User talk:Calistemon

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Calistemon!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

TUSC token 75ec5ee05777da93ee3bc874d2d49a8f

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Lovely Images

Hi Calistemon, your lovely images match your username. I saw the Goanna on Wikipedia and it lead me here. Keep up the wonderful contributions.

Wonderful colours. Love the composition. Hope the weather is not too hot for you out there - Peripitus (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah

commons seems a bit loose on over-categorising - I have had it from one other that the excess cats here compared to wp en is the assistance to users trying to find stuff - whether that is a good argument I am not so sure :) SatuSuro (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token af7bd6c156de2166782220b540a9f0c4

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Calistemon!

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kit body rkberlin.PNG was uncategorized on 27 April 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Kit_body_rkberlin.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kit_body_rkberlin.png. 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.

Common Good (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kit body rkberlin.png

The license is fine. The design is very simple and no logo is visible. -- Common Good (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron ore Pilbara.jpg

Hi - any chance of increasing the font size on that map? It is a great idea, but even at relatively large scale can be hard to read - i can only read it at full resolution, at which point i get lost on the map itself. Thans for all your work on the mines etc. Hamiltonstone (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so not gone completely

Good to see you can put up a photo still! any chance of meeting up sometime, rocko or perth? JarrahTree (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tricky

separating freo harbour freo outer harbour and freo ports would be my preference - but maybe it needs a coffee in rock sometime soon to explain? JarrahTree (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

will have to check very close to the time - complicated coming off a very bad flu and range of commitments.. very 9nterested though!! JarrahTree (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

check your email i have sent my number - give a call JarrahTree (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

odd category designations

I would remove the WA myself - but then I feel that if there is not a definite links specifically supportable - then find something better JarrahTree (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

emoji in awe of dedication wow JarrahTree (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western Australia

FYI, I put the categorise template back on this category. The category has no files at the moment, but that doesn't mean it can't have them in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

munster

indeed, highly likely a closer look is required as to the boundaries and potentially now incorrect wp en - crazy weekend - will try to find somethung JarrahTree (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal mural, Bendigo Bank, Rockingham, July 2019 02.jpg

File:Seal mural, Bendigo Bank, Rockingham, July 2019 02.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal mural, Bendigo Bank, Rockingham, July 2019 01.jpg

File:Seal mural, Bendigo Bank, Rockingham, July 2019 01.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Photo challenge/2019 - November - Weather vanes/Winners

	Photo Challenge – Second Place
	Congratulations! Your picture Weather vane at Woodman Point, November 2019.jpg won the 2nd place in the Photo Challenge Weather vanes, in November 2019. You can find the results of the challenge here.

yup

tricky, try user:gnangarra he might have an idea... JarrahTree (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

remember it well

and i know someone who is related to eric as well.. JarrahTree (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi Calistemon, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

-- ~riley (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your choice sir

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Octagonal_Hall,_Glen_Forrest - if you needed it... so to speak... JarrahTree (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

heheh territory well known... JarrahTree (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmans Bay

Thanks for fixing this. I've been adding lots of photos to Mosmans Bay knowing it was incorrect and meaning to see if it could be changed. But at least I was consistent. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sloans Cottage, Leda, July 2020 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
Support Good quality. --MB-one 07:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate

thanks for that - the one that was not linked in anyways has been deleted as a duplicate - appreciate the note about that JarrahTree (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your help in creating category for photos by Ed Gold

Hi Calistemon. I just wanted to expand on my thanks to you regarding the suggestion, which you also kindly implemented, that Mr Gold's photos be placed in a single category. This greatly helps both users who propose to add them to articles and others who merely wish to view them. Your actions have been in contrast to editors who have been questioning my role in helping him: even to they extent that they assert I have a conflict of interest. The latest part of this saga is at the teahouse today. and, from yesterday in this Talk thread.

I propose to stay above the fray until matters settle down but I have a question: why did you choose the user name Calistemon? As far as I know, the bottle brush tree is Callistemon spp. (with two l). That particular tree is important to me because profits from a herbicide called mesotrione help pay my pension from Syngenta! The article on WP about the herbicide is one which I have extensively edited. I though it was a very nice coincidence that a user with such a name should now be helping me! Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eugowra Mural 1.JPG

File:Eugowra Mural 1.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eugowra Mural.JPG

File:Eugowra Mural.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/03#Perth Stadium AFL images

Hello Calistemon, and thanks for the ping to this discussion.

