]

File:Old Reformed cemtery in Székelykocsárd.JPG - something glitched in the rename attempt - any suggestions? sorry to bother SatuSuro (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah no worries fixed it - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians map[edit]

Concerning this change: I can't see the global usage of the file now ... This change must be made in those articles too. On 2 articles I made this change manually, but they are more then 20 articles who use this file in all wikis. What can be done now? --Olahus (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly[edit]

Commons names that dont relate to the item - methinks something fishy SatuSuro (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FPC careless reviews[edit]

Hi Gnangarra,

You may be interested in participatin in this_discussion. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Option_3_.281_active_nomination.29[edit]

You voted to support this. I can only presume you haven't thouight this through:

Consider:

  • Those that nominate good FPs must wait 10 days to nominate again.
  • Those that noiminate bad FPCs need only wait 5 days (Rule of fifth day closure) or even just 1-2 days (FPX).

This means that the spammers will be able to put out more than the good contributors at a rate of as much as 10 to 1 in the worst cases.

Further, it's not unusual for potential FPCs to get finished in batches. A photographer comes back from vacation, or a restorationist finishes several projects in a burst of enthusiasm.

This proposal would force people to work on a timescale lengthy enough to kill all enthusiasm.

It gets worse:

This gives a strong disincentive against nominating work by anyone but yourself. People who go through and select high-quality works by others are usually to be praised, however, this proposal causes them to be punished.

I would ask that you reconsider your vote, and consider options 2 or 5, which are more restrictions than are currently in place, and which may always be built upon or increased later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floods in QI[edit]

You might be interested in an ongoing discussion regarding QI floods of late, here. Cheers, ianaré (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Francis-Joseph of Austria, and Archduke Charles[edit]

Dear Mellow.
I've made a lot of research about this picture, and I've seen two or three things I have to say to you.
You are right: only by looking on the original publication, I've founded the name of the drawer, which is Joseph SIMONT, a famous spanish/french illustrator, active on L'ILLUSTRATION" till 1937 (I don't know his death date, I'm looking for that, probably before 1940). It' is not a drawing made from a photograph, but only an "imagination work", illustrating a report.
Definitely, I have to progress in scaning technics. The comparison between the scan an the original publication I own is bad balanced against me.
Then, I have to apologize, I think.
I still consider that this picture is a very interesting historical document, and I'll try to make it better for the use of "Commons" visitors, and re-nominate it maybe. Thanks for reviewing, and... comments. --Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Custom template[edit]

Hi Gnangarra, you appear to have a custom template. Following the discussion at Commons:Village pump#User templates (pl), I converted the template to use the standard building blocks. Multichill (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted for now, I have used a customised template since I started here rather than just revert if you intend making changes that affect people please give them the courtesy of informing them of the discussion, especially since you already knew I would be opposed such moves. Gnangarra 01:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes clarity of purpose is readily identifiable, other times it takes some digging.
I think Commons has lost sight of what made it unique, which was its photographers, graphic artists, restorationists yeah sure we have work thats from elsewhere but hey it can still be found elsewhere places NASA, Flickr aren't going away. Greater recognition of our contributors is required, we should be promoting the identification of the Commons people through personalise templates in preference to being a free advertising billboard FLICKR and NASA --- Gnangarra

File:Tetratheca hirsuta gnangarra.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:New_norcia_gnangarra_1.jpg[edit]

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:New_norcia_gnangarra_1.jpg.2C_File:New_norcia_gnangarra_1_v2.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect...[edit]

