User talk:Bidgee

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archive

2006

2007

January - December

2008

2009

2010

January - February

Gold Coast Density

Hi Bidgee. Theres no source for the population density which I changed. I simply calculated that based on the population and area figures the existing density figure was wrong. I'll have a look at the citation page, but I don't know if it really applies here. VanillaBear23 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Litchfield

Thanks for fixing my half-done job with Litchfield. Much appreciated. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, not good at all. Might be worth a mention in 2010 in Australia perhaps. I am slowly making my way through my list of photos at Commons:User:Mattinbgn/January 2010 although the power outages here are making it difficult. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Density

Well I don't want to get banned, but anyone that goes on that page and has even a basic way with numbers ca see that they don't add up. I've searched for an external site with all 3 (Population, Density and Area) statistics, but I've drawn a blank. I realise that in changing it without a valid reference I have breached Wikipedia's policy, but it was my thought, that if someone else, such as your self, actually looked at the edit concerned, rather than just cancelling it because there isn't a reference, they would realise that the current info is wrong. I have no chocie but to leave it now, but it's annoying to know that the Brisbane page, and many other pages, have wrong density info. VanillaBear23 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with the Australian Bureau of Statistics even if the stats look wrong. Bidgee (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 10-15 incident at Ashburton Station was also one event.

That footage of the pram falling off the platform was seen around the world. So was the racy surfing caught on the air. By the way, would you like to continue the conversation on Talk:Seven News? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 08:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pram rolling off the platform incident is totally different to the so called "racy photo" incident. You have been reported for breaching the edit warring. Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to open a talk page for 129.130.32.229 with a friendly evade warning, as it does appear to look like a potential sock (at least to me... Doc9871 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lightbar photo

I have a question regarding this photo, which I saw you uploaded. The red rectangle behind the lightbar (in front of it, in this shot) looks like a scrolling text message board. Is this correct? --Badger151 (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it is an LED message board. It can display static or scrolling text. Bidgee (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've added that info to the caption at Emergency vehicle lighting. --Badger151 (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Zaetta

I am unsure what exactly i have done wrong on Tania's page. I have not added any information that is incorrect. I have simply expanded on the existing information, and added small details where required such as the correct dates for a movie being filmed. You have now changed it back three times. You said i needed to state a reference, i did, its all on Tania's website. I am Tania's PA so anything i am putting up on the page is enhancing the Wiki service with more information. Can you please either let me know what exactly i am doing wrong, or put back all the work i put into it. Thanks Alysssas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysssas (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Buereu of Statictics

When I added content to this page I was quoting the ABS website page, everything in that edit was from that page, why did you delete it ?, I believe that this information should be made available. --124.176.77.205 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Townsville

Firstly, good catch on File:Postofficetownsville.png. I had my suspicions that this one wasn't legitimate but couldn't find it on Google images and I diodn't notice the partially cropped "Report a problem" until just now. FYI, I'm pretty sure that User:HarleyN is a sock of Keys43. They edit the same articles, remove templates at the tops of articles without articles and rarely upload images that they've actually taken.(For example)

Regarding this edit to Townsville, Queensland, the only discussion that I can find about the infobox image is one that I started on the article's talk page and which nobody responded to. As I indicated there, File:TownsvilleCBD.jpg is generally a much better resolution, more current (8 months vs 50 months) image than File:Townsville city.jpg. It's generally a better picture overall, so I can't see why File:Townsville city.jpg should be used.

Unfortunately nobody saw fit to reply to my comments. RoxBo seems to be the only one pushing for File:Townsville city.jpg,[1] and I really don't understand why. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were splitting of articles, NOT a simple copy and paste MOVE.

Please note that I have actually editted properly the articles North West Metro and North West railway line, Sydney. They are not copy and paste moves. It is easy for you to press the "revert" button, but it took me a good two hours to edit the articles properly. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note has been posted on the discussion page of North West Metro. I do not see any other way of splitting an article on Wikipedia that does not involve some degree of copy and paste. According to my understanding of WP:Splitting, some degree of copy and pasting when splitting an article should be allowed. Besides, as I've mentioned earlier, the articles have been adjusted and information has been splitted according to relevancy to each of the separate articles. They are not straight copy and pastes. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LUUSAP

I've indeffed this editor. WP:ANI is probably a better venue to report personal attacks, but then you'd have to notify the attacke that they had been reported (you could request that another editor notifies them on you behalf though). Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of support - I kept your user and talk pages on my watchlist after we traded those notes about the lightbar photo, because I saw what LUUSAP had done in regards to placing that disambig remark on your user page. He was absolutely out of line. If he had repeated the performance I intended to stop by his page to suggest that he lay off, but it looks like things escalated pretty quickly, and before I could comment he's gotten himself blocked. Hope this is the end of it. Best, Badger151 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Springs Town Council

I work for the Alice Springs Town Council and just edited the Council page correcting a number of factual errors and adding further accurate info.