First off, I should note that none of my Commons contributions are photographs I have originally taken (bar a few extremely blurry shots I uploaded early in my editing career, which I would not mind seeing deleted) – my uploads are all either crops of existing photographs or cross-uploads from Flickr. It is my understanding that uploading these images would not violate the venue or AFL terms and conditions you mentioned, since I didn't hold a ticket or enter the venue.

Recently I've also been trying to improve Commons's organisation of AFL photography, with the aim of placing all photographs taken from AFL matches into unique categories, then classifying these categories by venue and club, so that it is easier to find AFL photos relevant to a particular team or location. As part of this process I created the two categories you mentioned in the VP discussion, although I did not upload the photographs within these categories.

I'm no expert in copyright intricacies. I can say, however, that various enwiki and commons editors have been uploading original photography from AFL matches pretty consistently under free licences since 2006 (not to mention the many Flickr transfers), and I'm not aware of any contact from anyone associated with the AFL asking about these images in the 15 years since this practice has been going on, even though they show up prominently for most AFL-related Google searches and are displayed in the top search result.

If you wanted a more informed perspective, I would recommend asking someone more active in uploading original AFL photography. Teratix (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Teratix: It seems to be a little bit of a grey zone in regards to what the AFL allows. A similar restriction seems to be in place by the Perth Wildcats. I have contemplated contacting the AFL for clarification but it may be a case of just letting "sleeping dogs lay" and not raise it. It is also quite possible that the AFL's official policy has changed since 2006. In any case, I do not suggest that any of these images should be deleted and would like to expand the number myself from past games in WA I attended but I'm a bit weary of "getting in trouble" for it. I have left the issue aside for now as there is plenty of other images to upload and sort for me. Calistemon (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hitching Post outside National Bank in Wagin

Thanks for your message. My Wagin photos are not the best I've ever contributed to Commons. Ordinarily, Commons photos I take of WA country towns are taken between about 9.00 am and about 3.00 pm. As you may have noticed, however, my Wagin photos were taken very late one afternoon. That was a particular problem for the ones I took of the buildings in Tudor Street, including the NAB building, because all of those buildings face east. Even after I had lightened the dark parts, those photos still weren't very good, and I seriously considered not uploading them at all. However, as there were not as yet very many Wagin photos on Commons, I decided to go ahead.

I wasn't aware of the significance of the hitching post until you pointed it out to me. I am hoping in the not too distant future to revisit Wagin one morning, and take some more photos of Tudor Street. If and when I do, I will make sure to take a closeup of the hitching post. In the meantime, you might want to use one of the NAB building photos as a placeholder in your List. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:View north over Beeliar Regional Park from Mount Brown, May 2021 04.jpg

Copyright status: File:View north over Beeliar Regional Park from Mount Brown, May 2021 04.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:View north over Beeliar Regional Park from Mount Brown, May 2021 04.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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 23:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for posting so many useful photos of ships in the Henderson area. These have been very helpful in quite a few Wikipedia articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Thanks for your appreciation. It is always interesting to go to Henderson to see what ships are there, or what is just out in Cockburn Sound on see trials, whether it is an ANZAC, Cape, or Guardian class (haven't seen a sub for many years). I also saw your very to the point edit on the Perth article. I have a good friend who is a weapons officer on the ship. She hasn't moved for a while (ship and friend)! Calistemon (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing Issue

Hi, I am new to Wikimedia and Photography and i don't know how to properly License Stuff can you help me license this Image File:Zaid Semi Portrait.jpg this was taken from IMDb. Ehlboy (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly, this is outside my powers. IMDb is not a free source, all content is copyrighted and therefore can't be uploaded on Commons. I quote:

All content included on this site in or made available through any IMDb Service, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, video clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of IMDb or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws.. Calistemon (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm so what can i do can you like License it like you can put that this is taken from IMDb Ehlboy (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. IMDb is the owner of the image and has not released it under a free licence, it can not be uploaded here. You really need to read Commons:Licensing before uploading anymore images and stop uploading images published on copyrighted sources. Calistemon (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

identity

Hi Calistemon - can you check the identity of your set File:Brush bronzewing (Phaps elegans) at Lake Cooloongup, Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, June 2021 01.jpg to File:Brush bronzewing (Phaps elegans) at Lake Cooloongup, Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, June 2021 07.jpg inclusive, please? They all look like Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera to me, rather than Brush Bronzewing Phaps elegans, based on the head pattern, and the pale fringes on the mantle and wing coverts. If you agree, I can rename them. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I will have a look a little later. If correct, and I presume you are as I'm no expert on birds and sometimes find it hard to identify, I will rename the files and change the descriptions. Thanks for letting me know, Calistemon (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: I have had a good look at my images and images in the two categories, Phaps chalcoptera and Phaps elegans and I have to confess, I really can't say what my images are. I'm just not skilled enough to identify which one is the correct one. I do have Birds of Australia book at home which would be, from memory, what I used to identify the bird but I won't have access to that until later in the week. All I can tell you for sure is that all seven images I took are of one and the same bird. If you are convinced, I'm happy for you to change the file names as I can't make a decisive call here on which one it is. Calistemon (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Certainly helps to know they are all the same individual. I checked the pics again with two Aus field guides, and also the photos on iNat (Common and Brush), and come down more strongly in favour of Common, so I'll rename and recategorise them now. Thanks for the help! - MPF (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And done :-) MPF (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge 2021-08 Playgrounds?

Hello Calistemon, I just want to inform you that you probably posted your pictures for 'Playgrounds' in the wrong challenge ('Contre-Jour'). --PtrQs (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PtrQs: Thank you, very right you are! Now removed. I can't believe I did that! Calistemon (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Meerkats (Suricata suricatta) mating in Perth Zoo, September 2021 06.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. --Steindy 17:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Iron tank on stand, Yalgoo, September 2021 08.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. --Tournasol7 06:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign

Hi, why did you remove the campaign category from this file? We're using Category:Uploaded via Campaign:ProspectPark for an ongoing event. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Extremely easy to answer: When I removed it on 2 October 2021 at 08:09 it was still a non-existing category. Looking at the time stamp, it was only created by you 14 hours later. When I recategorised the 50 images in Category:Lake to more applicable ones, I removed such redlinks. Calistemon (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category page afterwards, yes, but please don't remove redlinks automatically. If I didn't catch that, it would've made problems for the campaign. Those campaign pages aren't created by default, but they are used, so a large number of campaigns have redlinked categories. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I understand what you are saying but, unfortunately, a lot of these badly categorised images contain redlink categories as the uploaders in these campaigns just don't care or have the experience to place them in the correct ones. I will have a quick look through my recent categorisations and fix the ones that belong to campaigns but it really would be better if users involved in campaigns would create the categories at the start. It would prevent such misunderstandings. Calistemon (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the workflow is when creating a campaign (I didn't create this one myself), but yes, I agree it would be good to instruct people during that process to create the page. If nothing else, it would be useful to just create it as a hidden category from the start. Anyway, thanks for rechecking. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I found two that i removed redlinked campaign categories from: File:Blue lake sunny day.jpg, which had Category:Uploaded via Campaign:ProspectPark created after my removal and which I have now restored and File:Eagles nest Baltit Fort.jpg, which had Category:WLM 2019 Pakistan unreviewed, still a redlink with 53 images in it but also restored. I will keep an eye out for those in the future! Calistemon (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

How to I save these images (Legends of People, Myths of State 31 page.png and Legends of People Book Cover.jpg) from speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Kesigan (talk • contribs) 08:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S.Kesigan: You can't, they are copyright violations and can't be on Commons. You could upload a low resolution image of the coveer on the English Wikipedia under fair use but not the page, I would say. Calistemon (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azad najar images copyright

Hello Mr. Calistemon, i saw that images that i uploaded have been tagged with copyright warning, the images are mostly supplied by Doctor Azad himself, and others which have been taken by local universities are free to be used by me (as a medical student), so is there any problem? when these tags would be removed? Have a good time. Daniel abdullah (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel abdullah: Please have a good read of Commons:Licensing as uploading these files, which have now been speedily deleted, is not permitted. They all came from sources that have clear copyright policies which did not permit reusing them in such fashion. If the good Doctor could make some images available directly and confirm this through OTRS, that would be great, but they can't be sourced through copyrighted third parties. Also be weary as images of the Doctor have obviously been taken by somebody else, not himself and the copyright won't necessarily lay with him but instead with the image taker. Your best bet would be to just take the images yourself, with his permission, and upload them here. Calistemon (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calistemon: , thanks my friend, i try to fix the problem. Daniel abdullah (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map identifications and classifications