Gnangarra, with all due respect, I faven't the slightest idea what you re talking about at the top of the page. I don't even know what has changed to a "[version] 3.0" that you are complaining about (some software? one of the accepted licenses? what?). Given that this is obviously an enormous issue for you, comprehensibility would be in order. - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CC-by-3.0 changed to an unported license, and change the requirements for attribution. Significantly the change meant moral rights of the author have been extinguished because an unport license means its application and use in shifted from the authors place of origin to a port of convienence for the end user. There are editors here are that are working to removed attribution under that condition, when the group decided they had a community mandate to change things they started on my contirbutions, I argued and thing returned to the previous status quo. The group then reappeared at FP with the same arguements. Add to this was a off wiki claim by third party that they own copyright over my work I successfully got a take down order issued, when I challenged for a percentage of the revenue they made from the work this was rejected primarily because 3.0 isnt recognised in Australia because of the moral rights changes. The second part of their argument was that Australian courts had no juristriction over the images use because the license is unport as there are no moral rights in the US where the images were sold that is the port that takes precendence. THe judges decision was left open saying that it doesnt have the ability to make a finding leaving me free to take the matter to a US court for decision on compensation. Gnangarra 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration at this outcome, but if you're dissatisfied with the terms of the unported CC-BY-3.0 license, I suggest you switch to the Australian ported CC-BY-2.0 license for your future work. You cannot revoke a license on your existing images because you're unhappy with the consequences, which were spelled out in meticulous detail in the full legal text that you agreed to. There was no deception here, only unanticipated consequences. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2.0 has been replaced by a 2.5 ported, as for revoking 3.0 thats matter of opinion my advice and a court decision here that doesnt recognise 3.0 is rather clear. Except for switching to the 2.5au license as I have already done I not going to remove the images. As for the deception, I'll point you towards Meta page..... Gnangarra 05:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of Australia[edit]

Just making you aware of this discussion User talk:Gryffindor#Category:Elizabeth_II_of_Australia since you were previously involved. --99of9 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom Australia[edit]

A "Elizabeth II of Australia" does not exist. Queen Elizabeth II is monarch of Australia at the same time as she is of the United Kingdom, however the title "of Australia" is pure nonsense. You can check on Wikipedia on that as well. Gryffindor (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a request for deletion is open, let's move discussion there: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Elizabeth II of Australia. --99of9 (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the record Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 says Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. [4], I await an apology for offensive remarks. Gnangarra 04:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin inactivity[edit]

Hello Gnangarra, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At last[edit]

Took long enough eh? SatuSuro (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Proposed_editing_restriction[edit]

Just to note, this has now entered voting. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna versus animals[edit]

HI, I noticed that you reverted my moves from fauna in Australia to animals in Asutralia. Please note, as you can see in the parent category, that through funny historical reasons, the worldwide commons cat standards are flora for flowers/plants and animals for fauna. This can be different in the biocategory scheme. If you want to change that, we will have to change many hundreds of categories, so please, make sure you have support for this before changing that. If you don't agree on that, please reinstate at least the move requests that have been executed. --Foroa (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

w:Fauna the correct term, and the term that has been used for those categories since they were created. As it stands your move without discussion created a number of duplications, I'll continue to clean up the mess that was left behind in the move feel free to start a discussion on your renaming. Gnangarra 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Gnangarra's comment above, I left my objection on the talk pages (example) which seem to be ignored (what's the point of stating [on the template] if anyone has an objection to state it on the talk page when it is renamed regardless?) and as such the deletions should not have occurred! I rather not be involved in a very silly and poorly thought of category rename and rather document local flooding but now I really can't be bothered uploading my images here now and my watchlist is full deletions and category renames [not Gnangarra's fault]. Thank you Gnangarra, I owe you a beer/drink for that sensible reversal. Bidgee (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fitting absurd terminology to something that works simply to bolster up funny historical reasons is not funny, and simply makes commons look like a primary school blackboard - where it should in fact be sophisticated online encyclopedia level repository of knowledge - does not matter whether there are thousands of categories - better to fix it rather than adjust to a dumb level of category SatuSuro (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that "animals of ..." are better than fauna. It took us already a very hard battle to switch from "plants of ..."to "flora of ...". There are several category names and structures that I don't like, but my main activity is trying to get category names and structures consistent allover the world, so please, propose a name change from animals to fauna if you have the time to manage it. --Foroa (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one said that you stated "animals of ..." is better but your actions do speak louder then words. Trying to force a move which was objected is abuse of power and rather insulting, and I don't care if you're trying to make categories consistent since we have other ways to sort matters such as inconsistent categories but you failed to do that as well. Bidgee (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have the time or the inclination to do such a move, I reverted your changes because it was way out of process the tag was less than two days old and had already recieved objections, that is never a good move for any sysop to do but I not interested in creating drama theres too much around here already. I've commented on each category explaining my opinion on the category naming lets just see where that goes, there is no need for further comment here. Gnangarra 08:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New sayings[edit]

Did you come up with "you dont need to cut down the whole tree to extend an olive branch" yourself, or is it an established saying? Anyway, it's absolutely brilliantly put& very much to the point here I think :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thx, I just wrote it as I was commenting. Dont think I've seen or heard it before. Gnangarra 14:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Train stations of Transperth[edit]

Hello Gnangarra

I would have preferred had you not simply moved all "Train stations of Transperth" into "Train stations of Perth, Western Australia". What about photos of historic stations that aren't / never were operated by Transperth? What about potential private rail lines or museum stops (not sure if there are any, but here in Auckland we have a few, so I suspect you might too).

