User talk:Gnangarra/archive 6

User talk:Gnangarra/archive

COM:AN

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard#A doubt about relicensing content. This is regarding about User:Blond Thinker AN question regarding the change of licenses.

Bidgee (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

b s

Fremantle Train line - should have been Fremantle railway line - as on wp en.... what a mess this place is - just looking at some of the western australia photos - what a lot of careless rubbish - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

ah huh will fix before heading out to Lou Whitemans place tomorrow Gnangarra 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think i have solved my ant issue - all my nigricans are really desertorum... myrmacia - what a damned nuisance ant identification is... SatuSuro (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ants are easy get an old thong and a can of mortein problem solved. Gnangarra 11:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

what time were you planning... SatuSuro (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

late morning 10ish, got be on the kinder track by 1300 Gnangarra 11:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

hop over to fb to chat further.... :) SatuSuro (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

FP discussion

Thanks for closing and reviewing the FP licence discussion. It can't have been easy to do for a contentious issue and hope you don't get flak for it. I think your implementation, specifically mentioning GFDL 1.2 is absolutely in keeping with the proposal and I wouldn't have expected you to just simplify it to just GFDL without a little further discussion. I hope any discussion is straightforward. Cheers, Colin (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I just followed what the consensus was. Gnangarra 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, here comes a little flak. I was disappointed that you did not seem to understand the main counterargument expressed by myself and others. I believe you characterised us as saying that FP cannot rule out GFDL candidates unless Commons as a whole prohibits such uploads first. Several of us (at least Rd232, Slaunger, Martin Kraft, Saffron Blaze, and I) said quite clearly that FP should not do this, not could not. (To me the proposal seemed arbitrary, unfair, and divisive, but certainly not impossible.) You argued in your close that the strength of the arguments was more important than the number of votes, which (together with the fact that the majority didn't reach the 2/3 threshold usually accepted as indicating consensus) makes it even more critical that you understand the arguments being made. So I was disappointed by the misunderstanding apparent in your closing statement. I'm sorry to be critical, because I have a lot of respect for you and the work you do around here. I do agree this was a contentious issue and I admire your courage in stepping forward to close the discussion. --Avenue (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think the can/should distinction here to be splitting hairs. I interpet the closing comments as saying simply that the "should not" argument is particularly weak when it is well established that FP/QI can set non-image criteria that are stricter than policy. Few of the "should not" comments gave any reasons for it, which further weakens their argument. I find it most interesting that nearly all the opposes were on this done-at-policy vs done-at-FP-criteria technicality and there was very little defense of the GFDL 1.2 licence per se (indeed some strongly opposed to GFDL 1.2 license like Slaunger voted that way). Ultimately, a policy change may come and make this moot.

I don't see what is "arbitrary, unfair" about the criteria change, though there's no doubt the debate is divisive, as it will be when any policy change is discussed. Colin (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Colin, if you'd really like me to explain my thinking further, please drop me a note on my talk page. I'd rather not discuss it further here, as it might give the impression I continue to dispute Gnangarra's close, which I don't (see below). --Avenue (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I noticed my user name mentioned here, I would just like to state that I endorse and agree with the closure done by Gnangarra, and I wish also to thank Gnangarra for his decisiveness in the closure. Yes, there may have been a nuance, which has not been captured in the closing comment, but not a major issue for me. There may also be nuances which we will find along the way needs to be added, but let us address those cases as they appear. --Slaunger (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I think I've generated unnecessary drama here, and I'd like to apologise for that. I still see the issue I raised above as more than a nuance, but I'm sure that the "straw man"-like mischaracterisation of it was unintentional. While I disagree with that aspect of the closure rationale, I think that the actual decision Gnangarra reached was fair, and my criticism here was unhelpfully disputatious. Sorry, Avenue (talk)