Hi, I only started my efforts into "Uncategorized maps" some weeks ago and have been at it ever since. I find it really helpful to categorize images as deeply as possible, instead of just one level deeper with each iteration, which means you have at some point look at the same map again. So, if there is a random interstate map of the US, I move it from "Unidentified maps" into "Interstate maps of..." instead of "Maps of...". The same goes for all kind of thematic maps: Sure it is okay to categorize by the extent of a map, but that way we ended up with 4000+ "Maps of the world" (I lowered that count to 2500 as of yesterday), and often the topic of the content is more important than the map extent. For example, File:Country Diamond League 2016.svg is a map of Europe and Africa, but please just randomly check for some clues in the maps/titles/descriptions: Category:Diamond League and find out that it fits much better into "Sports maps of..." as well.
Another hint I have is to check uploaders who didn't categorize properly: Often they may have uploaded three similar maps, or a dozen or even hundreds of maps of the very same topic, and depending on the whims of categorizers, they may have landed in all kinds of categories, so this is the chance to group topical maps back together, I think. In this case, I found that out of ~1000 world maps, 300 were not or improperly classified. And this one needed at least the tag Category:Micronations, if not the delete-tag for being self-promoting BS.
I'd be glad if you can share some advice back, as you have no doubt found other and different approaches into categorizing stuff. Best wishes, --Enyavar (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar: Thanks for the advice. I haven't done all that much on the Uncategorized maps but your advice is certainly appreciated! If I do come back to that category I will refine my categorisation efforts. Calistemon (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up

Your excellent photo File:Three Guardian class patrol boats at Austal shipyards in Henderson, Western Australia, August 2020.jpg was used here... https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2021/11/12/coast-guard-partners-complete-cooperative-pacific-surveillance-operation-seapower/

His blog is often interesting, fwiw.

Thanks for uploading these excellent photos! Geo Swan (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Thank you for letting me know, quite pleasing to see the images is getting used, not just here. That is what they are for. Also good to see the blogger stated the source of the image, doesn't always happen either! Calistemon (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Eastern great egret (Ardea alba modesta) at Lake Walyungup, Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, June 2022 05.jpg

Copyright status: File:Eastern great egret (Ardea alba modesta) at Lake Walyungup, Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, June 2022 05.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Eastern great egret (Ardea alba modesta) at Lake Walyungup, Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, June 2022 05.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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 03:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks marked by wikicrowd

Hello When I am using wikicrowd I dont see what is already marked on image. So yes - this images are definitely not needed to mark as "duck". But I am thinking that the whole group "ducks" in wikicrowd should be removed (and only dogs and cats should stay). I will give you info about progress. PMG (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and approach

