User talk:Bidgee/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Hobart 2020 Olympics bid

Re your reversion of User:NYC 55david's edits adding Hobart's proposed entry, this is getting into WP:3RR territory. I've warned NYC not to re-add the material without consensus, and asked him to start a discussion about the matter, and what sources can be used. I'd like you to join in the discussion, and between you try and find acceptable wording and sources that can go in the articles. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The only way it can be considered a legitimate item within what wikipedia is is to identify very clearly it is an april folls joke that has grown legs and gets some people excited, so it gets stilts, and before we know it my old hometown of a few years Queenstown gets to become the long jump and high jump location. Nah if the recent election in Tassie, and the possible immanent death of the Wilderness Society in Canberra tommorrow - are anything to go by - small town states with less than 500,000 people have a lot more to worry about than international events occurring that far down the line :| SatuSuro 14:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Southern Times

Hello Bidgee. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Southern Times, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to creative works. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for bringing the Coles thing to my attention - actioned the 3rr report. Orderinchaos 07:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Theslider09

Hmmmm...appears to have slid off shortly after your last note—I'll look again on-and-off over the next few days. I find it odd to see editors act like this, here quite a while but no edits at all outside of article space. I am curious about one thing.....this redlink. You've been here longer than me, have the bit on commons, have a sufficiency of gravitas, dignitas and pietas, and, I presume, would make as good use of the tools here (perhaps for image work) as I seen you use them over there ? - Peripitus (Talk) 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I had a editor review but didn't rally have any comments other then from some uncivil editors, so I didn't bother on requesting adminship. Bidgee (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that editor review is a bit of a crap-shoot. I never went for adminship as I could not be bothered doing the paperwork; only got over the line when Giggy prefilled the form. If you ever feel the buttons would be useful, I'd be happy to do the writeup. All the best - Peripitus (Talk) 10:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Keys43 is back

Just thought I'd let you know that our Townsville loving sock is back, this time as Keysie89. His first edit was typical of the other socks in that he immediately removed templates on his old favourite, No. 3 Fighter Sector RAAF.[1] Interestingly, this was jumped on within 15 minutes by a new user who hadn't edited since 7 May, Slimsticky, who raised an SSP report (WP:SSP is inactive) at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Keys43 5th after Keysie89's single edit. Interestingly, Slimsticky didn't revert the edit. Also interestingly, Keysie89's only other edit was to his userpage.[2] Note how he calls Wikipedia "the wikipedia". Now, notice how Slimsticky also refers to "the wikipedia" in his posts and edit summaries.[3][4] There's also this edit that I'm sure one of the Keys43 socks made to another article. Unfortunately I can't find that and, at this time, I don't think there's enough evidence for another SPI but both of these editors should be watched. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Listed Keysie89 for a SPI. I just got back from Coolamon but on the way out again to do a few things. Bidgee (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

M31

I find it unacceptable that you continue to threaten me with an ip ban. I am simply removing speculative text pertaining to the legal definition of the term "freeway" in the state of Victoria. The M31 article features language that is dismissive of the legal and factual classification of the Hume Freeway throughout Victoria. There are many examples of freeways around the world (and in Victoria) that not only contain sporadic at-grade intersections but there are ones that are 2 lanes, contain traffic lights (for example in New England, USA) or there's the Mornington Penninsula Freeway in Victoria that has a two-way, single carriageway section with a roundabout at each end. Simply put, the M31 is a "Freeway" in Victoria by any means (not just "catagorised", it is in fact a legally binding freeway). - And also, it is not a "Freeway (although most of this section is dual carriageway rather than freeway)" -it is all Freeway. Unless, of course a dozen wikipedia members can decide the legal terminology for Victoria's roads -dismissing the legal reprezsentational bodies of over 4 million people, on a whim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.161.71.12 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Legally binding freeway. Gotta love it. :) Orderinchaos 09:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Messages

You have messages on my talk page --5 albert square (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know — neither 5 albert square nor I saw the message on my talk as a personal attack; I see it as "hey, the situation has changed since you edited it, so I've undone you, and I'm telling you in case you weren't sure" and nothing more. Thanks for looking out for me! Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Highway