• I don't think you've generated any unnecessary drama. I am surprised that this was passed despite lacking a consensus and the closing arguments surmised that the closer's view is weightier than the sum of opposes --Muhammad (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• consensus isnt defined as 2/3rds nor is it the majority opinion, for the record 19 opposing votes out of 51 votes is only 37% which is within the descretionary range for rfa. Weight of arguments presented based on policy is also part of deciding consensus. I considered policy there is no specific policy that preculeds projects determining their own requirements, so then I considered accepted practice(policy by default). The long term accepted practice is that projects like FP, QI can make restrictions greater than that of the overall community participation requirements, FP already restricts who can vote, QI already restricts source, they both set minimum size limits. I also considered what FP is, FP is the means to identify "our best work" the proposal put forth the argument that our best work should also inculde best practice when it comes to licensing. The support argument was that GFDL is being deliberately misused to restrict reuse(not freely available), compared to the oppose arguments of acceptable license but that never addressed the issue of misuse. What I'm expressing is a carefully considered outcome based on the agruments put forth and that is our best work(FP) can and should excluded works where the deliberate misuse of licensing makes an image not freely available. Gnangarra 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion cont at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Closure_response --Muhammad (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Gnangarra, I'm happy that we've very wise and matured admins like you. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

sp

• • • gone - as far as i can tell SatuSuro (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gnangarra/K5

Please correct your Template User:Gnangarra/K5 ->

[[Category:CC-BY-2.5-AU|{{PAGENAME}}]]

--NeverDoING (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Gnangarra 23:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Rocky bay gnangarra-1.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 please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 10:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your review of File:Roetelpelikan-Zoo-Gelsenkirchen-2012-05.jpg

Thanks for your circumstantial review of my photo File:Roetelpelikan-Zoo-Gelsenkirchen-2012-05.jpg. Nonetheless I am not 100% sure what's your point. Do you think another crop (detail of the area around the mouth) could be a QI? If yes, it would be great if you made a suggestion by using the note tool. Thanks! --Tuxyso (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Victoria Quay gnangarra-18.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. --Poco a poco 09:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Kwinana nth como train gnangarra.ogg

---

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 please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 12:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

question

Hi Gnangarra, I'd like to ask you please about this? I mean why did you do it? You are the one who started this project, then why did you leave? Thank you. 67.169.11.214 00:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

very complicated, in a general sense conditions set, communications received and issues that made me see that participation was not worth the potential for damage to my reputation... I'm happy to discuss privately but not publicly feel free to email me. Gnangarra 01:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Metropolis Fremantle

Do you have any photos of Metropolis Fremantle, to be added to article on Dalkeith Opera House. 117.120.18.131 02:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! City of perth night 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. --Smial 13:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately licensed

I'm not just disappointed by your comment, but insulted too. I really expected better of you. A lot of work went into that proposal. Your course-language dismissal was jeuvenile and misguided. So you think you could have worded a proposal better? Or think we need tables to make clear which licences are appropriate. Well those could be added as well! Read the intro to Commons Licensing? Or the Definition? They both establish principles and don't go into specifics. This is needed to explain to new folk why the community has decided what it decided. They aren't mumbo jumbo. It is a necessary first stage. Once we agree that we don't want inappropriate licensing, we can document better which is which. And that really isn't as hard as some people are pretending it is.

We get a chance to reform licensing once a generation, not every week. Commons policy changes at glacial speed compared to Wikipedia. But descructively voting oppose you've helped blow this chance. You could have supported in principle then worked with us towards better clearer wording. But no. I think, unlike those troublemakers who just think the RFC is an intellectual game, you really do want Commons licencing improved. It is not too late for you to amend your comments if you want to help rather than hinder.

Colin (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear Gnangarra/archive 6. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2013 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you – Kwj2772 (msg) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour gnangarra 5291.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. --Nino Verde 11:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Post Danmark-logo

Hello. Danish: Se venligst [[1]] --Søren1997 ^{(talk // contributions)} 16:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikireality logo.png

Please delete the file because it is not free. The description file (wikireality[.]ru/wiki/Файл:Wiki_logo.png) specified, it can be used only on fair use. 85.26.231.125 09:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• this has previously been discussed see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikireality logo.png, while that isnt extensive discussion please contact the person who closed the discussion or re:nominate Gnangarra 09:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Fremantle gnangarra oct13-100.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Fremantle gnangarra oct13-100.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 20:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Freopedia

