User talk:Bidgee/Archive11

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.


Contents

problem image

Hi Bidgee, I don't know the procedures here for flagging images, but File:Simon8B4 1920.png looks like a no evidence of permission to me. Uploaded by someone other than copyright holder. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, was a clear copyright violation. Bidgee (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing of move templates

What should be this? Do you really think that I am a banned sock using (abusing) IP's? Do you really mean that the name "stop signs" for stop road signs is unambiguous? --ŠJů (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, it (the edit summary) wasn't directed at you. I didn't realise that you had re-added the tag as 202.89.140.189 (talk · contribs) tagged Category:Stop signs who uses multiple IP's after having their socks and main account blocked and continues to disrupt Commons. Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A problem

Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:202.89.142.205. --ŠJů (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Seals of the United States

Dear Bidgee, you moved File:SouthCarolina-StateSeal.svg to File:Seal of South Carolina.svg, that's why I want to ask you to move the other Seals named "...-StateSeal.svg" to "Seal of ....svg". So we get the official and common name for all Seals of the United States. Best regards from Germany, -- JCIV (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Maximilian_Schönherr#File:CGI_Fluid_Clouds.jpg

Hallo Bidgee, @File:CGI_Fluid_Clouds.jpg - User_talk:Maximilian_Schönherr#File:CGI_Fluid_Clouds.jpg: if there should be a problem with the winXP elements (which are pretty simple...) they can be easily cropped. So please to not do a quick deletion - a simple image modification and the case is done. Could you please undel? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not as simply as coping out the Windows element since the program "Maya" is a copyrighted program. Bidgee (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow - you're fast. :-) For your log entry "also contains Windows XP (skin))" → Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft_products and the deletion request link therein.
Okay, I missed the first part of your deletion reason "Copyrighted program". Well, if you say that it shows copyrighted elements of Maya it is a different case as I do not know how it looks like. ;) Which copyrighted elements exactly are shown? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the program used and they have screenshot not just the elements of the program but also the examples which come with the program (IE: not created by them, just the developers of the program). Not only isn't the uploader's own work, it is a copyright violation. Bidgee (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Bidgee! Okay, if it was the original examples (not totally simple ones) it has to be deleted, right. Not totally sure about the toolbars of the program - but, yes, could be too much for Commons' view of Threshold_of_originality.
@Maximilian: a screenshot of a self made (without predefined templates and patterns) example would probably/maybe be okay to upload on de.wikipedia directly as we accept a bit more Schöpfungshöhe there. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Wet Fur - CGI.jpg

hi Bidgee, thanks for all the input here --- unfortunately i have the file somewhere else and don't exactly remember which clouds we're talking about here. of course, when i upload my own CGI works, i do use a piece of commercial software. but it's my own work. i've done lots of 3D CGI clouds and trees and flowers with my own hands (and mouseclicks) which certainly aren't falling under other folks' copyright. see this image of CGI fur for example. cheers, Maximilian (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maximilian, you can still see it here (the first hits): google. Yes, if it is completely own work by you it would okay (I guess ...). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It must have been ages ago when I uploaded this image. The sky (center of the image) is completely my work, the icons and the "Fluid" window, however, aren't. Buttom line: Let's leave it as it is, i. e. deleted. Cheers, and thx for the good work! Maximilian (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

They

Hello Bidgee, this is possibly stupid question, and I hope you would excuse me for that, but I'm really curious with it. I've just seen your closure of the Neo ender drawing DR, and you wrote there "I suggest that they read the policies". I've seen many people using this they referring to a single user, like LX, Turélio, and many others. Is it some use convention for when one doesn't know the sex of the user, or something similar?--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If I'm unsure of someone's gender, I use them and they rather then using say he or she. Using someone's nickname (Wiki username) more than once is a bit repetitive. Bidgee (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an English native speaker and that usage of they sounded very odd. I suspected it could be something like that, indeed. Thanks for confirming it.--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, prefer to avoid using the plural pronoun for a singular person, and use "he or she" (sometimes "she or he") in those circumstances. I think you will find that the "he or she" construction is almost universal in American public writing -- the New York Times Style Book requires it, not "they", but only as a last resort, after considering the various other ways to avoid the pronoun -- "the user's" in place of "his" and so forth.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

British (Commonwealth) vs American English

Can I suggest that "not on" as in

"calling another editor vandalist/propagandist is completely not on"

is a very British usage? Many Americans and people who were taught English by Americans may not understand it. "Forbidden", "not permitted", or "prohibited" might be better. We might also both say "out of bounds" and understand the same meaning, although with different playing fields in mind.

This is also a chance to ask another, far more senior, Admin about your understanding of the rule that a block is never punishment, always precautionary.

"...blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one; "cool-down" blocks are not condoned."

I agree completely with your action, but you explicitly stated that it was for

"Uncivil remarks about another editor and disruptive edit warring at File:Macedonia (disambiguation).png."

How do you reconcile that with policy? Or do you just ignore the policy, knowing that most of our colleagues will agree that it's a righteous action?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Under Australian English "is completely not on" is common usage rather then "forbidden", "not permitted", or "prohibited". "is completely not on" covers "not called for" and "not permitted".
I think it is likely the editor knows what they are doing and just completely ignoring what is being said. The 1 week block isn't for a cool down but as preventative not a punitive measure as it seems to me the editor is welling to disrupt Commons with Wikipedia issues (even with the image protected indef). Bidgee (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Buchtel_Bungalow.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Buchtel_Bungalow.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)‎ | +/−

Jeffrey Beall (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Bidgee, Thanks for semi-protecting Túrelio's page, him and I seem to be getting a lot of vandalism, would you please be able to delete the rude comments that were made to my talk page just the same. Also you may want to block 220.174.150.94. Thanks. :-) -- PoliMaster talk/spy 12:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed and the IP has already been blocked. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bidgee, I saw some photos you posted of my aeroplane VH-AAL at the recent show at Temora. Great shots. I would love to get some better copies of them. e-mail me at: auster_wfm@hotmail.com

Regards, Craig....

