User talk:Bidgee

Archive 2006 March - July August - December 2007 January - December 2008 January - April May - July August - October November - December 2009 January - February March - April May - June July - September October - December 2010 January - February March - April

Aviation weather links at Oz airports

Your suggestion doesn't work

http:www.bom.gov.au link to aviation weather doesn't work friend. A user name and password is required to access TAF/METAR information on Oz wx site. Unless you have something else to add I'll revert your edits. Thanks DSatYVR (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, your position is that because the Australian Met Agency doesn't have an easily accessible database of current aviation weather, no aviation weather should be displayed on Australian Airport sites from any source. Is that correct? The database from this site is current and verifiable. Please explain why is is not allowed in Australia although it is allowed in Canada and the United States. DSatYVR (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Specify in what way personal opinion is expressed on this page. YSSY Aviation weather. DSatYVR (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying because the server address contains the word "blog" or more specifically "blogspot" it isn't an acceptable link? There are no personal opinions expressed on this page, nor is there any advertising. YSSY Aviation weather If the server address did not contain the word "blog" and no other content changes were made would it be OK then? Your use of WP:ELNO #11 to delete the page is grasping at straws IMO DSatYVR (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, does this link meet your criteria? Airnav KLAX It's in the KLAX external link section and looks like a commercial site containing advertising. It's part of a the collection of sites in the KLAX external link section that are contained on US airport wikipedia pages. My point is that information in it's many forms may be useful to a wikipedia user and you haven't adequately explained why the information on this page YSSY Aviation weather is not useful. DSatYVR (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

CPA image

It's identical. Honestly not sure why it was deleted in the first place though - the licence appeared OK for a photo taken by an individual, and metadata was present. Orderinchaos 07:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Hello Bidgee. Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Coles

What's a reliable source? Those are prices reported by the operators themselves. If users experience is unreliable, official prices are unreliable, then nothing is reliable. Choose any area in NSW, click ULP, check price, click coles only, check price. Today it's 119c vs 125c.

About AF447 search for black boxes

Hello, I'd like to talk a bit with you about the latest edits.
The main reason I did not update the introduction, but chose to do a straight removal is the following: I think the sentence already in place is more than sufficient:

The investigation continues, but is severely hampered by the lack of the flight data recorders, eyewitness accounts and radar tracks.

I do think this gives a much better introduction than the alternative:

The investigation continues, but is severely hampered by the lack of the flight data recorders, eyewitness accounts and radar tracks. On 20 August, it was announced that the black-box search was halted. At the end of August however, the BEA announced it would resume the search later in 2009. The search resumed in March 2010.

There is already plenty of information about the different search phases in the subsections of the article. It seems to me that the main information we should present in the introduction is that the investigation is still ongoing. Don't you agree ? Cochonfou (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While it is now out of date does not mean it should be removed, it should be reworded and updated (which is what I was trying to sat in the limit edit summary space).

The second quote sounds better but don't forget to add the cites (keep some, remove duplicated cites and add some new ones) but we must keep what happened in the past within the article as it shows the history after the crash and the investigation so that we have no gaps. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but do you think that such history has really a place in the introduction ? This section of the article already gives significant information about the history of the search. This does not mean that this section should not be improved, but I think it would make a better place for this kind of information than the introduction. Cochonfou (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Hi there, thanks for your help in dealing with that harassment I got today. Still not sure exactly what I did that upset him/her so much! Cheers, --Amaher (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

[Reply & explanation ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.233.111 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Perth storms

Hi! I feel the article title 2010 Perth storms is better representative of the article's and the event's subject matter. Thus, I am against a merge, although I would support a merge of the opposite way, as much of the info in 2010 Perth storms is replicated in the other article. Nick carson (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The storms didn't just affect Perth, but also the SW part of the state, so South West Western Australia or Western Australia would be better suited. Bidgee (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hell this seems to be going forever - looks like we are going to end up with a merge in May or something :( SatuSuro 13:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My mind was changed to the "Western Australia title due the the BoM's report which highlighted that Perth wasn't the only area to get hit by the storms. Sorry if I have confused you. Now I need some sleep as I'm going away today and I'll be back on Tuesday. Bidgee (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sleep well, travel safely and we await your return with enthusiastic camaradierie (or similar states) and conviviality - in other words - enjoy yourself SatuSuro 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Gund... no I won't even mention it