It's good practice to state a reason for changes on others work to help them learn how to use the platform. A rude and patronising tone doesn't help anyone. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gracchus250: , for a start, your edit summary when reverting me, No reason given for removal of category, ignored the fact that my edit was done with HotCat, which does not use edit summaries when making single category changes or removals. Secondly, rather then just thoughtlessly reverting me, even if you are not familiar with the official policy of Commons:Categories, a quick look at Category:Australia, which would have been completely or nearly completely empty of files at that point of time, would have given you a hint as to why your map didn't belong their either. If you had come to me and and instead said "Hey Calistemon, why did you remove my file from Category:Australia? Could you please explain?" rather then just blindly revert me, changes are you would have gotten a much different reply! As to learning how this platform works, somebody else already cleaned up after you a year ago (here and here) when they had to catgeorise File:Melbourne rail map with former lines and planned extensions.svg correctly for you so and you haven't made any efforts to learn from that so far. You probably find this reply rude, but I find editors rude who just dump images in Commons and can't be bothered to categorise them correctly, which isn't all that hard! The images and maps you upload are very valuable to Commons, but become almost impossible to access for other users if not categorised correctly. Calistemon (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is incredibly rude, your approach and tone is rude, counterproductive, dismissive and patronising. This is exactly how not to approach or welcome new users, and helps absolutely no one learn or want to contribute. My contributions are useful and personally time consuming and it is angry, thoughtless and petty responses like this over the most minor categorisation issues that make think it is not worth contributing at all. I really hope you reflect on your poor behaviour and reconsider your approach to others. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracchus250: You are not a new user, you have uploaded just under 50 images in 3 years (not that time consuming!) and, by the looks of it, not one of them was ever categorized correctly, meaning you are unwilling or unable to learn. Other users had to do this for you time and again! You are wasting my time here with your endless complaints. Go and fix up your image categories instead. If you need any guidance, see Category:Arden railway station, Melbourne which I created for four of your images this morning as a guidance! Good day. Calistemon (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Calistemon: Please don't attack my contributions and personally insult me. I am a new user to Wikimedia, meaning I am unfamiliar with its systems and I use it only to contribute to Wikipedia. I have had an account but only to contribute to Wikipedia, I am not a regular Commons user. I am happy to contribute images and complex graphics to the public domain, but not if it means being personally attacked by you. I spent three days working on my most recent map, and two days learning the way Wiki displays SVGs and manually correcting the file to work properly on the site, all just to contribute something to Wikipedia. Your dismissal of this as "dumping images" on the Commons is offensive, rude and disgraceful. Your statement that I am "unwilling or unable to learn" because apparently I chose the wrong categories is incredibly rude, as I have made a lot of effort to put files up correctly here. Plus the upload wizard literally explicitly encourages you to put as much categories and as much data up as possible, and says nothing of the apparent categorisation issues you're obsessed with, so I literally only added categories in the spirit of useful contribution as encouraged by the site. You then turning around and attacking me for not knowing the obscurities of some categorisation policy is the kind of thoughtless, mean-spirited approach which has no place here or anywhere and immediately discourages any new contributions. You should work on your behaviour, and as I said think about your attitude to others. You have shown absolutely no self-reflection here and I have absolutely no interest in your guidance; you have completely put me off learning more about, or further contributing to, the Commons. Again, I hope you're proud of your behaviour here and your treatment of others, I think it is reprehensible. Good day. Gracchus250 (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes subcategory

Hello Calistemon. Regarding your edit here, you might not be aware but this matter was discussed just recently at COM:AN here and no consensus was reached to support the good faith change you made. This explains my revert. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: Thanks for letting me know, you are right, I wasn't aware this was a political issue. Category:Lakes of Puerto Rico‎ just stuck out like a sore thumb as the only location category there when I cleaned out Category:Lakes of all is images to move them into subcategories. There is a good chance somebody else will unknowingly do the same thing for that reason. Calistemon (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: I couldn't really see that the discussion at COM:AN had a final outcome, it just seems to have stopped but, I'm a little confused now as I'm currently cleaning out Category:Rivers:

Category:Lakes of Puerto Rico‎ is in Category:Lakes

Category:Rivers of Puerto Rico is in Category:Rivers by country

Category:Waterfalls in Puerto Rico is in Category:Waterfalls in the United States

Category:Bodies of water in Puerto Rico is in Category:Bodies of water by dependent territory

For the uninvolved, that really doesn't line up, there is no common approach for four so closely related categories at all. Calistemon (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calistemon, like most political issues, there always seem to be 2 sides. I will try and stay as neutral as possible! Here is what I can share, and let me know if I sound too political myself! First of all, thanks for your "cleanup" work as it's hugely important yet probably one of those so-called "thankless jobs". IAE, like you, I wished the matter had been closed with a clear yes/no, support/don't support verdict; that would had made it much simpler for everyone.

Regardless, one solution that no one disagreed with, if you read "the small print" through that discussion, is to create a new subcategory for the U.S. dependent territories like PR, USVI, and NMI, named "by insular areas" (as was done here). In the case of your edit, this subcategory would be under the main Category:Lakes of the United States by location category; such subcategory would group the lakes in the US insular areas (i.e., in the non-incorporated territories of the US), in much the same manner that the subcategory Category:Lakes of the United States by national park‎ under the Category:Lakes of the United States by location category is used to group U.S. lakes in the US national parks. I think from this "Lakes" example you can extrapolate corresponding similar subcategories for Rivers, Waterfalls, Bodies of Water, etc. Hopefully this addresses your confusion, but if not, feel free to expand and I will give it a second shot.