Why remove a specific identifier? A train station category / file could sit perfectly without issue in both categories IF both apply, but now the data's lost, and I'm reluctant to simply recreate it, because I don't want an edit war. Ingolfson (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah fair presumption unfortunately your Auckland experience its not the case for Perth. Its just unnecessary when the whole category train stations in Perth can be in the category:Transperth, feel free to restore the transperth category that you removed. Gnangarra 10:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - Transperth is the current custodian of all railway stations (my preference) in the Perth metro system - and earlier stations were under the predecessor Western Australian Government Railways' there were never potential private rail lines or museum stops style of passenger railway stations in Perth - railway sidings yes - never passenger railway stations - even the ones at racecourses were specifically WAGR stations SatuSuro (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biota[edit]

"In October 2010 your request to move categories from Biota to animasl was rejected by consensus" - do you have a link to the discussion? I cannot find anything. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at protected edit requests[edit]

Hi Gnangarra,

Commons protected edit requests is backlogged. If you have a moment, could you do some? --  Docu  at 12:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree[edit]

With what melb and the red link are doing to the wrong spelling pages - surely it is better to remove the bad spelling from your gallery as well - and get is all over in one fell swoop - ie out damned spot? - having lingering bad spelling links seems quite precious and perverse in my way of thinkng SatuSuro (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - only half done - have to get off - looks like you will have to double check everything just in case and resurrect your gallery links - cheers for the mo SatuSuro (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of User:Paddy[edit]

I totally disagree with your decisions to block User:Paddy after the request on the notice board. If one guy overstressed all of our rules, using lobbyism to do what he wants, then it is User:Alvesgaspar. He removes my Entries from FPC at will [5]. Uses others (or sock puppets) to vote against any opinion [6] (per request... WTF seriously) and so on. I was willing and happily participating on commons, but it obvious that FPC is in control by a lobby that pushes her own votes and votes provocative against others. Not only me: [7]. What do you think do about this? That the reactions are so strong would only be natural in my eyes. If this continues much longer, i will quit with the same wording as Paddy. --Niabot (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of the problems you describe at FPC but that doesnt justify the language used by Paddy, it wasnt just a plain "fuck off" type response that could have been responded to with a "pull your head in". It was played out across multiple venues using multiple different comments thats totally unacceptable no matter the reason, thats why I blocked it has nothing to do with stiffling discussion on the FPC problems. Gnangarra 08:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to inform you that other users, that are not part of this lobby, have nearly no other chance as to comment like this. What could someone do? Crying for help doesn't change anything since this lobby is in a comfortable situation to abuse the self made rules. That is very very annoying to anyone that is not constantly participating and sometimes you can't keep yourself calm anymore. Regarding Paddy's wording i would totally agree with that myself and would say that he was right in this case. The only thing we can do is to wait Personal attack removed - 99of9, since there is no possibility for normal users to stop this hijacking. --Niabot (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support Gnangarra, just because Paddy is "annoyed" doesn't give him the right to behave like he did. Bidgee (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Niabot, I have removed your personal attack from your statement above. You should know by now that personal attacks are not acceptable. Further personal attacks will result in a block. --99of9 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with and welcome 99of9's action in removing the PA, Niabot PAs dont resolve issues they just devalue the point being made to extent that the point can be missed or even worse others will shut down to any chance of meaningful dicsussion that could resolve the issues. Again I ask that any further discussion be directed to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Paddy Thank you Gnangarra 13:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent blocks[edit]

What an administrator or reviewer is supposed to be?

  1. He/She should have the knowledge to do his job. As I can see you do your job fine and have made a lot of useful contributions. Your work is appreciated.
  2. An admin should stay mellow in every case Do you really think you did?
  3. He should be able to resolve conflicts of valuable users without using his extra buttons. You surely are not able to do this.