After restoring the post on AWNB due to my AGF (pretty rare for me to do that in relation to IPs... must have been in a good mood - probably football related) I looked into the history and found the Arbcom ruling from 2006... and I can now entirely see why it's been nuked - assuming it's the same person. I not going to bother looking into it in any more detail, but it seems a lot of fuss about a mountain range (this time round). It's also reminded me of my latest idea - IPs shouldn't be allowed to post on any Talk:, Wikipedia: or Wikipedia_talk page, only User_talk. If they want to enter into a discussion... register. It's so simple - might have to try it out at the village pump. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the same person, they just harass anyone who doesn't support there POV (long time issue) without giving us any reliable and verifiable sources, but having done some brief research they may be right for once but double checking.

I knew you didn't know (about the Anon and the issues) so I left a brief summary in the ES as I was using an unreliable mobile broadband connection in a small NSW locality which doesn't have ADSL nor a mobile tower near by.

On the issue of IP's, I think everyone should have a static IP (My ADSL connection has a static IP) rather then a dynamic IP, as that would see the accidental blocks lowered and you can't disconnect then reconnect to be assigned a new IP to continue to vandalise/harass/spam/ect. I would also love to see Wikimedia projects be registered accounts only (you're not an anon with an IP which is static, so it can be an issue [could go on about the issues]), getting account isn't hard (IE: you don't need an email address), no one can see your IP (except checkuser of course), you're accountable for every edit, ect ect ect.

Sorry for the delay in replying, it has been a long busy day weekend! Bidgee (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Portland Sustainability Group

Regarding the undo of mentioning the Portland Sustainability Group on the Portland, Victoria page, would you please let me know what part of the addition was either "Not notable, Self Promotion, or an advertisment"? This is the second time mention of the Portland Sustainability Group has been undone by a Wiki admin, and I'm wondering if there's wider issue here.

If the answer is "Not notable", do you mean for people within Portland, people with an interest in Portland, or people with no interest in Portland? Apart from the PSG now having run activities attended by approximately 2,000 of Portland's overall population of 10,000, the group has formal support of local government; our State and Fedaral MPs, the entire school community which we are helping install renewable energy systems onto; the Committe for Portland of which we are involved in rebadging the town as the "Renewable Energy Hub of Australia"; other service club such as Lions, Rotary, etc that we combine volunteers with at events; the local print and radio media which give us frequent and regular coverage; or the actual residents here that have benefitted from our activities?

If the answer is "Self promotion", I would have thought a community based online resource like Wikipedia would not be against a non profit group which clearly exists with no agenda other than to help people reduce their environmental impacts and save energy. Nobody within the group collects a salary and frankly it can be hard to achieve at times.

If the answer is "Advertisement", surely the entry is no more of an advertisement for almost all of the other things mentioned on the page. Golf club? Cable trams? Arts Centre? Portland Aluminium? I have nothing against any of these, but there is an obvious inconsistency in the advertising policy if these can be included while the PSG can't.

I would urge you to either reinstate the content, of explain to me what needs to be changed in order for it to be able to be part of the Wikipedia Portland, Victoria article.

Thank you. --PeterReefman (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The group is not notable, most towns/regional cities/Local Government Areas have sustainability groups. Sure they are helping to show sustainable living but these groups are not notable to be added in these articles.