Fundamentally what you have in your 4 examples above is a range of ways (read: a non-standard way) to subcategorize Puerto Rico (and the other US insular areas) that go from one political extreme to the other, that is, go all the way from being a state of the US (which it most categorically is not) to being an insular area of the US (which it most categorically is). This wide spread is, IMO, a reflection of the knowledge (or lack of) of the different editors who have created subcategories that bear on the PR-US political relationship. Let me explain, and I'll use only PR from now on because it probably best exemplifies the other U.S. territories as well.

At one extreme we have those subcategory hierarchies that list PR under the US states subcategories (a subcat you didn't list in your 4 examples above but which at one point was done, for example, here, but you may find other such cases as well (for example, here), where Category:Mountains of Puerto Rico was, back then, listed under the category of Category:Mountains of the United States by state). This was, of course, totally incorrect because PR is not a state, but may have been done that way simply because, to some editors, PR is more like a state than like a country (your subcat #2 above). The real problem with that rationale, IMO, is that it goes contrary to every definition of "US state" and of "country" because the reverse is actually true: that PR is actually more like a country than a state. This is so because PR certainly isn't a state at all while it is a country, albeit not a sovereign country (you may check the def of "country" at the English WP "Country" article or just about any dictionary, which show 2 definitions for "country" and one of which PR falls under). The point here is that between the choice of "state of the US" and "country", country would be the most appropriate.

IAE, on the other extreme we have those subcats that list PR under "insular area of the US". This subcategory is unmistakably the most correct one because there's no question that the well-documented "Insular Cases" article at the English WP makes it categorically clear that PR is an insular area of the US.

Then somewhere in between this spectrum ranging from "US state" and "insular area of the US" is the "dependent territory" (DT) subcategory (your subcat #4 above). While this subcat is not totally incorrect, for purposes of PR, it is not a correct as "by insular area of the United States" because "insular area" is a term exclusively used by the US while "dependent territory" is more general for it can be used by either the US or many other sovereign countries that possess territories (e.g., Aruba is a DT of the Netherlands, Falkland Islands is a DT of the UK, Guadaloupe is DT of France, etc.).

Your subcat #3 above, (i.e., Category:Waterfalls in Puerto Rico) runs basically the same shortfall as the Category:Rivers of Puerto Rico, in that they are both, at one subcategory level or another, listed under countries. Again, "under countries" is not incorrect, but it is not as correct as under "by insular area of the United States". (I look at a listing under "by country" as a holding place subcat until the corresponding "by insular area of the United States" subcat can be created and all such insular areas moved over to there.) So, the problem with Category:Waterfalls in Puerto Rico is that there isn't yet a subcategory under the Category:Waterfalls in the United States called Category:Waterfalls in the United States by insular area of the United States). BTW, it is not correct to have Category:Rivers of Puerto Rico (or mountains of PR, or lakes of PR, of islands of PR, etc., etc., etc.) under Category:Rivers of the United States because that would be a tacit claim that "PR is in the US" (or that "PR is part of the US"), when it is not. The US consists of the 50 states and DC only and, to be part of the US, a place (region/location/territory/etc.) has to be either a US state or its federal district. PR belongs to the US but it's not part of the US. For clarification, we can use this analogy: your wallet belongs to you but it is not part of you, because only your body parts are part of you.

As for your subcat #1 above, I would agree with you that Category:Lakes of Puerto Rico certainly would not belong under Category:Lakes, but not on any political basis but simply because Category:Lakes is not a category used to list lakes by any political or, for that matter, even geographical basis. In essence, it doesn't belong there at all. IMO, that would probably best go under the subcategory Category:Lakes of the United States by location and then under the (missing) subcategory Category:Lakes by insular area of the United States.

In summary, I believe all of the 4 types of problems you listed, plus that of listing PR under "...by state" of the US can be eliminated if we standardized on the single subcategory of "by insular area of the United States".