File:Amit mitra.jpg

You removed the copyvio tag with the comment "copyvio of it's own source?", but the problem was the source never released the image, the flickr review tag was incorrectly added by the uploader (on multiple images, not just this one). SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Check http://www.flickr.com/photos/horasis/4588167161/ again! It is licensed under CC-BY-2.0. Bidgee (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Er, sorry, my bad. I was confusing this with the File:BanerjeeMamata5875570627.jpg which had the same problem of user adding the flickr tag and I apparently transferred my incorrect reading to the tag. Thanks for picking it out. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Liborio Bellomo.jpg

I am curious to why my picture of Liboiro Bellomo got deleted. A similar image (not uploaded by me) was also deleted for the same reason: being an NYPD photo and not an FBI photo. However the image itself says FBI New York on it (here is a slightly different version of the image). --Ted87 (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A clear source is needed (not on the photograph) that states it was taken by the FBI. Using the photograph as a source isn't the best since you can't read it clearly and can only assume what it states. Bidgee (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I still see no reason to speedy delete it as oppose to a normal deletion process. --Ted87 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Because there is no evidence that it is a FBI photograph, only assumptions are being made as to what the placard reads when it isn't even clearly visible. Bidgee (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Cricket photos

Can you take a look at the uploads from Budlea11 (talk · contribs)? I would love it if they end up being genuinely free, but I suspect they are not. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Sir Clyde Walcott-2.jpg can also be found at Cricinfo for example. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, all of them are copyvios. Bidgee (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, I thought it was too good to be true :( -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this image of any use to you? It's PD by now. --99of9 (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It is, thank you! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

See File:Weekes Worrell Walcott.jpg and derivatives File:Everton Weekes.jpg, File:Clyde Walcott.jpg and File:Frank Worrell.jpg! Hope I have all the upload details right. Thanks again to you both ... -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee/WMA

Hello Bidgee, the category[1] need to be not included (<noinclude></noinclude>…). -- πϵρήλιο 05:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

File:UK traffic sign 602.svg

So what seems to be the cause of the upload war? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No idea why Fry1989 keeps overwriting images even though they have been warned to stop doing so in the past. Changing the image on Commons not only causes issues here but also causes issues on articles were it is used. Seems that Fry1989 has his own colour preference and disregards the original contributors whose work has been on Commons for sometime. Bidgee (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I know some areas do have specifications for signs and what colors are used, but this has been a problem with the user before in the terms of flags and coat of arms. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes signs do have specifications (which it seems the contributor did with the second upload) but Fry1989 changed it without a reason why they did so. Though looking at Fry1989 history, it seems he has a habit of overwriting to their preferred view and is becoming disruptive. Bidgee (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I am on IRC in the Commons room if you want to continue there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Bidgee. You have new messages at Fry1989's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

STOP UNDOING ALL MY WORK

You are currently going through all my past work, and undoing it, claiming I am over-writing. This simply is not true, and my colour corrections, which I have based off of sources, are exactly what COM:OVERWRITE says my use of the "upload new version" button is for. You are being rediculous, and undoing the entire work of a user who never broke any policy, even the one you are attempting to claim, based on the whim of a-now permanently banned user, is beyond silly. You are not looking into the validity of any of my work, you are simply undoing it on the assumption that I'm doing it for the hell of it. I work extremely hard on these colour corrections, I spend hours a day on my damn computer looking for sources before my changes, and you are undoing ALL of that. Fry1989 eh? 17:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Help please

Hi Bidgee. How does one start a discussion on merging categories on Commons? Category:One lane bridges and Category:Single-lane bridges appear to me to be categorising the same thing but I have no idea which name is preferable. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

At Commons:Categories for discussion, though it is hard to find if you don't know the page name. Agree same meaning, I would support on keeping single-land bridges but would depend on what title is used on Wikipedia and the most common name. Bidgee (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Bidgee. You have new messages at Fry1989's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Valued Image Promotion

Black Mountain and Black Mountain Tower.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Black Mountain viewed from Lake Burley Griffin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Young Bufo marinus.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
A juvenile Bufo marinus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Delete req.

Hi. Can you delete this user's contributions? Thanks.--Rapsar (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like another Admin has done it. Bidgee (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversal spree and civility

Hi Bidgee,

Would you undo the reversals you just did? As administrator, I'd expect to respect the contributions of other editors and, if you disagree with their discussion, voice your opinion first rather than reverting numerous edits. Such an approach tends to disrupt Commons more than it can improve it.

If you don't want to discuss the convention, please refrain from doing related edits. --  Docu  at 11:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I reverted them back since you had no consensus for the naming even though you claim that there is a naming convention when in fact Foo (ship, year) has never gone to a CfD, you never left comments to contributors of the categories for their opinion.
Also who says that I'm not going to comment? Bidgee (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
As noted at Category_talk:Ships_by_name#Category_format. This was initiated (by others) and discussed directly at Commons talk:naming categories. --  Docu  at 04:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name --Stunteltje (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

random template?

You put a corrupted template on my userpage. mysterytrey (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems the template warning isn't working. But the warning was for blanking another contributor's user page. Bidgee (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, well that wasnt really blanking but anyway I thought I clicked preview and was just gonna exit at the end without saving it, but, I guess I didnt. Sorry. mysterytrey (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism for the sake of deletion

I just tried to revert your page, but you where faster. ;-) As we currently have a deletion request on File:Censored.png, I'm pretty sure that it was just an attempt to provoke the deletion, because it is misused for vandalism. I'm sure no German editor would use a wording/title like "Stoppen Sie die Zensur", directed at an native English speaker. He would use an English title or maybe the typical phrase "Zensur stoppen!". Maybe you should perform a check user on Otava Rima, who is known for using any kind of wording to discredit other users. At least i must say, that i have a very strong doubt that someone of our critics would use such methods. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I know who it is, just an Anon troll/stalker from en Wikipedia who loves to try and stir up some drama. Bidgee (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The false accusation of sock puppetry is really incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thats words from someone, who calls other innocent user "pedophiles", sound like a joke. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 19:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I -never- called anyone a pedophile on Meta. I said that a user claiming that parents who wish to protect their children from being groomed were causing harm made the same arguments that people banned for being pedophiles were making before. That is not calling him a pedophile. It is pointing out that the pedophiles, i.e. people with proven records of endangering children, were making the same case so you cannot claim that the parents are the only ones who can cause harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks different to me and many others. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 20:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. Did you read the link? Beyond the canvassing for support of a block on IRC for the first forty minutes, the consensus is against the block. Even one of the initial responders said the claims about me being a vandal and calling people pedophiles were a lie. However, you edit from Germany and that is a German IP. Did you post that while logged out? You have been making the same false claims here as there. Many of the opposes refer to a block that WizardOfOz made of me before, a block that was overturned because of major community backlash over it being extremely inappropriate. The amount of revenge in seeking my indef is as apparent as it was in his first block. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Give way signs

Hi. Please be more careful. You removed many tens of yield signs from categories of yield signs, instead of reverting 117.18.80.112 (example). --ŠJů (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the tool failed to move them back. :( Thanks for fixing them and sorry that I stuffed it up! The anon is a problem (in fact is indef from Commons but always bypasses the blocks), blocking the IP's doesn't work since they just get a new range. Bidgee (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Qantaslink_Launceston.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Qantaslink_Launceston.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)‎ | +/−

Biggerben (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Photo

Hi Bidgee.

