User talk:Gnangarra/archive 3

So quiet

Ahhh just like the nullarbor - wide open expanses :) - this talk page that is :) SatuSuro (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gnangarra. Sorry to trouble you. After some advice. I found some National Archives of Australia images I thought would be useful for the Tasman Bridge Disaster article I've been expanding lately. I wrote to the NAA copyright office requesting permission to upload 6 specific images to WP Commons and use in the article...got a reply 24 hours later providing permission for their use. Uploaded them all and immedaitely forwarded the NAA email to the OTRS system - to cover all six images. Got an email reply from an OTRS volunteer today which seemed to be an automated message and confused me a bit because it refers to copyrighted text as well as images. I haven't replied to it - not sure what I need to do next. An obvious answer would be to email him back request some clarification. Should I do this? Glen Dillon (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If dealing with this takes any more than 5 mins, then don't worry about it. Copyright for the six images is held by the NAA. The NAA search engine produces non-permanent URL's so the only way to direct you to the images is via the following permalinks @ Pictures Australia which have a clickable link to the NAA's image location. [1], [2],[3], [4], [5],[6]. The uploaded images are my last six uploads on Special:Contributions/Glen_Dillon eg. [7]. Hope I'm not subverting any process by asking for your assistance on this given that there's a ticket already opened on OTRS. That's not my intention of course. Re: permission - the NAA copyright office has given me explicit written permission to upload all six images to Commons. Glen Dillon (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Swan River and Freo

Good to see the work there - I know somewhere i have under the bridges of the guildford area (somewhere in my iphoto 000,s ) - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:SSK3.jpg, Image:SSK5.jpg

• Good day, as I know according to Kazakhstani law if a man captured at a picture is against using photo of him in any sources it cannot be used. That is why I ask you to delete these files.

Image:Debby Ryan.jpg

I was wondering if you could please confirm the OTRS ticket for Image:Debby Ryan.jpg. Call me overly suspicious but the uploader, User:I Cried Wolf who posts as User:Cory Malik at the English Wikipedia, has a long history of uploading images with false FURs, invalid copyright notices etc.[8] The image in question was previously deleted because it was a copyvio[9] and there was no OTRS ticket so I'd just like to confirm that he hasn't made it up, as he's previously shown he is likely to do. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking into may take a day or so for a response. Gnangarra 06:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problems. I appreciate your efforts. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sufficient doubt that I have deleted the image until resolved. Gnangarra 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, but not unexpected. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lake clifton gnangarra 03.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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yarloop wkshop gnangarra 10.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 Looks acceptable to me. --Eusebius 08:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Beelu

Have started at wp en - an art called Beelu National Park - maybe we need some tie-ins now? cheers SatuSuro (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FP is a joke, because "they" want it to be

4,733 × 3,421 pixels
Opposed

2,400 × 1,432 pixels
Featured Picture

When my version of this image was voted out -- one of the opposers showed up at the review with a restorer of images who was not active there before and is since extremely active in spite of often not getting votes for the nominations. Votes are gotten always from the same little group of voters.

I am impressed with the people who still contribute in spite of the joke that is the Review systems here. I have seen among the plant photographs here a person who puts into the information template on every image that their images are not to be considered for any of the reviews here.

I do not like the way that the appearance is of owned people. I don't like the abuse of people who care. I read FPC often the same way that used to read the comics in the newspaper and sometimes I am disappointed because I end up reading something akin to watching the most ignorant and un-impressive and not well authored situation comedy -- one that is not funny even for the effort.

Those people will have to either 1)Go away or 2)explain their presence and confess to the versioning control or 3)something that repairs the situation better than I know before I will cease to see this as a poorly told joke.

The fact that there are occasionally great images that appear there seems to be an unintentional nice thing. -- carol (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry about your "ball and chain" employment

My brain is so dulled from the last few years of this wrong relocation and the lack of real people in it. I really went from encountering several hundred people a week to here, only one very immature person and people who interestingly enough only walk and talk loudly on this street in one direction -- the comments I hear from them often have the ability to seem to be participating in the goings on which are here. This observation lacks sanity, but not as much as the situations which put me here.

I watched the satellite stream here of a news show -- people who some system put into place who are supposed to tell facts in a respectable fashion. In that stream, eyes were being removed from the images of the people who were reading the text that should have been interesting facts for a news broadcast. It was as if I was seeing a desktop of a person making a library of eye types from images gotten through the satellite stream. The eyes were outlined and then dragged off the frame I was watching.