I know we have had this discussion a few months ago but I have taken the trouble and the right to create a template of Australian highways, that detailed major roads and crossings that the highway experiences (which is currently ongoing and mostly done in Victoria and New South Wales). What I do fail to understand, is why would you would remove the Major Intersections and Towns of the Olympic Highway. I haven't seen this being removed on other important routes, such as the Hume, Castlereagh, and Cobb Highways. Could you please refrain from removing the MI&T, unless a reasonable explanation can be attained as to why this should be removed. (Your earlier explanation does not justify it!) Cheers --Rom rulz424 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would remove it from the other articles but you will just readd them, they have no encyclopedic value as it is a guide, it would be more suited to a Highway wiki (not Wikipedia), your distances are unsourced and you're the only editor who created the MI&T so you have a POV towards it. Bidgee (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction, I was not the one that instigated it as you claim. I have sourced from WhereIs.com so if you could put in an example on the Olympic Highway on how to reference each source and their distances, I will be more than happy to apply it to all highways currently with the MI&T guide. --Rom rulz424 (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're the one inserting the MT&I in every Australian highway article, a table like that belongs at an information Wiki or a highway guide/map. You also didn't source the distance, it is up to you to cite the source. Bidgee (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This time, I have updated the Olympic Highway with the following changes:

• Maintained the NR20 duplex, however the size of the shield is unneccessarily large, and have been reduced, the same will be done to the Newell Highway if you agree to this.
• The MI&T now has a source showing exactly the starting and ending points of the highway, its correct distance of 318km, and the major roads it crosses onto an external page, and is listed below under Source. Again if you are satisfied with this strategy, I will apply to all highways of Australia with the MI&T included.

Please note, if you are unsatisifed with this, then please tell me where I can put this information onto the Wiki section. Cheers

--Rom rulz424 (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Again MI&T table does not belong on Wikipedia, it is a guide which does not belong here. I wouldn't see an issue if you could reduce the size of it be only including the stating point, not including road sign images (e.g. traffic lights, roundabouts, crossroads ect), connections to trunk roads (e.g. Irrigation Way [Trunk Road 80]), state or national highways and the end of the highway. Also never rely on Google Maps for distances (Even Google states it should never be relied on). Bidgee (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting that comment on my talk page. You wouldn't believe the trouble I plus other editors have had in trying to explain copyright violations to the user! --5 albert square (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Tony Abbott

Hi Bidgee. I see the Tony Abbott article has been locked for 5 days. My feeling is that locking a page is a very blunt instrument that won't really solve the problems going on. You've got editors from the right and left of politics deleting each others' additions as soon as they are made. I always think that immediately deleting referenced content is a bad practice, no matter what side of politics it is. When someone immediately deletes the content, it destroys any chance of building consensus. The deleting will start up again as soon as the article is unblocked. I'd preferably like to see the article unblocked, and a non-involved (maybe non-Australian) admin to keep an eye on the article for a while, to deal with individual warriors. What do you think? --Lester 02:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I meaning to reply yesterday but was too tired. I requested page protection as edit warring war in progress at the time but I didn't request 5 days. Bidgee (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

QantasLink

Sorry Bidgee, in the QantasLink article, I deleted your logo File:QantasLink logo.png and replaced it with a new vector logo: File:QantasLink logo.svg. Tiny, but it doesn't matter because the new svg one is free of any pixels or resolution. Regards, Lester 04:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No issues with me, I only uploaded the png version as it is better then jpg but I've yet to workout creating and saving files as svg on Windows. Bidgee (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Araucaria bidwillii‎

Whilst it was a little strange to receive a welcome message {{subst:uw-test1}}on my talk page after 5 years as an editor it was, a little misplaced, although I am sure unintentionally. Looking at the history it looks as though both you and I tried to undo a series of test (?) edits but that my very slow lap-top edit clashed with yours and resulted in my inadvertent restoration of the previous version. I  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   10:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

How am I meant to know? Bidgee (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Optus

RE: Trading name, thanks for clearing that up mate. 203.134.114.104 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

 Fallschirmjäger  ✉  09:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For the work done in getting the 2009 population estimates into all the NSW and VIC LGA articles over a 5-hour period yesterday - much appreciated! Orderinchaos 22:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Leeton

Hello, re my changes- was contacting you (and others) before completing. will do so abt 3 hrs. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)).

