User talk:Bidgee/Archive10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2011 floods

Truly superb work hunting down free images of the floods. Well done. -- Mattinbgn/talk 06:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks goes to the photographers for freely licensing their images! Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Wheel of brisbane during 2011 flooding.jpg

Hi. There is attribution, the author is mentioned and linked in the "author" line. Your note actually makes it seem as though the author requested a specific way of attribution, which is not the case - a misrepresentation brought about by you transferring the info verbatim from the move-to-commons-assistant. If your statement were true, that unless the author is mentioned in the license template there is no attribution, then what about File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg and other high-profile pictures that belie this? Regards Hekerui (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Two different images, most if not all files from Wikipedia use the attribution format (whether it was moved with move-to-commons-assistant or not), author field is just stating the author but the licensing is a different matter. Fact is if your point was to be the case then we wouldn't have {{self}}. Bidgee (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
{{self}} distinguished between author and attribution in its parameters. In fact, if someone uploads a file on enwiki with self, he/she has the attribution parameter available, which was not used in this case and would have been detected by the move-helper. You introduce specific attribution that makes reuse by others more difficult and does not conform with author wish because it was not done in the original file. That the move-helper adds this may be done because some people don't check their transfers for whether the author is correctly listed but is no reason to revert my edit claiming it was falsifying licensing, no? Hekerui (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly we hold difference of opinion, I've moved the license (minus the {{self}}) into the permission field in hope that this is middle ground. Bidgee (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah thanks, let's forget about it. I was unhappy with the non-AGF revert but I think we exhausted the pro-con of the issue :) Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Wagga-Court-House.jpg

Take a look at File:Wagga-Court-House.jpg and the talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, it is a ridiculous assertion—Bidgee's image has just been used without permission. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Most likely added by a troll, they seemed to have followed me from Wikipedia to Commons. But thank you to them for pointing to another site misusing another image of mine! Bidgee (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up my talkpage, but...

I am notified of all the messages, and I saw them-a one day block only for that, really? I've gotten a week block for saying less.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I found out who this is, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:63.131.4.149 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive662#User:63.131.4.149 . I would suggest something meaningful, not just one day.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Like this 04:51, January 8, 2011 MuZemike (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 63.131.4.149 (talk) with an expiry time of 2011-04-06T09:43:36Z (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ ({{checkuserblock}}: Blatant talk page abuse; patently harassing/disruptive edit summaries; also extending block to 3 months)--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
IP are treated with care with blocks due to the fact that it can block other uninvolved editors, especially if it is a proxy (some ISP's force users via transparent proxies). Fact is if it was an account who did those edits it would have been an indef block, but since you have shown me the Wiki issues with the Anon editor (or as I call them, IP editors) I have extended the block. Bidgee (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Got it, and thanks for the second look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Invasion_Day_protest_at_the_Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy_in_Canberra_01.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Invasion_Day_protest_at_the_Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy_in_Canberra_01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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)‎ | +/−

84.61.177.189 19:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Invasion_Day_protest_at_the_Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy_in_Canberra_02.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Invasion_Day_protest_at_the_Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy_in_Canberra_02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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)‎ | +/−

84.61.177.189 19:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Corroboree_for_Sovereignty_at_the_Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy_in_Parkes,_ACT.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Corroboree_for_Sovereignty_at_the_Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy_in_Parkes,_ACT.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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)‎ | +/−

84.61.177.189 19:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Invasion_Day_protest_at_the_Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy_in_Canberra.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Invasion_Day_protest_at_the_Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy_in_Canberra.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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)‎ | +/−

84.61.177.189 19:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Invasion_Day_protest_over_Commonwealth_Avenue_Bridge_in_Canberra.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Invasion_Day_protest_over_Commonwealth_Avenue_Bridge_in_Canberra.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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)‎ | +/−

84.61.177.189 19:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Wayne_Pigram.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wayne_Pigram.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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)‎ | +/−

58.163.175.131 05:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

Hi Bidgee, how are you?