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: Well, I do hope you find a solution. It strikes me that Puerto Rico can't possibly be the only place such an issue exists for. Maybe consensus has been established for another, similar scenario that can be use as an example? Is Category:External territories of Australia or Category:External territories of Norway any help to achieve consensus, or is the situation just to different? Calistemon (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the file File:Vallée de la Cesse.jpg

Excuse me, but why did you removed the Category:Rivers from that file?. FanNihongo (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FanNihongo: Sorry for the late reply, but this one is an easy question to answer. Per Commons:Categories, Category:River is an overgategorisation when the image is already in the category of the specific river. For the same reason another editor subsequently removed Category:Rivers of France. Ideally, as the note at the top states, Category:River should not contain any images. Does this help? Calistemon (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for your answer. FanNihongo (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robey & Co traction engine at Wilga, Western Australia, April 2022 02.jpg

Unless I've missed something this looks like a en:Portable engine. In particular I'm not seeing any drive to the wheels.Geni (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, there wasn't any additional information at the site, sadly, so if you think I have misidentified it, that is very possible. Change what you think needs changing, that's all good with me. Calistemon (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ADV Cape Capricorn, ADV Cape Naturaliste, FSS David W. Panuelo and PBAT Sentinel at Austal shipyards in Henderson, Western Australia, October 2022 01.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
It looks like the left hand side is lower than the right? Maybe needs a bit of rotation? --Mike Peel 07:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rotated 1 degree to the right. --Calistemon 08:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, it looks better after rotation. --Mike Peel 20:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bulk carrier Darya Ganga at Alcoa Jetty, November 2022 16.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. --Mike Peel 18:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wicket of Jermaine Blackwood batting at Perth Stadium, First Test Australia versus West Indies, 2 December 2022.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. --Ermell 16:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel pic

Just saw the picture of the railway tunnel you took the other day. A very cool photo! I’ve been enjoying seeing what you upload. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. @Chris.sherlock2: . It looks rather futuristic, like out of a Si-Fi movie, I thought! Calistemon (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! So cool :-) great photos, keep it up! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brush bronzewing (Phaps elegans) in Perth Zoo, June 2023 08.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 a bit noisy and some digital artefacts on the beak, but good enough --Grunpfnul 13:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rainbow lorikeet (Trichoglossus moluccanus) sitting in a hole in a dead tree along the Swan River, October 2023 02.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. --Giles Laurent 07:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 01.jpg

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 01.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 02.jpg

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 02.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too many images

I am sure you meant well, but you are uploading far tooo many very similar images (e.g. Anhinga novaehollandiae). This clogs up the category and makes it difficult to navigate and find the best images. Wikimedia Commons is not a dumping ground. Please be more selective. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charlesjsharp: , I don't quite share your concern as the easy solution for categories that get to full is to break them down into sub-categories, in this case by location. With the cat-a-lot tool this will take very little time. It never occurred to me that me uploading these properly named and categorised images with proper description are an issue, especially in comparison with the uncountable amount of Flicker images here with bad File names, no description and no or insufficient categisation! Who would have thought my images are a problem instead! I don't mind you nominating my problematic images here for deletion, I won't fight you. I have wound back my involvement in Commons in the last few weeks anyway and I'm happy to cease contributing altogether if my contributions are a problem. Feel free to do what you wish with the images and thank you for the advice, and I do mean it, no offence taken, hope this reply doesn't offend you either. Calistemon (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken. Breaking animal categories down by location is time consuming and actually doesn't help in finding the most valuable image of a species. That's what the Valued images project is about and that's where a huge number of almost identical images causes delay. Best wishes Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 02.jpg

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 02.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 01.jpg

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 01.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Calistemon

TUSC token 75ec5ee05777da93ee3bc874d2d49a8f

Lovely Images

Yeah

TUSC token af7bd6c156de2166782220b540a9f0c4

Tip: Categorizing images

Copyright status: File:Kit_body_rkberlin.png

Iron ore Pilbara.jpg

so not gone completely

tricky

odd category designations

munster

Autopatrol given

yup

remember it well

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

your choice sir

Mosmans Bay

Quality Image Promotion

duplicate

Your help in creating category for photos by Ed Gold

Hitching Post outside National Bank in Wagin

Copyright status: File:View north over Beeliar Regional Park from Mount Brown, May 2021 04.jpg

Thanks

Licensing Issue

identity

Challenge 2021-08 Playgrounds?

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Campaign

Hi

Azad najar images copyright

Map identifications and classifications

A heads-up

Copyright status: File:Eastern great egret (Ardea alba modesta) at Lake Walyungup, Rockingham Lakes Regional Park, June 2022 05.jpg

Ducks marked by wikicrowd

Tone and approach

Lakes subcategory

About the file File:Vallée de la Cesse.jpg

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Tunnel pic

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Too many images

Navigation menu

Search