Leeton has no suburbs. In 1993 a line was drawn to define the limits of the town of Leeton and five erstwhile unbounded, mainly rural, places were subsumed into the locality and henceforth ceased to exist as places; North Leeton (or Leeton North) has never existed. So, Category:Suburbs of Leeton and the articles on the suburbs are clearly false. My changes (when the suburb articles become redirects and the empty category is deleted) are clearly true. The NSW geographic names definitions are given as placename: Gralee Designation: Rural Place Status: Discontinued 16th April 1993; the Federal lists at ga.gov.au simply list as Historic place. Leetonians may well retain the now colloquial names for parts of their hometown (as none would gainsay them), but we, as Wikipedians, should probably make a reasonable attempt to record the facts as they are clearly presented to us. So the articles on the suburbs of Leeton must not exist, as the suburbs do not exist.

(For a bit of fun Google Longlowong (until very recently on Wikipedia for 3 years as Longlowong, New South Wales, apparently a sizeable town between Carcoar and Canowindra, together with Longlowong regional eisteddfod and The Digby Theatre, Longlowong). Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)).

Black_Saturday_bushfires

This comment gave me a bit of a shock: "... incorrect cite templates being used." Please can you point me to an example of a template-error? I'd be glad to go back and correct any omissions and such errors. Black_Saturday_bushfires --wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 09:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "Hardly minor, it does need work but not like this as this needs more work then it started off with." Please can you tell me more?

Can you point me to an example of a template-error? I'd be glad to go back and correct such omissions and such errors. --wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 09:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A number of issues, newspaper= should only be used for newspapers (IE: sources that are from a newspaper where the article isn't online), dates should be DD MM YYYY, no need to over link (IE: [[The Age]]), use the correct name of the media organisation (IE: The Age not Age). Bidgee (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is (somewhat) constructive, but I'm sure you can do better. Where are these 'standards' documented?

Is it Template:Cite_news (and not Wikipedia:Citation_templates)?

I'm happy to follow the standard; however, I've not seen where it says anything like: "newspaper= should only be used for newspapers (i.e. sources from a newspaper where the article isn't online)." Where does it say: "no need to over link" (e.g. [[The Age]])? You must know it's common in many Australian pages?

--wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem is to do with the new "cite" feature in the edit box as "newspaper" is default (Clearly wrong as some 'news' sites don't even publish a newspaper and online articles are not really newspaper articles) and a lot of us (editors) are a bit lazy to fix it up to publisher/work. Also one wikilink (to a Wikipedia article) is enough other wise the References section gets fugly with blue links. Bidgee (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

2UE

Hi. I understand the comments you have made about 2UE, but I really think it is beneficial to have a list of presenters and shows on this page. Most other Sydney radio stations, newspapers and television stations have these types of guides. Whats new? (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because it may exist on other articles does not mean that it is allowed, adding who is on when (Using time or even just saying mornings, evening, overnight ect) still is a guide and an advert. I have been trying to enforce the policies on other article but IPs who are PR, fanbois or those who think it is ok (not directed at you) keep adding it and I do not have the time to keep enforcing the policies these days. Bidgee (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose I do understand that. Although would it be acceptable to simply have a list of current presenters on air, without mentioning what show they are on or what time. Just a standard list of names? Whats new? (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of legitimate comments on Discussion pages

You insist on deleting my legitimate discussion points on the discussion page associated with the article Doug Anthony. I insist that you cease this behaviour. It is flagrantly in violation of the principles of wikipedia and prevents discussion. You may comment all you like but deletion of other's discussion points is out of order. Mjspe1 (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Infact you are soapboxing and it was removed per WP:TALKNO. Bidgee (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mandurah - Perth or not Perth