What do I suggest:

  1. Cool down.
  2. Find out to which kind of people you are talking to. Maybe they are younger, than there is the need to use a more clearly language and to post warning messages. By the way, we have default warning massages with autotranslation. Consider using {{subst:be civil}} and {{subst:be civil final}}. If you use those you make sure that everybody understands what you like to express and it is foreseeable what happens when not obeying your advice. Even if it looks like that we are able to understand English, non-native speakes sometimes get the wrong idea of a term.
  3. Don’t take personal attacks personal. This sounds odd but you can find a lot of reasons for doing so. 1) Your discussion partner thinks that it is worthy attacking you. 2) Your discussion partner degrades himself. It shows that he is unable to suppress these attacks. 3) Can you maybe interpret them as a joke? 4) Can you find something good in his words (about diva, see below).

Just to clarify that we have the same meaning about: What is a diva? Diva comes from divine, which means unapproachable or capricious. Therefore I don’t think this is a personal attack. Reflect on it being divine. You may take it as a compliment. Important: I did not say that the block of Paddy or Niabot was not justified. But I would be happy seeing more admins educating valuable users by discussing on a non-personal layer than blocking users.

Furthermore I think the whole climate on commons is poisoned. We should all work together to achieve a more friendly tone without blocking helpful users. (Of course vandals and copyvio uploader should be blocked as soon as possible. There is no question.)

I am sorry for having to clutter your discussion page. Please treat my post as a suggestion and an effort to turn commons into a friendly environment.

Yours sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 09:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you took the time to comment yet I think you've misunderstood the situation this wasnt a dispute resolve
Recent history on commons shows that unless action is taken when warranted, what is unacceptable in the first instance becomes acceptable behaviour and that polarises the community even more.
  1. First edit in 2006, I've been here a long time I seen many disputes esculate unnecessarily when early intervention against unacceptable behaviour would have resolved the situation
  2. I was mellow I was uninvolved and respond to an issue raised on COM:AN/U, we expect and need admins to take action where necessary rather than add to the drama, that doesnt mean we dont discuss.
  3. I acted appropriately for the situation, this was not an issue of resolving a conflict though it extended from a conflict elsewhere that was under discussion there. Personal attacks are by definition personal they are also unacceptable within this community, this issue was more than a personal attack it was also harassment, stalking and causing disruption.
While Niabot and Alvesgaspar actions have been referred to as "as being Diva like" Paddy's actions were nothing of the sort they were an outright abusive attack against an editor designed solely to drive that editor from the discussion.
I agree people should be doing more to improve the environment here IMHO by not accepting, tolerating, or facilitaing the abuse of other editors is a good starting point. If I see a situation where the use of tools(buttons if you prefer) is effective then I'll use them. Admins that dont make hard decisions, admins that dont utilise tools appropriate to the situation are ineffective in fact they can cause more damage and further poison the environment by facilitating the continuation of the abuse. I'd be interested to hear what your opinion is about how long another editor should accept abuse before those in the community trusted to act act. Gnangarra 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your polite and factual answer. First, let me point out, I never said that a decision was not justified.
the community trusted to act, act was a bit tricky to understand (that's why the answer took so long).
Making false claims and presuming taking drugs and manipulating other's users postings is not tolerated, even not by me. What I like to express is
  1. It is a pity if we loose authors making photos and images of good quality. Dealing with artists is sometimes a bit more difficult and requires more sensitivity.
  2. We should slow down the speed on commons (not the server but the discussions) and therefore make it friendlier. (I have no idea how to achieve this. Do you have one?) We need exact rules on FPC that state not to insult other users or the work discussed about. Furthermore a big assume good faith should be included. These rules maybe can be incorporated into an edit-notice. If there is rule infringement, the concerning post should be deleted/ reverted with a default comment. This would prevent escalating these situations. If somebody does not follow this rule and recreate his post, this is an edit war and then there is a reason to block. I know, there is a be polite but it is not said that non-polite postings will be removed.
My own impression about my activity: Sometimes there is an overwhelming count of new files that you can't patrol them. And seeing all this vandalism does not even make it better.
How we can prevent this:
  1. Create a new line on the upload forms that must be filled in: Commons is a media-hoster for educational content. Please fill in a reason, why this is educational content. This would ease to detect useless uploads or prevent them. JavaScript can do this. No changes in software are required.
  2. Forcing the use of the summery text-edit for IP addresses. (We can disable the save button with JavaScript if nothing is specified) -- RE rillke questions? 14:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Gnangarra, as you are an admin, would you mind to add the admin-bit to your babel-box/userpage. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back[edit]

I replied to your comment on my talk page. --Guerillero 22:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fyi ;)[edit]

These is what I want the be 'clean'. Blocks are stigma ;)

Barong (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long list of hideously undescriptive filenames[edit]

Well, you can start looking here...

