User talk:Bidgee

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


This user is no longer very active on Wikimedia Commons.


Sorry, I thought it was the Junee in Queensland. Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I've made similar mistakes in the past. We're only human. :) Bidgee (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello Bidgee,

Many people are deleting pics i post. One person who I am really keen to talk to is OSX who has been regularly deleting my posts that I really want shown. I replied to osx and attempted to delete his post as revenge for wrecking my posts. I cannot believe that a person so heartless delete the posts. I dont regularly delete posts but only if they have no description or not relevant to the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EurovisionNim (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 July 2014‎ (UTC)

An editor has the right to remove comments off their talk page (except for block notices while blocked or banned, which must remain until the block/ban has concluded), it is also considered as the message being read. Bidgee (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

File:1989 Newcastle earthquake map.png[edit]

Hey Bidgee

Nice work on the map here. Did you take a class to learn how to do this or are you in the (earth sciences) field? I think it's the only one of its kind that I've seen. Dawnseeker2000 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. File:1989 Newcastle earthquake map.png is a good illustration. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'd stopped by because I wanted to ask about Bidgee's qualifications. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but if there isn't a background in seismology or geology, I don't think that it should be used in the article. There are supporters of the map that are making their case on the talk page for the earthquake article on the English WP, and I'm formulating a response now. I'm not going to make a huge stink and go back and forth on this over there (although I did remove the file on Monday and met resistance (status quo, he said)) and today I'm just going to post what I think and why. Dawnseeker2000 (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
If you commented with a little good faith, I would've answered the question but since you want to act in an aggressive manner, I'm not going to waste any more of my time. Bidgee (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#File:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg[edit]

Would you consider closing the whole thing down ? LGA talkedits 03:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Just read the whole thing, closed as no action is required. Bidgee (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

adding photos[edit]

I am contacting you as I saw your name on the white tailed water rat (Hydromis Chrysogaster) page. I have just join Wiki with the view to adding some good quality photos to some of the articles. I cannot work out how to do so even after reading several help pages. There seems to be a difference between the screen shots in some help pages and what I find in reality in Edit mode. Could you a/ explain to me how to add photos or

               b/ introduce me to an interested party to whom I could email my photos and they could upload them.

I am a serious nature photographer. Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maillolman (talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 August 2014‎ (UTC)

You could use the Upload Wizard (I was hoping to do a video on how to upload on Commons and insert photographs on Wikipedia, but I'm currently busy with uni ATM) or I use the Basic Form, though this is more for uploaders who are use to the old form. Bidgee (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Fixed and new correct details added. Confusion due to two Bombardier aircraft being registered as VH-LEF at different periods. Ardfern (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


--  Gazebo (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Nude woman spreading legs to show shaved vagina and anus.jpg[edit]

No source to the so called copyvio was provided, nothing to prove this assertion. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude woman spreading legs to show shaved vagina and anus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude woman spreading legs to show shaved vagina and anus.jpg and the rationale to be kept. If the author of this speedy deletion still thinks that this is a copyvio then he should open an DR. Tm (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just saw that after I deleted them. I hold some scepticism that they are the uploader's own work and do wonder why they think these porn images are educational. I've undeleted all of them, though I have doubts about the uploader. Bidgee (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. Sometimes every can make mistakes. About the educational purpose of this images, we should remember that Commons has a scope in pornography be it soft or hard (but where ends the scope is discussible). About if his images are his work or ripped of from unnamed sources, when i see that this user makes new uploads i cross his uploads with the Google Images to see if gives positive to copyright violations but until now it gave all negative or give Commons as the higher resolution (the older ones) or confuse one image with one of the danish model Nina Agdal. Tm (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Brachydiplax_denticulata has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Jee 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Australian F-111s[edit]

Hi there, I see you reverted my additions of the Australian air museum categories to the two retired Australian F-111s (Category:A8-134 (aircraft) and Category:A8-272 (aircraft)). Why ? EN Wiki article states they are now at those museums, presumably for preservation. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Main reason is that the photographs that are in categories don't have a provence in them to require them to have the museum category and most of the photos are of the F111 in service, individual images should have museum category. I can't give you a more in-depth reply, I'm currently in Bathurst and have a busy work load. Bidgee (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought about that... I think the main category should be the aircraft as a whole including its entire life e.g. by serial number, and within that perhaps a sub-category for its residence in a museum... there are many categories such as [[:Category:abc at xyz air museum]]. However, in most cases there are few if any of the machine before it entered the museum, hence a single category suffices. Either way, I feel an aircraft in a museum needs its own category for folks to dump their snaps into. This needs to be sorted out by consensus so folks like me aren't swimming against the tide. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
There could be subcategory for the craft at the museum, which would also be a subcategory of the museum as well but there is only 1 image of A8-134 and two of A7-272 at that museum and only a total of 15 images in the museum category. The current solution for these three images of being in both categories is sufficient as neither parent category is overwhelmed with content. Gnangarra 08:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: unfortunately that is not how thematic categorisation has been developing naturally in the topic of aviation here on Commons. It is up to editors to look at other categories that exist and if in doubt ask COM:AVIATION for advice. Photos of operational aircraft should ideally not be placed in a museum category, but in the registration/serial category. Those particular aircraft in museums should be placed in a category such as mentioned by Rcbutcher (talk · contribs). The reason being, many aircraft make it into museums and the issue I see, and should be very obvious, is that the casual user of Commons will have zero idea what museum that aircraft is in, and it should be also in the museum category itself. If you want to get consensus on this issue, perhaps ask at COM:AVIA and get more input. russavia (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: thats what I said the current situation of the one photo being tagged in both the aircrafts category and the museum category is sufficient, if in the future we get more museum photos then create a new category for them as a sub category of the aircraft, at no point did I say put operational photographs in the museums category. Gnangarra 12:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
It's been good working with you as a fellow admin. You'll certainly have my support if you want to be an admin again in the future. Good luck with everything you're doing AFK. Take care. INeverCry 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Bidgee (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Hey Rob,

Thankyou for being a good helpful wikipedian. I am so going to miss you however we should discuss things over my computer. You have done great to service the page whenever I needed help. I am so going to miss you however keep up the good work during your retirement and hopefully see you around.

Well Done buddy


EurovisionNim 01:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)