I removed Perth next to Mandurah's population on account of the fact that Mandurah has it's own statistical division comprising the City of Mandurah and the Shire of Murray (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/be4aa82cd8cf7f07ca2570d60018da27/463f50115b6dccfbca2571a9001e1f44/$FILE/WA.pdf). That and it is just common sense - otherwise Geelong should be affiliated with Melbourne and Wollongong with Sydney. Mandurah is also not part of the Perth metropolitan area. Andyman14 (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Townsville sport

sorry mate not really aware of the protocols on here. The part of the article was revised to reflect the popularity of the teams mentioned. Furthermore, this is also the alphabetical order. The separate line on the local AFL competition is unnecessary as it is the least popular code here in terms of teams and player numbers. It was thus replaced with a sentence on all the local leagues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.103.64 (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

wow

you must be the busiest editor in the ever quieter regions of the oz project - I do hope someone gives you accolades or something SatuSuro 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Had to be done, some articles had data 9 years old and not fixing them would have meant a lot of articles would end up being mouldy (worse then stale). Bidgee (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Message relocated

Regarding 'deleted' message. The message was relocated to the sender's user page, along with my reply. Sorry if I have given you cause for alarm. And thank you for looking out. GWillHickers (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Google Picasa

G'day Bidgee, just wanted to tell you about Picasa, a free-download photo editing program. It's very easy to use, to show you what it can do I copied an image of yours of an Airnorth Metro and did a few seconds' worth of editing to enlarge the aircraft and change the lighting. Feel free to have the image deleted once you have seen it, or let me know and I will tag it for speedy deletion. Here are the images, the edited copy is below the original: Best regards YSSYguy (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have heard of Google Picasa and used it in the past, this file from a jpg extract (IE: hasn't been edited as a RAW file) but I still have the RAW format of the file (on DVD somewhere) so I can touch it up and crop, I find Photoshop CS much better to edit RAW (my camera saves them as PEF) then most other free or low cost software. Bidgee (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, would you like me to have the image deleted? YSSYguy (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Keelty Changes

Bidgee, just trying to update Keelty's page to remove information that is not relevant to the professional capacity of the man. Seek your support to remove the content. It's acknowledged that it would be available in the historical change list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.129.193 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, you must be one of the most prolific editors in here! Not sure why you have such an adament stance on removing the Family and social link but my intention is to seek Keelty's page to reflect professional content and not a throw away line in some media interview. 119.12.129.193 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be in the article but my neutral point of view is neutral whether it should be removed or not, please fell free to be bold. If you may want to have a read of WP:MOSBIO and WP:BLP, if you haven't already. Maybe you could argue on what little effect or role his religion had during his career. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee I take your point about BOLD and WP:MOSBIO. I seek your support in that the role of religion has had no efect on his professional life and has not influenced decisions or actions undertaken in his professional career. The comment associated with the Family and Social Life has implications that religion has has had some impact on decisions made while in public office and goes directly against the fear, favour or ill will substance of the oath of office. Further I would argue that the comments have been taken out of context and do not maintain a neutral stance of content on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.129.193 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

NSW Legisaltive Council

Thanks for your notice but as you will probably discover I have moved all that info onto the page: President of the New South Wales Legislative Council. I will revert your edit restoring the text. Regards Siegfried Nugent (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I should be flattered

It seems that people I warn are copying my user pages, right down to the rollback icon.[5] Or should I be a little bit suspicious that two editors that I've warned on the same day are changing their pages to match mine at pretty much the same time.[6][7][8][9] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

While it is ok to use the same user page design, it is not ok to use it without saying who's design (They should have <!--Based on User:X's design-->) they used and also seems to me that they are using it as a way to try harass you (IE: using it as bait to try and get you to be uncivil). I'm sure there is a guideline or policy about using another person's User page style but I can't seem to find it. Bidgee (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Errors