I selected the original image (twice) when attempting to upload the edited version of File:2008-2010 Lexus IS 250 (GSE20R) Sports Luxury sedan (2011-01-12).jpg. Would you please delete the files uploaded at 05:39 and 05:41? Regards, OSX (talkcontributions) 05:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee, I've got another one here: File:Timor S515 sedan (2007-07-09) 02.jpg (it's the upload dated 05:58, 5 March 2011). Thanks, OSX (talkcontributions) 06:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, A7N8X accidently uploaded (and then reverted) over the top of this image. Thanks in advance, OSX (talkcontributions) 10:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Wayne_Pigram.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wayne_Pigram.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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)‎ | +/−

58.163.175.134 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:AU-AR

Hi. I want to create the route marker for the en:Bonang Highway (C612) but there does not seem to be any instructions on how to do that in Template:AU-AR; font, size, etc. Any advice would be welcome. Thanks, Peter Ellis (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to get back to you with that. I need to find my template (Photoshop file) as I don't have written instructions, I should though. Bidgee (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the vandalism-revert. --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keeps of images whose subjects or authors have requested deletion

Hello Bidgee, why are you speedily keeping images put up for deletion review by people claiming to be their subjects or authors?

If your concern is, as in the latest discussion of the ObiWilf Lesbian Images, that you don't believe the nominator is being honest about their identity, it can't hurt to wait and make an effort to confirm that.

If your concern is, as in the photos of Raquel Oliveira, that the images are "legal and free, already marked with {{personality rights}}. A public place restricting photography, even forbidding photography, doesn't prevent images from being taken and uploaded under a free license," this is something that should be discussed for at least the normal length of a deletion review.

  • It is not clear that one editor and one bot claiming they found the image under a free license on flickr suffices to confirm that the images are in fact legally available under that license.
  • The fact that we all promote free culture does not mean we must lack compassion. Offending the subjects of our interest or attention, when a moment's generosity would cost us and free knowledge nothing (this is an awful photo on many levels, and not in use), hurts our movement and lessens the public perception of free culture. --SJ+ 04:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
If we were to believe IP's then we would be giving free rein to IP's to delete what they claim to be theirs or subject in. If the subject or author is requesting to have them removed, they have ways to do so.
Best to raise you issues with Flickr at Village pump, as we all should take extreme care when uploading a Flickr photograph to make sure it is not a copyrighted photograph from another source however in these cases I do not see any reason to believe these photographs are copyright violations and are legally licensed.
I'm not trying to prevent compassion, we have agreed to delete images in the past so as long we have some sort of evidence from the author (via OTRS) that they want it to be deleted, however if someone changes their minds over a free license to more of a restrictive license, well that is their problem. Subjects have no power over an image unless their is a very good reason that it should be deleted.
I can see accepting evidence from creators - as is happening now with the obiwolf images. It would be kinder to make that clear in a positive way -- inviting someone who claims to be the creator to prove it -- rather than assuming that people claiming to be creators are lying and rejecting their request unless they persist.
The idea that subjects have no power over their images is unfortunate. The burden of "needing a good reason" should be on the other side: if there's no compelling educational use for an image and the subject desires that it be taken down, the request is itself should suffice. (and simply wanting someone to stop using your image is a very good reason, in many cultures -- that's why personality rights exist. Whether or not a given instance would be legal for Commons to host in Florida, we shouldn't be hurting people or troubling them without good reason.) --SJ+ 08:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Once you make something free, you can't reverse it. People need to learn once it is free it always will be. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Right. This isn't about copyright; that was a red herring. (But my point in the first bullet above was that uploaders make mistakes about copyright assignment all the time. Creators forget that they failed to get model releases, reusers pick the wrong license when posting to flickr, &c. We should not serve as an amplifier of those mistakes.) --SJ+ 08:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed comments on deletion discussions

I appreciate the speed with which you restored the pristine state of those deletion discussions; I should have left those comments here for you as the closer - or perhaps on the policy discussion about personality rights. I hope you will reply here:

I believe compassion and an interest in the well-being of others should trump lawyering over the limits of laws protecting personality rights and copyright. Until Ms. Oliveira is notable enough to be memorialized (at which point fame begins to erode personality rights), I see little benefit to Commons or its sister projects from these images that cannot be satisfied by images of a performer who welcomes the sharing of their photographs. Is there any reason to keep these images, when their author has taken the originals offline and the subject asks for their removal, other than the fact that it may not be illegal? --SJ+ 04:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a right to your view but doesn't necessarily mean that are right but nor does it mean that you are wrong. Wikipedia isn't a memorial nor is Common however Commons is a repository for the Wikimedia projects (not just Wikipedia), just because there may or may not be an article on the well known/notable person doesn't mean we shouldn't upload or host the photograph. We do not know why the Flickr images have been removed, we can only assume however it does not mean the photographs were illegal.
Personal rights will always be debated on Commons, very much like Australia who doesn't have the Bill of Rights but we have those saying it gives rights to people whether they are in a public space or not. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not making any particular reference to Wikipedia above - notability is a useful concept for all projects, as is the idea of protecting the reputation of living people, even though in both cases policies on these themes were developed first on the Projects on Wikipedia.
I know personal rights have long been a topic of debate; I was wondering whether you see any specific reason to keep these images. Are you advocating keeping them simply to uphold the letter of current policy as you see it? --SJ+ 07:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spravedlivaya.svg