Lately, they send an type of person through. This week it is blondes who look like Joan Allen or the last Press Secretary for what that same group of people claim to be have been the departing government of this country. There were at least two other instances of this style of person (straight and very blonde hair, simple face).

I really dislike the abuse of the words "girlfriend" and "wife" I have sensed for all of these years. "Ball and chain" is a phrase that is often used to describe a marriage and I am curious if your employment is the same abuse of this idea of "marriage" that I perceive/sense going on everywhere since I really did accomplish something which should have made my value as a working person greater than simply watching this kind of crap on the satellite feed. -- carol (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of identifiable people again

I have made some changes to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal in response to a variety of helpful suggestions that users have made on the talk page. You have already commented there; could I ask you to have a look again, and to consider whether you would like to express an opinion in the Poll towards the bottom of the page? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

shares toys and plays well with others

Is there a barnstar for sharing toys and playing well with others I could perhaps use to extend my apologies even farther? -- carol (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Shout gnangarra.jpg

---

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 informations 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 01:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

False Report image was uploaded with licensing Gnangarra 03:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, this bot works by checking to see if the file transcludes any of the standard license templates. Hesperian 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Really thanks for having told me that problem! It was a really difficult bug to find! The problem was that in a certain part in the code the bot was case-sensitive and in the block after case-INsensitive and this gave off course some problems.. by the way, now it's all fixed ;-) Thanks again! --Filnik^{\b[Rr]ock\b!?} 16:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yippee!

Admins can now move images! Hesperian 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can my totally wrongly labelled File:Boenninghausenia albiflora.jpg be moved to File:Pseudofumaria alba.jpg with this new power? Melburnian (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, done. Thanks, I was looking for an excuse to try it out. Hesperian 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick, thanks. Melburnian (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No worrries mate, I have gnomes on stand by for just such an emergency :) Gnangarra 11:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fesa 671 01 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 upper parts of the heli slightly overexposured, but else good management of the contre-light-situation. --Mbdortmund 10:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[[:{{{1}}}]]

---

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 11:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fesa 669 02 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 Good quality and composition. kallerna 12:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Refueling panorama 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 {{{3}}}

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Larus delawarensis portrait.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Larus delawarensis portrait.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

File:All_saints_sign.jpg

File:All_saints_sign.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!

Dcoetzee (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of FoP from File:ForrestField.jpg

Okay, so I'm just curious, why did you choose to remove the {{FoP-Australia}} tag from the image File:ForrestField.jpg? Do you have evidence that this sculpture is in the public domain? The tag is not required, but if the sculpture is in copyright, I think it would be useful. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What you have been doing is unnecessary tagging of images I havent made any claim of copyright in regards to the actual sculpture only the photograph which under Australian law I'm entitled to do. I will the remove the FoP tag from all my images for this reason, feel free to challange any my images via an xfd discussion if you think they are copyright violations. Gnangarra 08:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, you have completely the wrong idea. The pictures are not copyright violations, with or without the tag. The tag only clarifies why they are not copyright violations. But if you're going to get aggressive about it do whatever you want, I was just trying to help. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The tag is unnecessary the image have been licensed in accordance with commons policy, the license complies with and is valid under both Australian and US laws. The tag doesnt provide any clarity it just confuses and implies that the images have questionable copyright status which is a patent lie. I'm wasnt getting agressive you over this I'm just pointing out that the images I upload have clear copyright status but if anyone has a reason to question them then they can ask me directly or take the image to an xfd discussion. Gnangarra 11:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more that your images have clear copyright status, but I don't think you understand what the tag says. The tag says that "the sculpture or building depicted is under copyright, but Australian law allows photographs of copyrighted sculptures or buildings to be taken and published, so this is okay." If you really think the tag implies that the copyright status in questionable, then I think the tag is unclear and not serving its purpose. Could you suggest some revisions to the tag to help emphasize this? Dcoetzee (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Woodman pt pano gnangarra.jpg

---

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 09:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

DOH! twoz \ instead of / fixed. Gnangarra 09:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing - is it translate-able? SatuSuro (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Advertising

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

New version of QI candidate

Hi, I have uploaded a new version of File:Athens panorama from Melissia.jpg, which hopefully takes care of the issues you pointed out. Can you please reevaluate it? Thanks. --Ferengi (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User template with embedded license template

Hi Gnangarra,

I do not know if you are familiar with Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Regarding licenses? However, according to that the user template which you transclude onto you file pages are not compliant with that policy because it has an embedded license template. The objective of the policy is to avoid bulk license changes, which will not be visible on the history of the file pages onto which the user template is transcluded, see, e.g., User talk:Fir0002 for the kind of mess this can lead to. I have implemented a bot, SlaungerBot, which can assist users like you to do the necessary manual work needed for extracting the actual license template from user templates whilst keeping one centralized user credits template.