I think you deleted my recently uploaded photo "Ellie Cachette." I have express permission from the photographer and the subject, Ellie Cachette, to upload it. Did I select the wrong creative commons option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Lactaoen (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have permission to upload a copyrighted photograph from the copyright holder under a free license, you will need to forward the permission to COM:OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete my image

File:Samsung Galaxy SII removable parts.jpg

Thank god i found an admin from Australia! Please delete this file before it gets anymore exposure in Australia once exposed in Australia there is a potential risk for the phone to be blocked in the country. Thanks YuMaNuMa (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Aviation Wikiproject on Commons?

Hey mate, I've had an idea of starting an Aviation WikiProject on Commons. I have created a page at User talk:Russavia/Proposal where I hope that if other editors think this is a good idea, we can all come up with ideas, etc. Please keep all comments on that page for time being, and if you know of other editors on Commons or on other language projects who might be interested in commenting, coming up with ideas, etc, please let them know of the discussion. Let's see if this could be a workable project. russavia (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Flora distribution - thank you

Hi Bidgee, Thank you for the recent reverts on the flora species categories, such as Category:Arbutus unedo, restoring the distribution information. Do you have any thoughts on what degree of region or political subdivision specificity is appropriate? I have 'evolved' to less [flora of country] cats, and instead to [flora of continental sub-region] or [flora of a continental ecoregion] ones, such as Category:Flora of Southwestern Europe or Category:Flora of the Sonoran Desert. What is your experience and opinion of best practices?

Also, thank you for putting "discussion consensus not reached" in your revert edit summaries. That was my understanding, after being involved in the Tree of Life one of late, and occasionally in other discussions when my distribution edits were the focus. The non-consensus aspect had not paused some flora distribution information categories from other editors' repeated removals. I am still confused and do not want to be part of edit wars, and more importantly of misusing categories per Commons purpose. Any bigger picture Commons or your own guidelines for flora and distribution are very welcome.
Best wishes -Look2See1 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick reply. I can see the IP's points but what ever way we do the categories, it will not always doesn't work. Whether or not we have photos from the country were we use "Flora of Foo", removing them without a solid consensus is wrong, since it is disputed. The IP was also removing the "Flora of Foo" without bothering to look at where the photos were taken but you also have the issue of future photographs from other countries being added.
My understanding is that the IP wants the categories ("Flora of Foo") placed on the photo rather then the species, however that becomes an issue as it will clutter the "Flora of Foo" category with photos. The only way I can think of over coming it is to have say "Category:Arbutus unedo by country" or "Category:Arbutus unedo photographed in by country" but I don't think they would work. While ATM we have categories that don't have photos taken in the countries the species does exist in the countries in the categories.
Hard to say what is appropriate since different species are native in small, medium to large areas (covering an area a size of a city to the size of few continents). Bidgee (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I suspect you didn't read the latter part of this "old" discussion. If you disagree then please participate there. I also tried to gather opinions at village pump. Consensus not reached, though being close to it, shouldn't be the justification of doing it the other way round.

Why do you think photos would clutter "Flora of <country>"? Like anywhere else, subcats (that make sense) should be created if the category grows too large. E.g. take Category:Flora of Germany as an example. I see "Flora of <country>" tied with plain species categories as the actual clutter.

I'll bring out some pervious points: Primarily we are categorizing files here at Commons instead of providing species range data. It is not clear at all range data is native in form of categories. The main issue to me is that using this approach loads "Nature of <country>" subcats with images that don't depict the nature of this country. This is messy and quite wrong. So where the photos were taken is exactly what I bothered to look at. 90.190.114.172 08:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is needed before you start making the changes you did, not the other way round. The discussion in May 2011 has no part in the discussion which you added, it is about five to six months old that failed to get a consensus. Fresh discussion is best (old discussion should be archived) since we can start with fresh opinions and ideas so that we can get to a consensus.
Having photographs of all the native species in "Flora in Foo" (country/state/territory) would be far more cluttered (for example "Flora in New South Wales" would have over 500 photographs) then it is now. That said, the current system isn't ideal. Best way to do it would be "Category:Species subsp in Foo" or "Category:Species subsp photographed in Foo" since it could keep both the "Species subsp" and "Flora in Foo" from being overly cluttered. Bidgee (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Err, the latter part of this discussion as well as opinions in village pump are from last month. How comes the pervious discussion has no part? It has some more aspects but mainly it's about the problem of tons of "Flora of <location>" categories added to species categories. Rather there should have been consensus to add these categories.
Exactly in what way is categorizing images by location cluttered? As for "Flora in New South Wales" there already are over 700 images in addition to some plain species categories that consist specimens that are not flora of New South Wales. Maybe in a context of wide and isolated countries such as Australia it doesn't disturb so much as there are quite some endemic species. But as for e.g Europe countries it's a total mess. Yeh, that's what the German example is about – if there are more images by the same taxon and same location a subcategory is created.
If it's really necessary to categorize image by endemism it should be done in a clear and useful way – e.g add categories that consist word "endemic" in it as suggested in Tree of Life talk and without messing up the logic of the category system so that subcats of "Nature of <country>" would still consist images that actually depict the nature of this country. 90.190.114.172 12:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I see no reasonable counterarguments to removing these categories. Contrary to your misleading edit summaries there was/is discussion. The problem was brought up in Tree of Life talk months ago. Categorizing plain species categories by location has been considered bad in above refered Tree of Life talk and village pump talk lately. The user whose edit you reverted last time considered such categorization just a misunderstanding, which I quite agree. Could we please settle this by not (re)adding plain species categories into "Flora of <location>" categories without consensus. 193.40.10.181 14:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but while it is disputed they should remain until it is discussed on what should happen. A consensus is need and the discussion isn't even close to a consensus. Again a discussion that has gone cold shouldn't be used to start a new discussion on the subject. Again I have a way to solve the issue (in fact there is already an example at Category:Ficus carica in Syria) but it is looking more like away for those who dislike Fauna/Flora and are trying to use this to see them deleted. I'll no longer discuss this while you remain hidden under an IP. Bidgee (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I've no objections against a discussion under new section at Tree of Life talk. Please start one if you feel that various fresh opinions linked above aren't enough.
But using no consensus (or no full consensus) to justify doing something that is largely against the logic of images categorizing system doesn't make sense. Again there should have been consensus in the first place to add these catgories. So removing these should be fine till there is consensus to use a controversial categorzing schema.
Yeh, I don't think anyone has anything against examples such as "Ficus carica in Syria". It shouldn't mess up the schema of categorzing images in any way. See German example above for more. As much as I understand the problem with fauna/flora mainly is due to plain species categories added there. There should be no reason to delete if they are properly used to categorize images by location.
Me not hiding my IP address has noting to with the subject. Please lets not fall into ad hominem. 90.190.114.172 11:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please see Category_talk:Ships_by_name#Poll_on_the_visibility_of_this_category_on_subcategories. --  Docu  at 12:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And once more at Category_talk:Ships_by_name#Poll_on_the_visibility_of_this_category_on_subcategories. --  Docu  at 12:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Chrysler_CL_Valiant_Charger_RT_E55_(1).jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Chrysler_CL_Valiant_Charger_RT_E55_(1).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)‎ | +/−