Hello, I'm interested in your photos of Freopedia because i'm writing an article about Freopedia on Wikipedia. Can you upload on Commons the 4 photos shown in meeting-place-freopedia-intro-walks, freopedia-promotes-freos-heritage. Thank you :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've spoken with the photographer, he mentioned you contacted him and has given you permission for them to be uploaded Gnangarra 10:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! - Grazie a voi! Raoli ✉ (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to know who are the authors of the project "Freopedia." Is really you? :) Do you know what is the logo of "Freopedia"? Thank U very much! — Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Email sent about how it developed, there isnt a logo for Freopedia. Gnangarra 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!! :) --Raoli ✉ (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

File:TvN SNL Korea Logo.png

Hi, I restored this file, because it is obviously not a copyright violation, being clearly ineligible for copyright. I declined the copyvio tagging as you can see in the history. Jcb (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I see there are more files involved. Please fix them yourself, so that I don't need to dig through your deletions. Jcb (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you start an undeletion discussion, I believe that each of the logos are more than simple shapes and clearly copyright violations with the uploader claiming them as own works when clearly they are copies of someone else's work. Gnangarra 08:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

An undeletion discussion is not needed, because no procedure at all was followed to delete the files. Well, I will check them myself, but please be more careful in the future. The user in the village pump asked for assistance to judge file by file to see if they where above the threshold of originality. But instead you just blindly deleted all the files. If you don't want to spend the necessary time on a request for whatever reason, no problem. But then please leave it open for a colleague. Jcb (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

please at least assume good faith in my action, I checked each image and in my opinion all of them were were above the threshold for originality and the licensing didnt reflect the rights the uploader was claiming specifically being the author, hence why I called them copyright violations. Gnangarra 23:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but please read Commons:Threshold of originality then. It cost me at least half an hour to undo e.g. all CommonsDelinker actions. Jcb (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

have started Commons:Deletion requests/File:SM-Entertainment-Logo.jpg Gnangarra 23:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Toodyay memorial hall gnangarra-5.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Toodyay memorial hall gnangarra-5.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 23:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to the start of QI

Hi Gnangarra, I have been very active in QIC for a few years. In Wikimania in London (in just 2 weeks!) I have the possibility hold a presentation ([2]) related to quality images in Commons. I have digged a bit into the history of QIC and found out that you were the one who build in up back in June 2006. Is this right? In that case I was wondering what was your motivation to start such a thing. I read the first versions of QIC and got an idea but it would be great if you find 5 minutes to share it with me. Thanks for that achievement and looking forward to hearing back from you, Poco² 16:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear Gnangarra/archive 6, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2014 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ludlow State Forest

Just wondering if by chance you are familiar with the Ludlow State Forest in between Busselton and Bunbury, and whether that was you who was taking photos there on Thursday afternoon. If so, two things: 1) Look forward to seeing the photos on Commons and 2) my apologies. russavia (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the dying ecosystem of the Ludlow state forest dont start me on that, though it wasnt me there on thursday I do accept your apology for not saying hi at the time :D Gnangarra 10:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Wikimania 2014 gnangarra-116.jpg

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coogee Beach gnangarra-215.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 imo.--ArildV 11:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Doing the WMF's dirty work

Should you really be doing the WMF's dirty work? If they want Russavia banned, then they should be doing the dirty work themselves. Also, a community member blocking Russavia is the same as the community reaffirming the WMF's actions, and community reaffirmation isn't desirable. Russavia and I were simply having a discussion about a misunderstanding. The actions conducted under that IP address weren't harming anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As all admins should be doing following Commons policy of blocking editors who attempt bypass any block or ban. This has no bearing on the communities discussion process nor what decision it makes in the future with regards to the ban. Gnangarra 02:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Restore and move Buildings in Bathurst

I've asked Blackcat (talk · contribs) nicely to restore Category:Buildings in Bathurst so the history of the category could be moved to Category:Buildings in Bathurst, New South Wales by using the move function but it seems they just don't get it (which makes me wonder why they even have Sysop tools). The way they went about moving was wrong, now the original contributors have lost their edits to the Buildings in Bathurst category when it could have been moved just like a file. Bidgee (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 3 Feb 15 FREO FSH gnangarra-118.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 Some minor issues (sharpness of second person not really good and person front left not sharp), but IMO QI as a typical representant of a reportage actionshot. --Cccefalon 14:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 3 Feb 15 FREO FSH gnangarra-115.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  Support Good quality. Interesting way of licensing. --XRay 08:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cantonment hill gnangarra-104.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. --Hubertl 13:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User right of User:Iwelam

Hi Gnangarra, You granted the user a lot of flags. Users need to file a request to receive the image reviewer flag. For filemover right at least 1000 edits are needed. And so on. Granting of autopatrolled seems okay for me. Maybe my post confused you, if so - sorry for that. Maybe you wasn't aware of this, i fixed it. Have a nice day and sorry for the confusion. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Typo

In User:Gnangarra/K20D - "Spetember" instead of "September".