All my changes have been removed because of a "copyright violation". I also removed a heap of links that just went to empty pages.

So, all wasted time as far as I can see. Is there any point in continuing?

Mjhastc (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with fixing factual errors but you must cite a source, also adding copyrighted content is a no no, even if you work for the local government organisation. Bidgee (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't forget possible conflict of interest guideline issues (and should carefully read this) when editing a page you work for, Mjhastc. Don't give up, and happy editing! Doc9871 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the article now, hope to clear it up and may make the editor happy. Bidgee (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy, happy, joy, joy, happy, happy joy!!!" Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are up against in keeping Wikipedia from descending into the cesspit of spam that is most of the rest of the internet. But I'm not sure how what I added was in violation of any copyright, I believe the copy was purpose written by our Media Officer (but maybe she just cut-and-pasted from our website?) and was very bland, uncontroversial stuff unlikely to spark a conflict of interest dispute. Also, at least one link reference restored is a dud because I have just implemented a new website for Council and know the page no longer exists. Old URL still forwards to the Council's new homepage, but the original content is no longer there. Anyway, I take your point about citing sources, we did overlook this aspect and just "blogged" I guess. Will discuss further with our media officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhastc (talk • contribs) 08:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the copy is both neutral and reliably sourced, it shouldn't raise any WP:COI issues, even if it's "in house" copy. It must have good outside referencing for this, however... Doc9871 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air New Zealand Flight 901

Thanks for the assistance here. The airline has attempted to sanitize this article in the past [2] XLerate (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, doesn't surprise me at all and AirNZ is not the first nor the last to do this! Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also now taken this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Bidgee (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had gone to the 3RR noticeboard but you'd beaten me to it. XLerate (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macquarie Southern Cross Media

I saw you undid a revision I made to this page, in regards to the naming... So, I've created a new page for this entry - titled Southern Cross Media. The group has been through a few name changes of late... The parent company changed from Macquarie Media Group to Southern Cross Media Group... At the same time, Macquarie Southern Cross Media has dropped the Macquarie naming, and is now known as Southern Cross Media. Should we re-direct traffic destined for MACSC to the new page?BrashesVoucher (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the summary, the parent company has changed its name but the "subsidiary" has not (well no evidence of reliable sources). Bidgee (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Parent and the Subsidiary have changed names, I will shortly post evidence. - Is a business card evidence!? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrashesVoucher (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bidgee, I finally managed to find actual written evidence of MACSC's name change: Page 3 of http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100223/pdf/31nvgtfs6v311n.pdf Are you able to give me advice of how I should proceed to change the name in wiki? Clearly I'm new here, and don't want to mess anything up!!! BrashesVoucher (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ever so much! And thanks for not biting the newbie! :) Take care BrashesVoucher (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new map style for List of Diplomatic missions by Country articles

As a regular contributor to these articles your views are sought about a new map style for the List of Diplomatic missions by Country articles.

Currently we are using maps which show which countries host a diplomatic mission of a given country (please see as an example the map we use for List of diplomatic missions of Spain). These maps however do not show where the missions are actually located (which may be a few for those countries with large networks of consulates). And the title of this ("Diplomatic missions of Spain") and other similar maps could be more accurate

The map style I propose instead indicates the cities that host a mission of a given country. As an example, I have produced this map for List of diplomatic missions of Singapore.

It is not difficult to make these maps. They are based on the third map below (accessible at [File:Blank map cities shaded.PNG] on Wikipedia Commons), in which I have indicated all the world capitals and other major cities where diplomatic missions are located. The circles representing cities are not visible because they are slightly different shade of grey, but all you have to do is colour each circle with a distinctive colour, and in no time you can have a more accurate and easier to read map.

I think that this approach is more appropriate for this and other categories of articles which concern cities (such as List of national capitals, Lufthansa destinations, List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics etc.), rather than countries.

Please add your views to this new proposal, including whether you like it, see problems, or see ways how it could be improved here

Thanks! Kransky (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article Dry thunderstorm

Regarding your removal of information here, you claimed that the information was unsourced, which was not the case, as this reference was added (therefore the information was sourced), therefore, should I place the information back into the article? Also, regarding your second comment about the information being focused on a specific area, we can simply use the {{Globalize}} template, and then that problem can be corrected over time. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 16:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source was added by another editor, who is to say that this is indeed supported by this reference? If you have a copy of the source then cite them using the <ref name="addanamehere">{{cite journal | blahblah...... }}</ref> then using <ref name="addnamehere"/> that way we have inline sources and know what it cited and what needs to be. Bidgee (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Emirr

Hello. I will fix them all soon. Thanks for warning. And do you have any idea about colours?