I have recently helped Jean-Pol GRANDMONT doing this kind of work on +2700 file pages of his much to his satisfaction (as I perceive his follow-up comments) and I am in the process of assisting Fcb981 in the same way. You may want to have a look at the talk pages of these users and the bots user page and contributions to see what the procedure is. I realize that these user license templates are a sensitive matter for most users, and I take it very seriously that we deal with these things on a user-by-user basis, where each step in the process is approved by the individual user. If you are interested, reply here. I am watching . --Slaunger (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, you'll need to wait for a couple of days while I create a new template to cover all future uploading noting that Commonist doesnt subst license templates since I use it extensively for uploads I'll need at make a template that complies with the policy yet doesnt require substing. This new template will be able to automatically be applied to images using User:Gnangarra/K20D but images using User:Gnangarra/3.0 and {{Gnangarralicense}} have different categories attached it probably best to just subst these ones and migrate them to solely CC-by-3.0 licensing as they meet the requirements of that anyway. Gnangarra 03:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No hurry. These templates have been transcluded for ages already. Although substing surely will bring your templates in compliance with Commons policy, it will also lead to a lot of clutter on the individual file pages and you will loose the possibility to maintain your credits part of the user template afterwards (it is acceptable to keep user license templates transcluded as long as they do not contain the actual license template). Another solution, which I implemented with Jean-Pol was to make a new user template, which has the credit and the license side by side as two different templates. It is a long time since I have used Commonist for file upload, but would it then not be possible for you to upload specifying both a user-specific credits template and a license template - then you do not have to subst in Commonist? Of course, there will be a slight change in the actual rendering of the credits and license as the license would not be encapsulated in a credits wikitable, but rather shown immediately above or below your personalized credits box. --Slaunger (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarity is the issue the license needs to be encapsulated within one box. multple boxes only causes confusion given that commonist doesnt have the ability to have multiple templates there isnt a clear solution, until I can create a soltuion the licensing needs to remain as is. Gnangarra 05:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. It is different how import different users find this "license in a box" aspect. For instance Fir does not mind moving the license out of the credits box. A way to solve it, (which would be bending policy a bit through), would be to change your user template such that it takes an explicit license parameter, which would have to be specified on each file page in a similar manner as {{Self}}. --Slaunger (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My thought was to drop the cc-by-3.0 template and just state this image is licensed under cc-by-3.0 link to the license as per the template and specify the attribution requirements. In reality the {{CC-by-3.0}} probably should have parameters included to enable the specification of attribution since that is what cc-by-3.0 is about, strangely enough the documentation does have the parameters but the actual template doesnt. Anyway for the moment I'm still considering my options, watch this space Gnangarra 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like interesting thoughts. I'll stay tuned to your talk page. --Slaunger (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask you if you would be willing to change {{Gnangarralicense}} when I noticed this debate. Adding 3.0 would make migration redundant and help bringing the number of files to review down. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

will do that Gnangarra 00:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Update As per Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Regarding licenses I have removed the CC-by-3.0 template from my custom license templates User:Gnangarra/3.0, User:Gnangarra/K20D and Template:Gnangarralicense. Additionally {{Gnangarralicense}} has been migrated to cc-by-3.0. Gnangarra 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I did a minor change to "[[Category:CC-BY-3.0|{{PAGENAME}}]]" instead of 2.5. Hope it is ok :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

yep thanks, missed that one Gnangarra 11:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning bot work, I think my bot can do what you request. I have to look at it in a little more detail though to fully grasp what you would like the bot to do. I am a bit hung up now and this weekend, but perhaps in the beginning of next week? --Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

no worries its not a big problem just wanted consistancy between the info template and the actual license thats all Gnangarra 00:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. It would be helpful for me, if you would make one update per license type on example file pages such that I have some clear examples of what the bot should do. Please list the examples here. Please, also consider what the edit summary(ies) should look like. --Slaunger (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

F/Q/V

G'day mate,

In your opinion, how far away from a Wikipedia/Commons Featured/Quality/Valued image is this? I think it is visually striking, and the basics seem about right e.g. it is in focus. However I would be surprised if it was featurable, simple because it didn't take me any effort; all I did was point and click. Any ideas what I would need to improve upon next time?