Bidgee, FYI, if you're going to simply mass-revert Sarek's rollback of Tony1's script edits, you'll need to also go through each and every edit to verify and repair the errors made by the script. (See N-HH's post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tony1/delinking scripts - failure to correct obvious errors for details.) There are numerous examples in that batch (as seen at Rescue: Special Ops#See also) where the script stripped out formatting from categories. You nmay also want to note Sarek's post at the ANI board, where he statd "I just reverted a whole bunch of his recent script-assisted edits -- while a couple of the ones I reverted were valid, the vast majority left non-links in the See Also sections or unlinked categories. Someone else might want to do a few more of these, as they're kind of messy." --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can see Tony1's script has caused a few issues but reverting is not the solution to fix it, the script issue is minor (just problematic when it is more then a dozen articles). The fact is rollback is for vandalism only not to be used on good faith edits (which Tony1's edits were), we have the undo tool or they could have done the fixes needed. Fact is if I see SarekOfVulcan using the rollback on good faith edits again, I'll be requesting that there Rollback rights be revoked. Bidgee (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On a purely technical level, I'm not sure if that is possible. Sarek's an admin, and as such the rollback right is rolled in with the sysop bit. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well they are risking the Sysop tools if thats the case and again they should know better being an Sysop. Bidgee (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the rollback page says the following - "Provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually". The script in this instance introduced mutiple outright errors to multiple pages. That was then put right, quickly, in a way that also happened to revert a few minor dash, link and date format changes. Those are simply a matter of preferred style, not a matter of "right" or "wrong" or of evident error or mistake, one way or the other. The clock was simply put back to where we were before the cock-up happened, and Sarek noted what they'd done at the ANI thread. The articles aren't locked from editing, and no longer contain outright errors, even if there are some things that people still might wish to change in them. I don't see the problem. If people muck up nearly a hundred pages, they risk having what they've done reverted in its entirety, even if that also hoovers up some of the more (allegedly) harmless stuff they'd changed at the same time. Live by the automated tools, die by them I guess. Or something like that. N-HH talk/edits 05:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thing is Tony1's changes with the errors were minor and in good faith. While I understand that this isn't a policy, I think this has a vaild point Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes. Also how hard could it have been to use the Undo rather then the rollback? Another thing is that SarekOfVulcan didn't even look at all of the changes, some of which had no issues at all but yet still reverted. Bidgee (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And equally, you're now putting a lot of the errors back in, eg here and here breaking See Also links. Tony deleted attempts to notify him of the problem. Someone had to do something. Undoing individually takes time, and why should others have to painstakingly clear up manifest errors, when the person responsible just has their hands over their ears? N-HH talk/edits 06:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And equally, you're now putting a lot of the errors back in, thanks for the lack of good faith. Fact is I've missed some but fixed most of it so don't try mislead with statements such as the one you made above. Undo does take a few more seconds but does that matter? Also I do not know Tony so I don't know the full story, as they say there is two sides to every story. Bidgee (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of bad faith, I was merely making an observation as to the effect of what you'd done in a couple of cases I'd spotted. Apologies if that wasn't clear. There was certainly no attempt to mislead or suggest bad faith. Please allow me the benefit of AGF in turn ... N-HH talk/edits 06:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through and re-do the edits that weren't problematic. I only object to you stating that "Tony1's changes are correct" in the edit summary when you were changing his edits to remove his errors (which I see you stopped doing after a while, so never mind. :-)) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They were correct but just had faults (IE: his original intention was corrected even though the script got it wrong) but I hope he has learnt to test the script and check the changes from now on. Bidgee (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Flags

Hi! I've put the flag back, but only because the script seemed to have removed just that one. Thus every country has a flag in the list except for Australia (well, and Africa, for obvious reasons). I don't care for the flag icons much, so if removing them all makes sense I won't mind, but I think we need to go for consistency either way. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Christ sake! Removing the flags was a valid move but using the grounds that other stuff exists is not! when was there consistency on Wikipedia? Never has been and never will be any consistency. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there may be a bit of confusion - the flag I'm talking about is the one in the Broadcast and distribution list. There's a table there where every country had a flag, but the script selectively removed the one for Australia but left the others in place. That's what I referred to by consistency. I don't care either way about infobox flags. - Bilby (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at Bilby's talk page suggesting that the Australian flag icon should not be used, especially, as it is almost indistinguishable from the NZ flag unless closely inspected. Thank you indeed for reversing much or all of the damage caused by Serenofvulcan's wild reversions of the slightly faulty edits I did. Tony (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible unfree image on Commons