The Emirr Disscussion 14:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something I little better on the eyes (lighter colours but not to light). Bidgee (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CAC Winjeel

G'day Bidgee. I did read your edit summary. You wrote I am still looking for some historic images (while used as training) or a restored flying CAC Winjeel. That is a splendid intention and I wish you well in your efforts. The Winjeel is a wonderful old Australian aircraft with a splendid operating history. It deserves some really high quality images to show it in the best light possible.

However, I can see no link between your good intention to look for other images, and your insistence that your image of a rather sad-looking Winjeel sitting on a lawn is superior to the image of a Winjeel in flight. Wikipedia is for people looking for information, not for photographers looking for technically-superior images.

I hope you are planning to add your views to the Talk:CAC Winjeel page. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney vs. City of Sydney

Oops, sorry. I saw a misplaced section and moved it, at the same time as you removed it, and WP did not flag it as an edit conflict, and I had not though to investigate whether it belonged at all. Thanks for putting us both right.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thought I'll link to the article in the edit summary just incase you may have got confused. The IP (User:121.212.233.12) who added it is likely the banned editor User:Jackp. Bidgee (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry

Hi I dont know much about wikipedia, although I do know how to compare photographs. Yours (the one you took) is of poorer quality due to it has two different shade spots on it (i.e sun and shade) also, it has many of distractions (fire hose real?) it is a medium long shot (it has no immediate facial characteristics) would you like to compromise on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactus1974 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you would have known better Watchover not to sock and cause issues on Wikipedia! I'm not stupid, its far to easy to work it out that it is you as you left some clues which matches. You know how Wikipedia works, seems you knew how to use an edit summary and article talk page with the images (most newbie's don't). Bidgee (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on drugs? Where do you want to have this dicussion and throw accusations at someone doing the honest thing and uploading pictures that I took because they attended a community meeting where the Leader of the Opposition attended. Do you want to have it here [the conversation], Barry O'Farrells talking page, or another users where you are accusing me of being another user based on I own the same camera, It is a very popular model mind you. Edit summary, well aren't you supposed to put it there as it says "(Briefly describe the changes you have made)" and I did, did I do the wrong thing? Article talk pages its quiet simple, click on the tab and write your problem down and ask for suggestions, please don't use my kindness against me. Clearly I don't know how wikipedia works as well as you, please don't bite the newbies was the last page I read after getting home from a 12 hour shift today. I didn't know how to put pictures onto the talk page, I had to copy and paste from the other picture in the article and add the picture name and put a caption in where the old one is, Im no genious but I think that I did the right thing. If I haven't, give me a hint on how to do it and I will learn. Furthermore, I think I have the right to edit pages in my local area (bar two that were in the media that I added stuff to), don't compare me to someone based on I editing the same page as another person Im sure you edit the same pages as others, I think thats okay. Im going to upload another picture of Barry O'Farrell (reverse of 3rd one) and one of Grant mcBride yours is okay too (the one you mention in Barry O'Farrell's discussion page) have you got one front on that is more recent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactus1974 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you say on another users talking page that I have the same interests as another user, I looked at all the pages I have edited (all 7) and Wacthover has edited 2 of the 7 pages that I have. I think your consideration of similar interests needs questioning. Its not as if I want to work for another person or something. Im just trying to help by adding local information about parties preselections and the few pictures I took —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactus1974 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False Bundjalung Nation is Fraser's Fabrication

Hi Bidgee

Have found John Frasers' 1892 fabrication of Paikal-Yung in "The Aborigines of New South Wales" which researcher Norman Tindale twisted into Badjalang which then became Bundjalung.

Fraser states "The names Paikalyung (etc) I have made". This link is Frasers' 1892 book.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=K9Ix39XVANAC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=fraser+minyung&source=bl&ots=ADtH2GXbCo&sig=wh8tpCgV7rqcISVobP7uPyZjaRo&hl=en&ei=l8l4S6m9NInEsQOwt628Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Tindale stated (paidjal = badjal = man) but did not include the crucial facts about Frasers fabrication.

There was no Bundjalung Tribe, People, Nation, Language or Dialect Chain.

This link is Tindales book.http://www.samuseum.australia.sa.com/tindaletribes/badjalang.htm

Will include this incredible information on the page soon. Or should the false Bundjalung page be removed?

Wollumbinmountain (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]