The addition you added was self promotion (You do have an COI)/advertisement, just because other stuff may or may not exist, also we are not a guide to help people to "reduce their environmental impacts and save energy" (See: WP:ISNOT). Bidgee (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that is grossly unfair. Most cities/towns of this size (approximately 10,000) are still only now starting sustainability groups such as the PSG. Do you have any proof to show that the group is any less "notable" than every town of this size having schools, community radio stations, golf courses, etc. And yes you did say "Other stuff may of may not exist", but surely common sense needs to prevail here. Through the PSG, Portland is the first town in Victoria to have solar panels put on EVERY school. We are the only town/city in Vcitoria outside Melbourne that has conducted a 1,000+ person human sign which was across Nun's beach in the middle of town. If your personal opinion is that the group is not notable I would invite you to verify with the mayor, schools principle network leader, Portland Observer, etc.

By the way you refer to CIO, no one who actually lives in Portland can ever actually contribute to it's Wiki article, even if that person knows more about the topic than a random administrator. Yes I do belong to the PSG as an unpaid volunteer. That does not alter the fact that the content is correct and worthwhile. If it needs editing then please do. But some mention of the group is certainly warranted.

You last line about Wiki not being a guide for reducing environmental impacts is frankly way out of line. I would like to escalate this dispute as I feel you have an agenda to block any kind of mention of environmentalism in Portland

--PeterReefman (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Radio stations (Community or Commercial), schools, golf courses, even football clubs/teams are totally different to an sustainable living group. It is very clear you have an COI with the group and a POV. The section was written like a self promotion/advert nor have you proved notability (other then your own word [ OR ]) with third party verifiable and reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your obvious determination of stopping any kind of mention of the sustainability group against all appeals and compromises shows that you have a clear agenda of keeping any mention of environmental sustainability out of the article, and that shows that you have a conflict of interest which is far more serious, and also that you are not fit to decide if it should be included in the article or not.

I'm going to open this up to a third party to decide and will paste this conversation into the Portland article discussion to do so. --PeterReefman (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Banksia

Hi Bidgee, I removed File:Cone of an Banksia marginata.jpg from the Banksia marginata article as this is a picture of Banksia integrifolia. The difference in appearance of the "cones" is illustrated in this picture File:Banksia integrifolia and marginata cones.jpg --Melburnian (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, my ident was based on a Wagga Wagga City Council tag which is clearly now unreliable. ;) Bidgee (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I usually go by the AGL policy (assume good labelling) but have come across instances of "wrong" labels in all sorts of botanic gardens. In terms of the ones in the ground, I assume that many of these have been removed due to vandalism or maintenance activities, and then put back in the wrong place later. With others the label outlives its associated plant so the label looks like it is describing a nearby unlabelled plant. Melburnian (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Highway

I just want you to have a look at these three pages and compare:

• Newell Highway
• Goulburn Valley Highway
• Monaro Highway

I want to focus your attention on the allocation section of the Road Info box.

Now I deliberately spent a fair amount of time creating a new section on most highways (something that still is a work in progress and may take years to fully complete), particularly in Victoria but some in regional New South Wales, such as the Monaro Highway, creating a section called Major Intersections and Towns (MIT), (which I'm sure you are aware of).

There are numerous routes that duplex with one another (although their importance is not so great), such as when one route crosses another via a small town, and had decided that any routes that did so, would be best to list them under the MIT section, rather than cluttering the Road Info box, for two reasons. The only time I would decide to include multiple routes in the allocation, was if it was in the arrangement similar to the Monaro or Goulburn Valley Highway, where only one route is the most dominant for that section (i.e. 60-70km section etc. of the B340 in Victoria).

Firstly, to keep the page as presentable as possible, and two, I figured that visitors to these pages might want further insight into what to expect in terms of major junctions, and towns along the way.

I could spend even more time trying to make a diagrammatic view, similar to the Hume Highway, where I show each of the towns and highways (plus major local roads) through it, but I don't have the time nor the patience to do it.

So I hope this has explained it to you, as to why I'm looking at making more of these MITs as oppose to cluttering up the Road Info box. I am happy for contributors, like yourself to include more MITs, if you wish to do so.