G'day Bidgee, if you get a chance have a look at this image, which appears to me to be the one used by many of the media stories about the Sydney Piper Mojave crash the other day, but is tagged as an original work. I don't have anything to do with Commons, is there some review process over there? YSSYguy (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just deleted it, the fact is it was a screen-shot of footage taken by Channel Seven (I used the ABC story as the example but I think they used The Mercury's screen-shot of the footage). With requesting a deletion of a copyright vio just use {{copyvio|source=URL here}} or {{copyvio|1=Reason here}} but for suspect images just take it to Commons:Deletion requests (Use {{Delete|reason=Your reason here}} on the image pages) however you have to do it on the Wikimedia Commons image pages and not Wikipedia's. Bidgee (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: 43 most populous cities of Australia

Sorry, I am awful with explaining when I edit as I often forget what I did, so I am incredibly sorry with the replacement of categories without stating it. However, don't we also have state-wide templates for the cities in each state. I also created the aforementioned {{Cities of Australia}} page before but it didn't appear on every relevant page and it would still be hard to define a city with so many "towns" being larger than cities (compared Port Macquarie with Ararat) Andyman14 (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Talkback

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

Embedding videos

Hello can you help me with embedding videos like MGM UA Home Video Low Tone.Thanks.--Brandondorf9999 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't embed or link to copyrighted videos into articles. Bidgee (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure you can.--Brandondorf9999 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Great work on getting out there and taking photos of politicians - wouldn't it be great if the Parliamentary Library just released their photos into public domain? As a minor side-issue, why is this a better photo than this? The first one looks nothing like her! (And get well soon!) Frickeg (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) If I wasn't ill I would have done an emergency trip to Canberra to try and get photos on Thursday, hoping to get over it though. Agree, would be great Parliamentary Library would give us free use even if they released the photos under a Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.5 (AU).

I have met with the APH Parliamentary Library for Wikimedia Australia to discuss exactly that and they're keen to do it but there's a couple of sticking points that seem to be deal breakers, at least for the time being (the main one is alteration of the files). But they're talking about it, at least, which is very positive, I think. The flip side is they told me the MPs have the right to release their own images if they wish to, and a number of them have already, so the way around the APH Library is an organised effort to contact all the MPs directly, asking them to release free images. Sarah 08:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Kay Hull photos, well the Australia Day photo is over a year old, only has a dpi of 72 but the Reserve Forces Day photo is recent and has a dpi of 240 as I'm now photographing in RAW again. Bidgee (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility and Complaints

Bidgee, I've left a comment and something of an answer to the discussion you were involved with on Jimbo's Talk page. I've tried to answer some of the statments made by GregJackP there and I think you might be interested to read a response to his commentary, which has largely gone unchallenged, I believe because most of us are tired of going on and on about an article that has already been deleted. It is get over it time, but he doesn't seem to get it. He was all about concensus building when he had a crew behind him, but now that we have concensus to move on, he is posting on Jimbo's board or wherever else he might find someone to take his word at face value without looking into the situation further and hopefully then someone else gets blocked or banned due to his proclivity to file civility complaints against anyone not in agreement with him. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Reverts

Hi please do not revert to the image that i had.Thanks--Brandondorf9999 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Valley Raceway

Just as a courtesy would you mind, on an appropriate page rather than here so the edittor concerned can see, detailing what the "other issues" are so that they don't remain a mystery and a potential future bone of contention? Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

[10]

[11]

and try these co-ordinates into Google. -12° 26' 51.71", +130° 54' 27.78"

then tell us what's wrong with the pitlane? --Falcadore (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)