Etiquette question. I note your reversion of Special+Utilizator+$'s change of "license" to "licence" here. I wouldn't have changed that, because it was simply USA vs British spelling, but I occasionally correct the spelling of previous edits in a DR and appreciate it when others do it for me. Since many of us are not native English speakers, I think it helps if things are spelled correctly -- I know that I have enough trouble with perfect French and misspellings would make it just harder. Apparently you disagree. Thoughts?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Special+Utilizator+$ change the spelling of another editor's comment (well more of deletion reason then a comment but still not the right to change it), not their own. I'm sorry but it doesn't matter if it is spelt in the US or British spelling, you should never change other editor's comments even if it is to fix spelling. I don't care if someone spells it "license" or "licence", as it isn't incorrect. If someone change my spelling of "colour" to "color", I wouldn't be impressed even though the meaning of colour and color is the same, it is the fact that someone has edited my comment without asking if I mind. Bidgee (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Sheffield_Dec_2010_1600.jpg & File:Velocity Village.jpg

Permission is in the description. Please read before adding delete tags where they are not warranted! L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but like everyone else you must have the creator/author of the photographs to send the permission to OTRS, a link to a forum post is not permission even if they may have given permission. Please assume good faith. Bidgee (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Frustrated by Removal of Image :o(

I refer to my photo that has been deleted, details of which I received from you are listed below:

04:56, 13 March 2011 Bidgee (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Yellow05.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: http://www.invigorate.com.au/full_story_speakers.php?newsstory=5454&result_number=81&total_results=365) (global usage; delinker log)

There is no such copyright violation as THE IMAGE BELONGS TO ME! It is photograph of me, taken on MY personal camera, in MY house.. and the image was then provided by me to numerous others including www.invigorate.com.au to promote my personal profile on their website.

I hereby request that you reinstate the image immediately and look forward to your advice.

Greetings from the drought stricken west

Must be why I was loading so many surfing pics to flickr. I think the IP must have a B in or under the bonnet - (a) I thought I had done that before I became an admin (b) 'If' I did that after - I am unreservedly apologetic and will accept reversals - as for going to a notice board as a once only IP and talking about oneself as the absent unpsoken with - well well... - thanks for the notification and clarification -- thanks again - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I spotted it via my watchlist and thought that I would point out the complaint. The changing of a (whether it is a user or sysop) free unrestrictive (PD) to a free restrictive (CC-BY[-SA]) is very much frown upon. Bidgee (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Your counsel and advice is always appreciated - thanks for that (my daughter is flying to Melbourne tonight and its cold and wet there - we have no sign of anything but hot and dry) SatuSuro (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Noticed Perth was a hot 35! We had a mild 21 with showers early this morning and during the day, so far we have had 8mm in the past 24 hours and 62mm for the month (Ave is only 43mm)! 2-3 hours drive to the north of us had 50-90mm in just a few hours the other day and the village of Ungarie is currently flooded! Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
grrrrr - no respite in sight here while others get wet, grrr - beginning to get like what it is in Darwin, NT during the buildup - dry and bloody nuisance until it eventually breaks SatuSuro (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Trust me, Darwin's build-up is hot and bloody humid! Like being in a sauna. ;) Being wet has its issues, mould, plaques of pests (locusts, grasshoppers, crickets, mozzies and mice), weeds ect. Hate to think what this hill will be like (full lake in the background) if we return to normal Spring and Summer weather later in the year! Humid weather is also giving me some chest issues. Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I reckon there should be an art about darwins buildup on en - it is a distinct phenonomenon enough to drive most anglo saxons around the bend to the pub (sic) or down south for the few months it happened - it drove my first boy's skin crazy - when the rain broke he was young enough to run around in the rain with nothing on to cure the issue SatuSuro (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, good ol Mango-Madness they call it. Build-up drives everyone insane, though when the first storm comes in everyone seems to calm down a little! Bidgee (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Pubs and hotels discussion

Hi Bidgee. Your input at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:Hotels in Australia would be most welcome. It is time this was sorted out, one way or the other. Cheers, Mattinbgn/talk 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A favour please ...

