User talk:Bidgee

Reverted edit on southern hemisphere tornado page

Is the source provided (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/18341002) not sufficient? Or needs to be correctly referenced to the newspaper article rather than the webpage? Or is another 'more reliable' source required? Trex21 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that you did in fact cite it with a source. Though you'll note that there is a "Cite" tab at http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/18341002 which gives you the "Wikipedia citation". Bidgee (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Hadn't noticed that on the Trove page, so I'll know for next time :-) Trex21 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good

All good Bidgee... Ive got mentions enabled so I knew as soon as you posted, i do appreciate you letting me know nonetheless :). -- Nbound (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Canberra Capitals logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading File:Canberra Capitals logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported.

I have reported you to the Abuse Response Community / Help Desk and currently have three administrators reviewing my case. Yes, I'm blocked, but you have blocked accounts that aren't me and reverted edits that weren't nonconstructive, therefore you are likely going to face a block yourself if the all three administrators can find sufficient evidence of edit warring. 60.231.212.97 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've threatened that before and nothing happened. You're a serial sock and block evader, you will need to follow the correct channels (WP:UNBLOCK) if you're wanting to become a Wikipedia editor along with following the policies and guidelines that are in place. My reverts/undo are supported per WP:3RRNO and WP:EVADE. Bidgee (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done one block, but I need you to provide a little more detail on your SPI case.—Kww(talk) 05:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gold_Coast,_Queensland#Consensus:_any_opposition_to_this_photo.3F

Seeing as you've reverted the infobox image change, I'm interested in hearing your views on the matter. Harryboyles 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darwin Reserve

Hi,

Regarding your message:

"To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors."

There is a lengthy explanation on the talk page as to why the images do not meet relevant guidelines for inclusion. The only person "edit warring" here is user:Maias who is repeatedly inserting these irrelevant and misleading images into the article, without justifying this on the talk page. He has repeatedly ignored addressing the points made to him, he admits that the images are "less than ideal", and the only thing he can argue is that an appallingly bad image is worse than no image at all. Wikipedia's guidelines disagree on this.