101.172.230.144 00:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Chrysler_CL_Valiant_Charger_RT_E55.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Chrysler_CL_Valiant_Charger_RT_E55.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)‎ | +/−

101.172.230.144 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OgreBot

You might find Ogrebot useful uploading old versions: tools:~magog/oldver.php. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Telstra_roadside_cabinet_housing_a_RIM_and_CMUX.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Telstra_roadside_cabinet_housing_a_RIM_and_CMUX.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)‎ | +/−

Chavez9mm (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Bidgee. Thanks for categorising my pictures. Much appreciated. Hope all is well with you. Cheers, Sarah (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Derivative work

Hi Bidgee. I noticed File:RecentChangesCamp2012_4_-_University_of_Canberra.jpg appears to be a derivative work of one of your photos. I don't think it's one of the ones you uploaded. Could I persuade you to upload this one and cross-link them so we have a clear source? Alternatively, could you affirm on that image that you are the author of the projected image and release it under a suitable license? Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded as File:WNBL Round 14, Canberra Capitals vs Logan Thunder at AIS Arena (3).jpg. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Great, I crosslinked them. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:New Australian Flag option5.png

It's not a "hoax", it's a personal proposal by User:New_Australian_flag as explained at en:User:New Australian flag... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not part of any flag movement in Australia and a source is needed. Bidgee (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is there any real reason to question User:New_Australian_flag's Self-CC-zero declaration (i.e. that it's a personal proposal on the part of that user)? -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ices2Csharp

Hi Bidgee!
Welcome to my talk page. With best regards, -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uploading Sport pictures to Commons.pdf

Hi, please undo your action (no valid reason for speedy closure) and stop bashing me. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you don't seem to understand, that file is there (it doesn't have to be used in another project) to help people understand on how to upload sport photography to commons. Your nomination is completely wrong since the file is in scope. Bidgee (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You can add that as an argument instead and I will respond. That's the way you should follow procedures. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
If you bothered to check, the file is linked at History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia: Commons (See "A guide to uploading pictures to Commons for the HoPAu project is currently being developed. A draft can be found at Uploading Sport pictures to Commons."). Bidgee (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
If you would have posted this to the DR, I would have canceled the nomination. But I don't think you take me serious, given e.g. the silence about the commons by George above this topic. It would be helpful if you wouldn't approach me as a vandal. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, just because a file isn't in use doesn't mean it is out of scope. You're deletion reasons are poor (you only state "out of scope" with pdf noms), you have some files in which I agree should be deleted (e.g. personal unused files that are unusable) and a pdf which its copyright is questionable but you need to stop and think. We have files uploaded by WM chapters, WMF and other contibutors, not all the files will be in use but they are in scope of the project. All files on Commons don't have to be in use, so as long as they could be usable. Also I never called you a "vandal", you were blocked for disputive noms.
George Chernilevsky can raise the concerns on my talk page, he never addressed the issue nor the section of his talk page. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the closures and comments in my nominations suggest that you have a minority opinion about my nominations. That's not a problem, but you should direct your comments to the case instead of to the person. I think you should refrain from speedy closures of my nominations, for your neutrality regarding me as a user isn't clear. Feel free to comment or to close normally after a week. I try to read every comment to all of my nominations, though I may miss some. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually you should go back and read that comment by George who said you should look at other file types rather then mass nominations of *.pdf Gnangarra 11:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Spiders

Hey Bidgee, when you get back, I want to see some pictures like this. Wow. Hope your house didn't get drenched. --99of9 (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, think I missed the web display by one day. I was evacuated to another location outside Wagga Wagga. No, though the city levee had me worried! Other parts of the city were not so lucky, e.g. North Wagga, East Wagga, Gumly Gumly... Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

a request

Today I came across some interesting flickr images of Darwin Harbour. I went to all the work of downloading them, through flinfo, and preparing the template, only to find, when I clicked "upload", that they had already been uploaded.

In November 2009 I started leaving a brief thank you on the page for each flickr image I upload. While the flickr contributors like being acknowledged, the main reason I do this is to help prevent commons people wasting their time as I did today.

One of those images was File:ACV Ocean Protector in Darwin December 2011.jpg. If you go to its original flickr page you can see the acknowledgemnet I left.

Would you please consider spending an extra 20 seconds leaving a similar acknowledgment when you upload images from flickr to the commons?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Flickr bot problem

If you have some time, feel free to mark some (maybe 10-20) images in the flickr backlog. There has been a temporary problem with the bot as I mentioned to MGA73 here I marked 25-30 images today. But its now late at night in Canada and I have to sign off. If you are not free, then that's OK. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Its OK. The bot started to mark images regularly yesterday. Thanks anyway. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Pubs, hotels etc.