Rich Farmbrough, 00:18 28 April 2016 (GMT).

• thanks fixed Gnangarra 01:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice relaxing vid. Why not also post it on the Google+ Perth Open Community? https://plus.google.com/communities/114630142991819748326 Perthite (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth Australia

Hi Gnangarra, I'm not sure how to enter images into Wiki Loves Earth - Australia. Is there a category to use? I loaded a bunch today, am I on the right path? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leighblackall leighblackall (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There is an upload button on Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in Australia (its linked from the banner) that automatically submits images to the WLE in Australia you will need to add the template {{Wiki Loves Earth 2016|au}} manually to get your uploads into the right category. Gnangarra 06:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure how I missed that upload button! I've added the template and the category: [[Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in Australia]] {{Wiki Loves Earth 2016|au}}. Will use the upload button from now on. leighblackall (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear Gnangarra, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2017 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moodjar 301216 gnangarra-108.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.Looks almost prehistorical. --W.carter 15:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Roe protests

Barnaby C

Damn, wish you got some photos of the person dressed up as a Carnaby's Black Cockatoo....Casliber (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

me too, got a pauline look alike.... little bit work ahead deciding on which of the 10,000 odd images I have taken during protests are worth uploading might still be able to get a Barnaby photo Gnangarra 11:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

you mean you are not gonna upload them all ? JarrahTree (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Selecting (no doubt would be a few duplicate photos, which most photographers do), editing and then uploading is time consuming. :( I've got around 20,000 photographs at least to sort though, from different years and it aren't fun. :/ Bidgee (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

some dumbos call it curation - and prioritise - my digital collection is well above this in number, not sure will live long enough to fix it all ... JarrahTree (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

the 10,000 is just ROE 8 taken since the 11th January 2017 Gnangarra 12:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Casliber: I ran into Barnaby this morning and got a few shots, see Category:Barnaby C. Gnangarra 04:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at my edits

I have created a few extra categories for when we upload photos from the trip - cheers JarrahTree (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/240476616

I know the GFDL isn't really appropriate for image files due to its ridiculous restrictions, but GFDL is not a software license, it is a license which is appropriate for textbooks, manuals, and the like. I actually proposed before to prohibit GFDL-only and GFDL and NC license only uploads but those who opposed said there are other licenses which are like the GFDL, like GPL. I first agreed to that so I withdrew the proposal, but doing some research, they are wrong. There are differences between them. I am planning to make another proposal for that. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Photographer's Barnstar

Hello. Your light paintings are amazing! I am an Australian photographer www.katebranch.com and a novice to wiki commons. Im not even sure if this is the right way to contact- but I think your work is amazing! So it works for me. I would love to enter my Australian photos into the contest. I use a hasselbad, canon even my i-phone if its all I have at that moment. Im sure your busy- but if you would just let me know how to enter the "Wiki Loves Earth 2017 in AustraliaWikimedia Australia Events" thank you. Kate Branch Photography (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding Australian Landscapes to the comp

Hello, Thanks for the upload advice. May I ask if we can Add Australian Landscapes the were previously uploaded in 2017. Can I add a category to these images? Or if so, how would I do that. Thank you again Kate :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Branch Photography (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Autonomous bus trials South Perth - 3.ogv

Hi. Do you have another copy of this file that you could reupload? The server lost it. - Revent^talk 22:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Upload

Okay great. I actually would prefer to upload them in colour but need to first edit the dust marks. They are images captured with my old hasselblad and the 4 by 5 negs when scanned got some dust. Once edited I will upload again in colour. Thanks (Kate Branch Photography (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC))

Edit request related to WLE Australia

Could you look at Commons talk:Wiki Loves Earth 2017 in Australia? I don't know where to find the banner. --jdx ^Re: 09:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Gnangarra 05:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)