User talk:Gnangarra

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

User talk:Gnangarra/archive


COM:AN[edit]

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−


float  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. Thank you.

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

b s[edit]

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[edit]

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

sp[edit]

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

User:Gnangarra/K5[edit]

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[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


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[edit]

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[edit]

Victoria Quay gnangarra-18.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Victoria Quay gnangarra-18.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

File:Kwinana nth como train gnangarra.ogg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

City of perth night gnangarra.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! City of perth night gnangarra.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Appropriately licensed[edit]

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[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | മലയാളം | português | português do Brasil | +/−

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/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[edit]

Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour gnangarra 5291.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour gnangarra 5291.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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.

[edit]

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

File:Wikireality logo.png[edit]

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)

Copyright status: File:Fremantle gnangarra oct13-100.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | русский | suomi | svenska | +/−

Warning sign
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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

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

Freopedia[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | русский | suomi | svenska | +/−

Warning sign
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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

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