I see we have some duplication - see Category:Category:Former pubs in Australia and Category:Former hotels in Australia. What do you think? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed it, not a simple issue since some serve both as a pub and hotel with others being just a pub. However maybe we could have Category:Former hotels and pubs in Australia? Since there are a few pubs that do not have accomodation (e.g. Hydro Tavern). Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That is a great idea! - but I would extend it even wider. I would have Category:Hotels and pubs in Australia as the parent cat (and make it a sub-cat of Category:Hotels by country) and Category:Pubs by country. Then I would rename all the sub cats too. I would delete or redirect Category:Pubs in Australia and keep Category:Hotels in Australia as a sub-cat for Hilton, Mercure-type accommodation-style hotels that don't include a public house. Can we get started on the renaming?! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'm not going to have must time to move them, still got a few Holbrook photos to upload and then I'll be away for two or so days (could be online uploading photos from the lastest trip). Holbrook trip was totally unplanned due to being evacuated and I don't want to go though that again! Bidgee (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there a bot that can do this? The more I look at it, it looks like a huge job. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Could try User:CommonsDelinker/commands, but you need to be an Admin to place the requested commands on that page or you could add them to the talk page of the commands. You could post them here and I'll add them ASAP. Bidgee (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here goes:

This would be a start. Thanks heaps for anything you can do to help. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done, the bot is in the process of moving the files catrgories ATM. Bidgee (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee. Hope you are staying warm - cold as get out here. Some more for Commmons Delinker if you agree:

This would tidy up most of the Queensland ones. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Bidgee (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You broke file

You broke file usage w:Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well upload your version under a new file name and replace it on that page. Do not upload over other files when both versions are totally different. Bidgee (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The alternate version was copied if you checked the file description. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You did not solve all problems with File:Army-FRA-OR-01 (alt).svg and File:Army-FRA-OR-01.svg, because it breaks the French and Italian etc pages were these were in use. It should be the other way around. Or - maybe even better - the original content should have the original filenames, and とある白い猫 can have his version on his own favorite filename scheme. Should not that make everybody happy? It does not even need another round of bot operations, just revert those articles to their previous state. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

file deleted

Hey, the file you deleted in the Clad article is exactly the same as the one in en.wikipedia Cloud article. And it is considered fair use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cloud_Strife_art.jpg Please undelete it. CobraSA (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Files used under fair use laws cannot be hosted on Commons, they should be uploaded to the project where its to be inaccordance with that projects individual fair use requirements. Gnangarra 06:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

French OR ranks

Could you please apply what you apply to the OR-1 rank to the other similar files? Thanks. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you please reply one way or another so I have an idea of your intent? If you do not want to help (perfectly understandable), I need to seek alternate ways to resolve the problem. I do not want to revert PKs reverts which I know would fix the problem but I do not want to enter another wheel war (I had more than enough of those in the past two weeks). Thanks. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 03:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It isn't high on my list of things to do, I have a fair bit of photographs to upload and have some study to complete during the holidays. Bidgee (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah thanks. Let me know when you have time. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 12:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Have you had time? All wikis remain broken. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 02:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Please see this discussion. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Do not restore comments to a closed discussion

Alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you always close an ongoing discussion and say now after all that there wasn't misuse at all? Why does anyone always have to go to the top (ombudsman commission) to clarify things which should be clarified here at this place? Will you now block me as you have already threatened before? You are involved in this and you know that, so please open the discussion and don't tell people that they have to shut up inbetween. It isn't clarified anything with your closing now. If you want to block me, because you just don't want to hear anything, then do it. This conclusion you brought up doesn't respect at all the whole discussion. It is a kick into the whatever you want. --Geitost diskusjon 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to close the new comment you have posted but the other comments will remain closed. There is nothing actionable by Admins (Sysops) in regards to the CU since on Commons it was within policy and the fact is we can't remove CU tool, block (since it isn't a blockable action) or ask them to remove information of the CU they found. If you want action taken on the CU then you need to take it to Ombudsman Commission and if you do not like the current CU policy, then suggest some changes on the talk page of the CU policy to have them changed so we don't end up with drama. Bidgee (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course you can block or remove the CU tool. Just call it "harassment" or "intimidation" or "hounding", like you did when you endorsed my block. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
While I maybe an Admin (sysop), I cannot give or remove CU rights since only bureaucrats and stewards have that right. Block them for what? Our opinion is that the CU should have been done and stated the findings, however it wasn't a breach of the CU policy (which IMO seems rather open) and isn't blockable. Bidgee (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Bank of Suzhou

是银行标识,可以自由转载 Huhaoyu321 (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(谷歌翻译) 这不是一个自由的标志。基于文本或那些使用简单的几何形状可以是 {{PD-textlogo}}{{PD-shape}}。您上传的标志,也有文字和图形,但它是不是够简单。
(English) It isn't a free logo. Text based or those that use simple geometric shapes can be {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-shape}}. The logo you uploaded did have text and shapes but it wasn't simple enough. Bidgee (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Southern aurora

Hi Bidge you need to be alerted to the fact that the wp:en article says the southern aurora ceased operating some time ago - your photo caption is somewhat out of sync with the article - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that. Need the 50 year tour (or whatever they are calling it) section to be added, will be another two or three tours but the tour just gone was somewhat what it use to be but the others are more tours to events. Bidgee (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
no big deal - as long as you realised the article and the caption didnt make sense thats fine - very impressed by your additions to commons keep up the good work!!! SatuSuro (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Standard of the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska (1995-2007).svg

This file has earned both users blocks on multiple occasions, so I have taken the liberty to lock the file. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

At this stage I don't think it needs it since Fry1989 (did the right thing by going to AN/UP) didn't edit war over it this time. If both were still at it or the Kacnepcku-Cp6uja kept reverting then IMO it should be protected. Bidgee (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I see your point User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Australia category moves

Hi. Concerning this change, I was wondering what your concern is with the Australian metacategories I asked to have renamed. When I look at the entries in these categories, I see categories that are either for a state or a territory, but not both. In Category:Categories in Australia by state or territory, most categories use the word "or", not the word "and". I'm not sure what "state and territory" would mean -- can you enlighten me on that? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning you gave wasn't why it should be or rather then and. Why should it be or instead of and (ignoring the fact both exist) and if I get an comment that convinces me, I'll move them. Bidgee (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
For an example, take Category:Museums in Australia by state and territory. Each subcategory here is related to either a state or a territory. No individual category is related to both a state and a territory. Metacategories for things related to multiple types of entities should be named differently, such as Category:Architectural elements by city by country‎, which has categories like Category:Architectural elements in England by city. The difference here is that "state" and "territory" are same-level subdivisions that wouldn't be combined like city and country could be. Other examples are states/territories in the United States and provinces/territories in Canada. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
You made a good point. Tend to agree with what you have stated and have added the commands. Bidgee (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Country town photos