Hi Bidgee. Can you do me a favour please. Can you delete File:Forrest Primary School Sign.JPG? I uploaded it by accident. Cheers, Mattinbgn/talk 08:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks heaps. -- Mattinbgn/talk

Possible unfree Commons image in Wikipedia article

G'day Bidgee, YSSYguy here. Could you have a quick look at the image of the playboy bunny Bird Dog at the Oakey Army Aviation Museum in the Cessna O-1 Bird Dog article? The original uploader has been pinged a number of times on WP for copyvio images, and I think that he's done the same with that one. The photographer is listed as Mark Clayton, who was to have been the curator of the still-born NASMA; and the image gives no indication that he has released it in any way. If you delete it from Commons, I will remove it from the Bird Dog article. Thanks 121.208.114.64 00:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that he (Bauple58) is Mark Clayton going by his flickr account (Bunny II on flickr), best to take it to a deletion request due to the low resolution of the image. Bidgee (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Stefan Ackermann Das Ich Matrix 2011.jpg

Hi Bidgee! The disputed template has now been deleted. So could you please unprotect this image? Chaddy (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The same with File:Benni Cellini Matrix Bochum 2010 1.jpg. Chaddy (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Protection has expired (about an hour ago). Bidgee (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
All right. Chaddy (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at ...

... this image for me. I cannot see how the uploader could possibly release this a PD work. Many thanks, Mattinbgn/talk 02:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the en uploader just got the image from the Art Gallery of NSW website. All art works are copyrighted (no notice is needed in Australia) unless stated otherwise. Bidgee (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. -- Mattinbgn/talk 03:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

flower

thanks for that - so out of the loops with the flowers and all - appreciate the heads up - it actually solved 2 as far as i can tell - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. That WA Gov site is far better then NSW! Bidgee (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Blonay–Chamby Museum Railway

[1] -- Knergy (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rename req.

  • Hi. Can you rename this file from Galatasaray SK 1907-1908 to Galatasaray SK 1908-1909? Because this picture was taken after 1908-09 season of İstanbul Football League. In 1907-08 season, the champion was Moda FC which can be seen on this picture. Thanks...--Rapsar (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. Bidgee (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. But I didn't get something. Why didn't you post your message to my talk page?--Rapsar (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I was about to put {{talkback}} on your talk page. Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:EvaK

Hey, didn't I ask you to block my account indefinitely, Mr./Ms. Admins-are-holier-than-users. Eventually I am free then to call assholes by their original name instead of stuck to that false und dishonest AGF and NPA. Bye little do-gooder, and care for your trolls wbo harass active users and put them off. --84.177.17.141 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Confrontations of Qasr al-Nil.ogg

Hi, I want you to check this file and its source in order to tell me if its licence is correct or not. thanks.--Mohamed ElGedawy (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the source's license (Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License, please see COM:L) is restrictive (Non-commercial) therefore can't be uploaded on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion stalemate

Hi Bidgee. There are two related deletion discussions that seem to have stagnated (c.f. 1, 2). They both involve images that were uploaded by a sockpuppet of a banned Commons user, one Brunodam. Despite this, the user has attempted to participate in the discussion and sway the outcome in his favor. He has claimed both files as his own work, although each dates from at least the early 20th century. He has also misrepresented the subject and location of one of them, a file which was actually deleted in the past when he attempted to upload it using another account (deletion rationale: "Deletion of files added by NBDA: Abusive sockpuppeteer"). I have documented the specifics on each deletion discussion page, with the requisite links. Can you please have a look and help break the stalemate? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

While clearly not the users own work (unless they were the photographer, who would be over 90 years old), {{PD-Italy}} could apply but I don't have a clear understanding of Somalia so I'm not willing to close or make comment on the AfD. Bidgee (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Neither file is the uploader's own work; this is indeed obvious. The File:DUBAT.jpg was also not taken in Italian Somaliland as the uploader claimed, but in Ethiopia during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War; its pictured subject also isn't a Somali soldier, but an Eritrean official [2]. The forgoing was yet another thing that the uploader misrepresented. Besides, even if the pic and the other one had been taken in Italian Somaliland as claimed, they would both have to have been taken between 1923 and 1941 for the tiny off-chance that they fall under PD-Italy to be possible since, prior to that time period, southern Somalia (the former Italian Somaliland) was ruled by the Somali Sultanate of Hobyo and the Majeerteen Sultanate (who had protection treaties with Italy), and after that period, it was a United Nations Trust Territory. However, no evidence in the way of links or quotes has been offered to substantiate either the source, author or date of the files per Commons:Essential information. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Klick. Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)