User:DragonflySixtyseven/Short filenames 1

then proceed to here - User:DragonflySixtyseven/Short filenames 2

then here - User:DragonflySixtyseven/Short filenames 3...

and keep going until you hit User:DragonflySixtyseven/Short filenames 50.

And these 50 pages are just the ones that are six characters or less, and that were uploaded prior to February 2011.

I'll admit that some of them actually are descriptive. But consider "Burn.jpg", "Burned.jpg", and "Burnt.jpg" - one is ethnic Akha showing how they were beaten and burned by the army, one is burnt vegetation after a fire, one is a cartoon of a man in a doctor's office.

BV.jpg is a building belonging to a business whose initials are BV, Tvd.jpg is a man whose initials are TVD. Before they were renamed, Devon.jpg was a picturesque valley and Devon.JPG was a sausage (unless it was the other way around).

Look at C.jpg, for instance - or C1.jpg. Compare that to C1.JPG. Now, which one has a more descriptive name? Trick question: all three names are garbage!

What do you think Front.JPG is, or Front View.JPG or Front Profile.JPG or Front before.jpg or Front after.jpg? DS (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanls for the list but as its part of a larger discussion it should be have been posted there where my response is able to be digested by everyone involved and where they can have input rather then disjointing the discussion Gnangarra 03:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yuk is the politest I can think - look at an example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:De_Vineta_(Werner) - that was really very dumbly dumb thick, if not criminally (in almost any jursidiction) stupid upload annotation - to fix that is beyond my lifetime - unless do we have bots that can fix it? - also where is the discussion, nah maybe not, I'd probably want to PA and insult the uploader too much... SatuSuro (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr license follow-up question[edit]

I have added a follow-up question based on your reply to my original at Village pump#Seeking Flickr licensing advice. Thank you. Odea (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

Thanks for that SatuSuro (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yuk[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:East_perth_trainstation_gnangarra.JPG - needs re-naming and fixing up - it goes against what i was trying to fixup on wp en - in your time of course (East Perth Terminal/ etc...) SatuSuro (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flicker upload bot[edit]

I don't know where to find the answers to my questions. That is not true. I do know where to find the answers to my questions, they could all be answered in the History of the Flickr Upload Bot which unfortunately does not exist.

I found a very untidy area here and proceeded to begin to tidy it up. I think that this task is now on the other side of halfway completed now. This is most of my recent history here.

While completing this task, sometimes I look at the recent uploads and it often crosses my mind that Commons would have much more of its own space if all of the uploads from the Flickr bot that are not being used in a wikimedia project were deleted. Things would be more tidy and/or easier to tidy up.

More than just "being tidy" -- the "lets fill commons with perfectly licensed images" is annoying to me. Also, mirroring Flickr seems to make Flickr, a perfectly good image storage internet location, have the appearance of being a commercial failure. I don't think that it is, with this exception, there is no way to prove it while commons insists on housing the same image collection.

The lack of the bijective relationship (my spell check is claiming that bijective is not a word) annoys me also. Bijective here means that commons could not simply upload its collection to a Flickr account. It would have to keep creating new accounts or purchase one.

So, that is the annoyance which brings me here looking for the history of bot massed Flickr uploads of images to the Commons. Not annoying to me is when an article would be improved with an image which is not available here but available and licensed appropriately from Flickr. Which seems like it would be the natural relationship between the two and the massive bot uploads is a rude to Flickr unnatural relationship.

Can you help to fill in my missing details or correct a miss-understanding I might have or even better yet, be able to provide a history of this phenomena before I begin requesting removal of the upload software and deletion of the unused images? -- Queeg (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnangarra/archive_4&oldid=803046143"