Hi Bidgee, those photos of towns in rural areas of NSW you've been uploading are excellent. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Still got more Junee photos to upload though I may not get them uploaded for a few more weeks maybe months. Bidgee (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D. Excellent work - thorough coverage. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lone pine identities

Please stop reverting my work, I am well able to identify the trees concerned (and have published scientific papers on the main two species), and can vouch that the reference I have cited is correct in its conclusions. Thank you. MPF (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So reliable that the rip photographs of Wikimedia Commons? Have they even looked at the trees in person? Very highly unlikely. Bidgee (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I am very familiar with both species. Your photos show Pinus halepensis, not Pinus brutia. Note in particular the long peduncle on the cones; Pinus brutia never shows that. - MPF (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you an expert (ie: done a PhD?) in Botany? Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Presume you saw this: File talk:Lone Pine leaves.jpg? As to expertise, I've seen and studied thousands of P. brutia and hundreds of P. halepensis in the wild in their respective native areas, and published papers on them in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Have you? - MPF (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bidgee; I'm familiar with MPF's work on trees and can attest to his expertise, especially with regard to conifers. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Perth International Airport

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Perth International Airport 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 | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--Moondyne (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

license revoke

  • the pic is useless/junk, the licence revoke is just to delete it. --PedroPVZ (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Movie poster you deleted

The movie poster was uploaded by the producer/director of the movie. He seems new and may not know the issues we have with images. In an email I recieved from the photographer, he stated that the uploader had permission. I left a note about this at OTRS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Tawny Kitaen.jpg

Please be more observant the link to the license page your template asks for is on the file page and just for you I'll post it here also

Fanpix.net terms of use. Thank you for all you do. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Bidgee. You have new messages at Mlpearc's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Mlpearc (powwow) 04:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Automobile alarms / Lightnings

Hello Bidgee,

for reasons of consistency within Commons it makes mouch more sense to have those files in the Category:Automobile alarms, this is why we have this Template.

The Category:Lightning needs to be renamed and will become an disambig, because of many other categories that use the term Lightning as part of their name, please take a look at this and this. Greetings.--FAEP (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please also take a look at Category:Tanga and Category:Avalanche, maybe then you'll figure out why my move of the categorie and it's content was necessary.--FAEP (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The term and name is Car alarm, not Automobile alarm.
Lightning is lightning and not lightnings, all of the other categories get there name after the weather phenomenon (the primary topic), if the move is objected by a fellow contributor you should take it to Commons:Categories for discussion rather then removing it again. I have protected the category until such time that you agree not to disruptively move it again. Bidgee (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"No, read it again!"

Look, if you want to make an exactly identical vector, which you have now done, that's perfectly fine, but don't exclaim to me that I need to read something twice when it's actually you who needs to read what I said. Things don't have to be identical to have a vector version tag, it may be ideal but it's not always practical, and far from the rule. Fry1989 eh? 20:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Are you socking right now?

Hi I was wondering the nature of this information. I do not care about the actual hidden information but how it impacts issues currently discussed. Do we have any idea who the account may belong to? I ask because of this edit of his. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It contained an alleged photograph (linked, not uploaded on Commons) and real name of an editor. Bidgee (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

[2]

You are invited to take part in this discussion about Jermboy and his various accounts. Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 03:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Route Shields

Would it be terribly rude to ask why you're reverting my updated route shields, as you have failed to provide any description? Outrune (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you are making huge changes to widely used images. I suggest that you head to the Australian notice board on en Wiki and discuss why the changes are needed. For now, all the changes will be reverted and the images protected. Bidgee (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Have fun reverting and protecting all those images. Outrune (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Chiranjeevi konidala.jpg

Hi. FWIW, the uploader had told me on IRC that that photo was the only one made by himself, so I deleted all his uploads but this one. --AVRS (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

copyright check?

Can you check Special:Contributions/Sportsarchitecture? Something about the copyright leaves me skeptical. --LauraHale (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Road signs in Samoa

Can you please delete this page? It's just a direct copy of New Zealand road signs, and so far there's no proof Samoa uses the same signs as New Zealand. Fry1989 eh? 00:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo usage

Hello :-)

I just wanted to say "Thank you very much" for your picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clouds_over_Lake_Burley_Griffin_%282162012669%29.jpg

My name is Daniel, i used that picture in my little "travel around the world" puzzle game for android.

When a player sees your image (when completing a level) there is a short sentence describing the location visible on your panorama and also you are credited directly as "Photographer". Hopefully you are fine with that, if you want any changes please contact me directly. :-)

2012-08-09 User Sirleto / Wikipedia User:SirLeto

Summer Olympic athletes

How can I discuss this category now that you've protected it? Please unprotect it and I will start a discussion. I won't make any other changes. Badzil (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI the discussion is here now: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/08/Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country --PierreSelim (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Two files to look at

Hi Bidgee. I highly doubt File:Cycling journalist Sophie Smith.jpg and File:SophieSmith.jpg are freely licenced, despite the claim made. Can you take a look. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

First photograph has been deleted, as it was a copyvio, since the photograph was taken from the BBC website which is copyrighted and the second one has been tagged with no permission. Bidgee (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:London 2012 Olympic 100m final start.jpg

I think I screwed up Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:London 2012 Olympic 100m final start.jpg. I know that license is not allowed. How do I fix? --LauraHale (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laura. Although you're right about the ticket conditions, I don't think File:London 2012 Olympic 100m final start.jpg needs to be deleted. The Flickr user is breaking his ticket conditions, so could get sued in civil court by the IOC for breaking an implied contract, but he owns the copyright on the image, and if he wants to license it, he's not actually doing anything illegal. This is similar to the situation where someone takes a photo in a museum where photography is not permitted. As you know, I declined a free trip to London to avoid breaking a contract like this, but Darren may be more willing to tempt the IOC. (There was a similar high profile case last Olympics File:Usain Bolt Olympics Celebration.jpg) where a wikimedian actually requested the photographer to CC-license, which got the photographer in trouble from the IOC. So I wouldn't suggest making requests, but if a photographer voluntarily licenses it commercially, it's sort of fair game for us. --99of9 (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Athletes vs. Sportspeople

Hi.