If you disagree with this, I would like to know and if you have any other ideas for improving this, as I'm sure we Wikipedians do on a day-to-day basis, I'd like to know also :) --Rom rulz424 (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Aussie

G'day Bidgee, how are ya? I'm from Melbourne Victoria. I have been a Wikipedian for more than two months but it feels like years,Do you mind helping me out when I need assistance? And, if you need anything, please ask me-I'm ready to do my job for the sake of everyone. Cheers Sp33dyphil talk 00:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 12 - I seem to recall this (the "Mapit-AUS-suburbscale old" template) as being related to you, though I could be entirely wrong. Whatever way, it's a notification. :) Orderinchaos 03:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fun and travel

Has redeemed self sort of - despite the initial lack of consultation - we now have the ghosts, the bones and cobwebs of the australian project even better tagged and categorised - the smell of the socks of long since disappeared till lingers :| SatuSuro 05:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi- it's Funandtrvl, I have come here with a peace pipe, even though I don't smoke, and would like to ask you to just hear me out:

I'm just wondering why the Riverina Project page doesn't want to be tagged with the WP Australia-Riverina template, that would enable it to be included in the Project-Class categories of both the Australia project & Riverina sub-project. Is it because it's a project page and not an article page? I know your comment was that I was shoving things down your throat, but the fact is that only you have seemed to object. I sure haven't found any other person who was against trying to tag pages and cleanup categories for the projects. So I would like to know your thoughts about this, so that I can better understand why you reverted the tagging.

Also, since I've spent the last 2 days cleaning up the categories and tagging pages for the WP Australia project & sub-projects, I don't think that is butting in, but instead, is definitely the work of someone (myself) who wants to help out the project and do the grunt work (yuck!). A suggestion that would help us outside editors, like myself, understand how things work around the Australia project, would be that if you want editors (members and non-members) to contact someone first before making any changes (and what type of changes would be involved), maybe the project could list the specific person to contact, like a project admin, at the top of the relevant Noticeboard or project page. Please keep in mind that anyone can edit. Thanks again for hearing me out. Regards, --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The project admin is basically the noticeboard - we are australyans :) - no one does the grunt or yuck work anymore so I should have left barns, stars and attendant cookies at your talk - sorry i forgot to - got diverted by the Kalgoorlie earthquake this am :( - nah you'll do - any sucker prepared to do all the yuck work has to be ok :| SatuSuro 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. Did you guys have an earthquake today? I'll have to read about it, I'm always interested in that stuff! --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee i think is on the east coast somewhere - I am in perth - wikinews http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Earthquake_in_Kalgoorlie,_Western_Australia - the main list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Australia and the WA list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes_in_Western_Australia - but seeing you have just been at the australian noticeboard - you have commented about 10 lines below this SatuSuro 15:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you able to feel it in Perth? Thanks for the links, there's a photo of the Golden Eagle Hotel with its roof collapsed. Hopefully, there weren't any fatalities. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah only 2 known injuries not fatalities - due to perth being so far away we didnt feel anything SatuSuro 15:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ta for the move - barnstars and another bottle owed for that SatuSuro 08:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested

Before you go - in the little repartee - at my talk and the issue of sandgropers - :( SatuSuro 11:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah nothing to really look at - dont bother - just a cyclone in a teacup all passed - bad luck about the equipment SatuSuro 14:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Emirr

Hello. I got over the problems with maps. They are ready to be used. Have a good day.

 The Emirr Disscussion 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Link to photos of Wood Duck

Hi Bidgee,

Thank you for your note about removing the link to my page of photos of Wood Duck.

I've read the guidelines for adding External Links and don't think I was contravening them. The primary aim of my website is to share my photographs of birds, not to sell them. To support this aim, I encourage visitors to download photos for private use and have had, since 2002, a weekly bird of the week email that is sent free to more than 600 members around the world.

So, I'm disappointed that you've removed the link and hope that you would reconsider. Ian --Pandionaus (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Griffith Central

Please note that the changes made are factual - thank you