Hesperian 03:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FP isnt about how log you took to take the picture its about the end result, I suggest a nom at COM:QIC even there it'll depend on who reviews it. Ona side issue I spent some time at Botanic Gardens while in Canberra so there some picts from there to come in the next fewwwwww days... Gnangarra 05:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted it to QIC as you suggested, but then noticed/learned that there wasn't enough of it in focus, and withdrew it. A little later I discovered that someone I don't know had nominated it for Featured, but of course it failed. Hesperian 03:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

temp block request

I would like to request a temp block for User:Amisdesbrus. He has been deliberately interfering in a mass deletion discussion concerning images he uploaded by attempting to blank portions of the discussion page. He has also been removing deletion notice tags from each image and the deletion notice on his talk page. The discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/Paintings of artist Georges Emile Lebacq and instance of vandalism include: [[10],[11], [12]. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I had meant to send you a message last night to let you know the block was no longer necessary as cooperation was taking place. Thank you for your follow up message. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A challenge

G'day,

You know what would be really cool? If we could put together the following sequence of photos for on a single species.

• 
  Developing bud, protected by involucral bracts (B. grandis)
• 
  Spike starting to elongage (B. grandis)
• 
  Elongate flower spike (B. grandis)
• 
  Flowers starting to develop (B. menziesii)
• 
  flowers starting to elongate (B. ashbyi)
• 
  flowers elongated, styles still completely within perianth (B. menziesii)
• 
  flowers fully formed, styles have broken free of perianth (B. menziesii)
• 
  mid-anthesis, pistil has started breaking free of limb (B. menziesii)
• 
  anthesis complete (B. prionotes)
• 
  flowers falling out to expose the spike (B. prionotes)
• 
  follicles starting to develop (B. prionotes)
• 
  mature follicles, closed (B. menziesii)
• 
  mature follicles, open, seed separator about to fall out, seed release to follow (B. menziesii)

What do you reckon? B. menziesii would probably be the best candidate. B. sessilis would be easy too I guess.

I think I'm going to take this on. Wanna help?

Hesperian 01:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC):::

sounds like an interesting challenge, B.menziesii would be more dramatic then B.sessilis given the flowering structure. Gnangarra 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

why not do B.grandis, thinking more probably should target all three at the same given they are local and readily available shouldnt be too difficult Gnangarra 02:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's do the lot! I have a location convenient to me with menziesii, attenuata, prionotes, grandis and sessilis (and littoralis but I've only found one tree and it ain't pretty). I'll try to pop in every week or so. If you're doing the same we should be able to get some ripper time sequences together over the spring and summer! Hesperian 02:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

suggest you get something to tag a specific branch so that not only do you get the sequence but its for the same structure! also if our hillbillie friend was around we could add nivea, though I'll try to find a local near here to get that. Maybe we should have a meetup somewhere with the purpose of getting photographs, will suggest over on en if you think its possible. Gnangarra 03:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The only difficulty is that you would need to commit at a bud stage, with no way of knowing whether it will abort, or end up ugly as sin, or be destroyed by a cockatoo. I guess the solution is to follow the fortunes of half a dozen buds, in the hope that one will live a life worth documenting.

Another suspect is ilicifolia. I know a few places where I can find it, though it is more common out your way.

I'll send you an email re: your meetup idea.

Hesperian 03:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Banksia/Sequences Hesperian 03:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

QI categorization

Hello, Really puting this image in "Objects/Industrial" is bad categorization. This category is for objects, and this is not an object. It can be categorized as a place, or as an activity, but not as an object. I agree that categorization as "color" might be not the best, but I couldn't find a better one. I have already proposed that more categories to be created. Would you agree with that? Yann (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO tanning is an industrial process and the chemicals used are an object associated with that and that was what the photograph is about, but that said if you dont agree and want to change it I'm not going to argue. Gnangarra 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Gnangarra!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Perth station int satusuro.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Sea eagle nest satusuro.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Useless loop satusuro.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:B menziesii gnangarra 23.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Steep point satusuro.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Energy rating 01 gnangarra .jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Karragullen 02 gnangarra.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Salt loading satusuro.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Done Gnangarra 13:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)