On August 12th, you seemed to have a strong opinion about the "Athletes vs. Sportspeople" problem ([3]). Now that the discussion is opened, it would be good if you expressed your point-of-view. Cheers. Badzil (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hi Bidgee, I've just sent you an email. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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.
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)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Transcription request for Wikinews

Can you transcribe any of these today and submit them to Wikinews like the following article:

Submit like n:Wikinews interviews Michael Hartung, the Australian Deputy Chef de Mission? We are running out of time to get these on Wikinews and I'd really, really like to get this done to help promote Paralympic sport in these countries. --LauraHale (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Help for a new contributor

Hi Bidgee. Can you help at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albury Library Museum.jpg. Thanks, Mattinbgn (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can categories be renamed easily?

Hi Bidgee, is there some process to speedy-recategorise images? I've just created Category:Scultures in the Australian War Memorial, which should have been Category:Sculptures in the Australian War Memorial. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done using Commons:Cat-a-lot. For bigger jobs you can use User:CommonsDelinker/commands. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Mattinbgn beat me too it! ;) Bidgee (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Matt Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

File:SophieSmith.jpg

You reverted an edit by User:FSII here. Did you notice that the file doesn't appear in any of the dated "Media missing permission as of some date" categories, but only in the generic Category:Media missing permission? --Stefan4 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not my problem if someone has stuffed the coding up on the template, the date should be the date when it was first added. Bidgee (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

g'day

sent an email via en - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File talk:Japhet rain.png

File talk:Japhet rain.png. Can you look at that? --LauraHale (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Come come guyz

I'm sorry. You may not "close" discussions or threads when you consider them resolved and leave acute topics undone. As you very well understand, "COM:CFD" has absolutely nothing to do with what's to cope with on COM:AN right now... this is not the way. Regardz. Orrlingtalk 04:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Category:Olympic gold medalists not Category:Olympic gold medalists by country

And is Category:Olympic bronze medalists not Category:Olympic bronze medalists by country, on en.wiki is:

en:Category:Olympic gold medalists not en:Category:Olympic gold medalists by country
en:Category:Olympic silver medalists not en:Category:Olympic silver medalists by country
en:Category:Olympic bronze medalists not en:Category:Olympic bronze medalists by country
Tell me why the only category (1 in 6) should be Category:Olympic silver medalists by country and not (like the others five), simply Category:Olympic silver medalists? --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
(Quick post) We don't use en Wiki's category system (this is a different project), with categories relating to countries we always have "by country". For example see Category:Categories by country. Bidgee (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
OK you don't use en Wiki's category, but explain me why, in Commons:
Is Category:Olympic gold medalists and not Category:Olympic gold medalists by country
Is Category:Olympic bronze medalists and not Category:Olympic bronze medalists by country? It is no longer one in six, but one in three. One of two things: either adapt the two "right" or remove the "wrong" (or if you prefer, match the two "wrong" and remove the "right"). ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
We have no cats 'by country' for gold and bronze medalists. Whe do we need them for silver???--Anatoliy (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Just because they don't exist yet isn't a reason to do a massive disruptive rollback and deletion without any discussion or consensus via COM:CFD. Bidgee (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, that categories where made when there were categories for countries and separate cetagories for people in Category:Olympic silver medalists. But now all people category are in subcategories and we does not need category by country. We do not have other categorization, only by country.--Anatoliy (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Having "by country" is commonsense, a good example of this is Category:Olympic sportspeople by country. Bidgee (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
There we have sportspeople 'by country', 'by year' and by type of games (Winter, Summer, Youth) and here we have only one type of categorization (only 'by country') and do not need separate subcategory.--Anatoliy (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
There is scope to have "by sport" (ie Category:Olympic gold medalists by sport) within Category:Olympic gold medalists and having "by country" and "by sports" in the one category would be a mess.Bidgee (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, when we'll have 'by sport', we'll create separate subcategories, but now there is no rerason to create it. My opinion that we should not create separate category for only one element (file, page, category). Category should content a lot of elements for one topic.--Anatoliy (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It is the way nesting works, it is odd to have Category:Olympic gold medalists full of country related subs when it should be nested in a "by country" category. If "by sport" was created and it would be nested in "Category:Olympic foo medalists" meaning that there would be two categories nested (assuming "by country" exists). Bidgee (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sorry, I don't want to interfere, but I have a couple of remarks.

  • People are continuously deepening categories, wanted/needed or not, and stopping more and more deeper categories is not easy on Commons; there is no easy procedure to stop it and it is often difficult to argue.
  • Category:Olympic xxx medalists are all organised as a by country category, so basically Category:Olympic xxx medalists should probably make place for Category:Olympic xxx medalists by country; knowing Commons; if you don't do it, someone else will do it sooner or later and in general, when one discovers it, it is finished. (With cat-a-lot it takes one minute)
  • Category:Olympic xxx medalists might be needed overtime for statistics/records per discipline, year, continent, region, former country, athlete producing institutes or schools... --Foroa (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Dschwen#Your_bot_rejected_the_request

A late reply. --Dschwen (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

TEST

Light test

and your point is? Bidgee (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can so low speak english..--Aguzer (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you may not speak English very well but at least speak something rather then leaving brief comments, like you did above, I can also can use the Google Translator to get an idea on what you're trying to say. Bidgee (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Also I have protected the two files rather than blocking you, since you kept removing the {{delete}} tag, the very tag states Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed. Bidgee (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok.

Original:Benim bayrağım ışık, gölge gibi eklemelerde daha iyi geliştirilir. Ancak diğer sürümde gösterdiğim linkte olduğu gibi hilal dairesi ortaya çıkıyor.


Google Translate:My flag light, shadow, additions, such as better developed. However, the other version, as well as link showed a crescent circle emerges.--Aguzer (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see what you mean but it doesn't really affect the flag itself and the file size is much lower, the only issue is if the reuser wants to fade the red. I did a few things to remove that but the size goes up (see File:Flag of Turkey tempfile.svg) but that could be due to Illustrator adding coding that isn't needed. I think its best to discuss it'on the talk page of the file so any fixes that are needed can be made, rather than duplicating a file (note that the flag I uploaded will be deleted). Bidgee (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Orginal: " Tamam ama ben hala benimki neden onaylı değil anlamadım. Senin yapmış olduğun benim yaptığım bayrağın aynısı. "
Google Translate:" Mine is ok, but I still do not understand why is not approved. I do the same as you did the flag. "--Aguzer (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It is basically the same flag visually but just not technically, so it's duplicate, even with the "technical" difference. Also you're best to argue your point on the deletion page if you feel it should be kept. Bidgee (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
So, did I do something wrong?--Aguzer (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

The bot was making me somewhat annoyed... the thing is I have access to a very large amount of PD stuff that I want to upload, and iphone is so easy, but my brain is slowing down, and I completely forgot about Airplane mode - thanks for reminding me... SatuSuro (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

pylons

There is another problem with category pylons. It is being used interchangeably with category power lines. I guess in principle it is possible to have a picture of a power line by itself, and a pylon by itself. In practice one never appears without the other. some pictures are being categorissed as power lines, and some as pylons. My natural instinct is to say a pylon is a pylon, but someone might have a different idea. The situation is confused, as usual. apparently 'overhead lines' means lines for powering trains or trams and should therefore not be confused with 'power lines'.

In principle we might have pictures related to underground power lines, but I have not found any.

Should a stobie pole be a pylon or a utility pole?(it is currently a pylon)?

Is a tubular steel pole used to support high voltage cables a pylon or a utility pole?(I suspect it is a pylon, but ought to have a separate sub-category to distinguish as against 'lattice steel pylon'. Sandpiper (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

oh, and I see whereas 'overhead power lines' means lines powering vehicles, 'high voltage overhead power lines' does not mean lines powering vehicles, which category is in that context called 'high voltage traction power lines'. mess.Sandpiper (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
small green dome
  • see image description the smallest green dome is an underground power junction point, there are some :) it mess cause we all use different terms, overhead wires here generally refer to power supply for either building or vehicles(trains/trams), poles hold them up seewood poles, where as pylons hold up bridges n jetties etc. :) Gnangarra 06:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Very much what Gnangarra has said. The pylons Commons uses. is known as transmission tower (funny thing is in Australia, that is what we call radio/TV/mobile/microwave towers/masts). By having something that doesn't get confused (like pylon), it's best to have what the caregory is about. Bidgee (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The category for overhead power lines has a clear text description explaining it is for lines powering vehicles only. sure, many people will not read this, but at least we can know what is intended. I think a decision must be made over one name to use for pylons/power lines when what is meant is high voltage wires on large support structures. Then a notice explaining it. People categorising will accept anything reasonable when a decison has been made, and people looking through a category will see the names being used and work out where to look for pictures.Sandpiper (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The easiest way forward is to do what makes sense to you give a description and suggest alternative categories ie this category is for overhead lines supplying powers to tranport infrustructure line trams, buses and trains....for grid power lines and general electrical supply lines see Category:Transmission lines. For pylons have Category:Electrical Pylons and poles and Category:Structural pylons see en.wp Pylon and follow thatGnangarra 05:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Barry O'Farrell attending the Australian Paralympian of the Year 2012 ceremony.jpg

Thanks for the touch-ups and renames, I haven't even had a chance to go through the descriptions yet, so it's great to have file improvements! --99of9 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, can understand why you haven't though! A heap of photos of the event is great to see! :) It's a great profile photograph, something that I've had a few missed opportunities to get an improved photograph. :) Bidgee (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately he was steadfastly refusing to look at me! (but admittedly was talking to someone at the time) --99of9 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"urm who has own issues again...?"

The simple answer: you. The long answer, again you. You have such an over-riding sense of ownership of your files that you edit warred to force one to be in a category that had nothing to do with it, going so far as to rename it to get your way. You have such an over-riding sense of ownership that you attacked another user personally simply for nominating some of your files for deletion based on the knowledge they had at the time. You have such an over-riding sense of opwnership that you think it's acceptable to remove a superseded tag from one of your files with a simple edit summary of "sigh", completely ignoring the faults in your own file (which I'll be happy to point out to you). Files do not have to be identical to have a superseded tag, it is often used when there are two versions and one has faults, and even then, nothing about a superseded tag forces people to use the other version if they really want to use the faulty one. There is nothing personal about saying mine is superior, it's an objective fact. You're the one taking it personal and not allowing a perfectly justified tag to be on one of your files. You are the most adamant person I've encountered in some time when it comes to ownership problems of one's files, closs to the bar set by Alexander Liptak. And what's worse, you try and project your issues on to me, accusing me of the exact same thing you are doing and more, insinuating that I'm making this personal, when the fact is I'm more objective than you ever will be. I want nothing more to do with you. Fry1989 eh? 15:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fry, you have a history of ownership as you have been blocked and had a number of ANI sections on your behaviour. But as always you always say that it's someone else at fault, never you (like above).
Lets get to the facts here, this is the first time that you have ever made a comment here, had you done so before in a constructive manner, then we may not be "disputing" and that you take notes on the issue of the errors (I've done so below) I've pointed out rather then sticking your head in the sand. The "sigh" was the fact the very thing I had stated in the RfD.
I've pointed out that the sign you created is not the same as the real World and the RTA/RMS. Bidgee (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether you think so or not, I have absolutely no obligation to be buddy-buddy with you and discuss stuff before taking any action. If I see a problem with a file and think it should be deleted, I have every right to nominate it for such. You have every right to argue why it should be kept, but if your arguments for keeping files is valid, there is absolutely no need to make the DR personal and attack the nominater. I made it clear I nominated the files based on the knowledge I had at hand. You're the one who thinks it was personal and an ownership reasoning, and that's your own problem, not mine. The same with your no stopping sign. If I see two files, and one is better than the other because of faults, I have every right to add a superseded tag. I do it all the time, it had nothing to do with one being mine and one being yours. You again made it personal. Lastly, even if I have some sort of ownership problem, that does not negate the fact that YOU yourself do too. Again, who is the user that edit warred and renamed a file that they just so happened to be the uploader of to get it in the category they wanted?? You can deny it all you want, but even other admins agreed with me that your actions were positively absurd and over-reaching. And now you're the one who removes a valid superseded tag from what just so happens to be one of your files, with a mean-nothing edit summary of "sigh". As an admin, you should know that isn't proper grounds, and I had every right to revert your removal. I've never seen you act like an Admin, you always act like a child, you make things personal, you attack others, and you show onwership of files that just so happen to be yours. Pot calling the kettle black. Either go polish yourself, or shut up. Fry1989 eh? 16:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Fry but you need to start working in a constructive manner by going onto the user talk page and ask questions, make suggestions and work collaboratively. Creating signs that you think are right and then slapping tags on others, because you feel that your images are "superior" doesn't mean that it is the case. I have pointed out the major faults by posting photographs but you still don't get it or you choose not to, this is your problem if you want to continue to act like (above) that. Bidgee (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)