User talk:Bidgee/Archive12

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.


Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently in the United States, so I'm unable to do any reviewing until I return back to Australia in about two weeks time. Bidgee (talk)
So I've added the whole discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard. Raoli ✉ (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I am trying to understand the rules on copyright. For example, I want to upload this file:

But you have deleted it, even though it has a creative commons share-alike license: to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work to make derivative work

Can you explain why this file in ineligible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CARX (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Copyright 2

I also want to upload files from here:

These are explicitly stated on the home page as creative commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)

Why do these keep getting deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CARX (talk • contribs) 10:16, 2 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Because they are unfree, Anything with NC and/or NC within the CC license can't be uploaded. Please read COM:L. Bidgee (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

XJR-15 Front Suspension.jpg


you deleted the above file. It is my picture, of my car, taken with my camera. Yes, I also uploaded it to Teamspeed for an article that I wrote there. But I own the copyright to the picture. Please can you un-deleted the file. You have also deleted another file. Please can you un-delete this as well.

Many thanks,

CARX — Preceding unsigned comment added by CARX (talk • contribs) 09:11, 4 December 2012‎ (UTC)

If this is your own photographs, you would have the originals but the same photos from the forum were uploaded. No one knows if they were posted by you on the from and whether it was taken by you, since you have a history of not understanding copyright and there is doubt, they will remain deleted unless you can give the permissions needed via COM:OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for the Wikipedia Picture

Hello, My name is Duane Hurst and I recently made a free (non-commercial) English web site to share information with people. I added links to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia freeware picture ( I also gave credit to you on my web pages for your work. Thank you for sharing with the public. My website is:

I add pictures such as yours to one of the following major sections of my site: 1. World section - contains information and over 10,000 images of every world country and territory. Link at:

2. USA section - contains information and images of every USA state and territory. Link at:

3. English section - "Mel and Wes" lessons in conversation format. Stories are located in various USA states and world countries such as China, England, Germany, Japan, Mexico and Thailand. Each lesson has many slang terms and idioms, which I link to my Slang Dictionary. This eventually will have over 5,000 terms. Currently, it has about 3,000 slang and idioms. I regularly add new lessons and slang terms. Link at: Slang Dictionary link at:

Prior to retirement, I taught English at several private and public universities in the United States.

Please share this free site with your friends. I hope all will enjoy the pictures and find the English information useful. Sincerely, Duane Hurst in Utah, USA

Email address: -- 01:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam Hall

Bidgee, Did you take any pictures of Adam Hall, the New Zealand skier? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to have a look, There is a profile photo uploaded but need to sort out the photographs when the computer has downloaded all the updates and rebooted. Bidgee (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
With thanks for your support and the pleasant co-operation in the past year, I wish you all the best in the new year! --Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


Your File:Oura fire viewed from Willans Hill.jpg says date January 7, 2013 - is this the date of the photo, or the date of upload? Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It was photographed on January 7, ignore the EXIF data's date as I still have it set to Denver, CO date and time and not Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time (AEDT). Bidgee (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
EXIF date and time has been fixed, apologies for the confusion. Bidgee (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's okay, I didn't look into the metadata, was just surprised how timely and handy your images came in (and wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding and that's not just an upload date). Most appreciate your effort. -Gryllida (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Rukshanawahab (again)

The other day, you blocked Sherilynne 15 (talk · contribs) for being a sock of Rukshanawahab. (talk contribs WHOIS RBL abusefilter tools guc stalktoy block user block log) is doing some of the same activities. Looks like a duck... –Fredddie 20:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 08:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

File:Hila Vidor by Avital Palci Peleg.jpg

Thank you. You solved the problem. Hanay (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop Shelter

Would it be possible for you to tell me the manufacturer of the bus stop shelter that you photographed in Wagga Wagga in 2009? I work for an architecture firm in the United States, and we are currently working on a project for a transit authority that includes bus stop shelters. We like the design of the shelter you pictured.

Thanks! Mandy Hale, Office Manager Riley Architect Services

Responding to Akbeer's Plea about the deletion of his recently uploaded file

In response to your deletion of File:Temple2.JPG, a message has been posted at File talk:Temple2.JPG by the original uploader. DS (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I guess you could respond to the user on the page or the uploader's talk page. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
Not to sure why I didn't originally get the notice about having a message on my page, but I apologise for the delay is responding to the message. Bidgee (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Scania K480EB 6x2*4 TV5594 in AWC livery

Hi Bidgee,

You have a photo of the above coach - if you scroll down to the bottom of the K480EB section, you'll see 5594 in the livery of it's current operator, Langley's Coaches of Dubbo, NSW....

Joe Huppypuppy1 (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Over categorisation and missing permission

Hi Bidgee. First of all there is no missing permission - I've been in contact with an OTRS operator since early January, and I've done exactly what they said me to do. Sorry if I forgot to put the {{OTRS pending}} template from start, to let you administrators know.

Secondly, forgive but it's me who can't see the point of your "over categorisation" argument.

Over-categorization, according to the policy you linked to me, is putting a picture of a banana in Category:Bananas and Category:Fruit at the same time, when Category:Bananas is a subcategory of Category:Fruit. In our case categories Austin Metro, MG Metro, British Leyland Metro mk1 and British Leyland Metro mk2 were exactly at the same level - being them all subcategories of Category:British Leyland Metro. So this just has nothing to do with the definition of "over categorization". I really hope you did this absently as I'm really surprised to notice such a guideline misunderstanding from an administrator.

Moreover, I would have appreciated if you had spoken to me before deleting the new categories and reverting all my edits overnight. It shouldn't be my task to remember that Wikimedia projects are based on consensus, while you did all this overnight.

BTW, this is the reason why I decided to create the two new categories. If you know something about the Austin and MG Metro (and I suppose you should, as I wouldn't make so many edits on a field I don't know well) you will know that there was a make one Metro, produced from October 1980 until late 1984, and a make two, produced from late 1984 until the end of the line in 1990. Sporty models (marketed from Spring 1982 onwards) were branded MG instead of Austin. I simply thought that, inside the general category for the Metro in general, it would be useful to categorize pictures by brand (categories Austin Metro and MG Metro) and by make (British Leyland Metro mk1 for 1980-1984 cars, and British Leyland Metro mk2 for 1984-1990 cars). Is there anything wrong with this? Everyday we categorize the picture of a car both by colour ("Red automobiles") and by building year ("1992 automobiles") even if both are subcategories of Category:Automobiles. Well, it's just the same here: I categorized the picture of a Metro both by brand and by make, even if these are both subcategories of Category:British Leyland Metro. It makes just easier to find what you're looking for, expecially now that more picture on this topic will be uploaded.

I really hope you'll restore the deleted categories and revert your own edits, as I found this really dispespectful of my work and of the time I spent on it. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 14:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Only have a little bit of time but it was over categorisation, ATM we have the MG Metro category in the "British Leyland Metro" category, listing all the photographs in the MG Metro and "British Leyland Metro mk1" (which should be Mk or MK anyway) categories isn't the best when both link to the parent category. I hope you see where I'm coming from. (User:Bidgee, using a public computer) 22:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I've done the best I can to split off the MG's and Austins per Mk. Bidgee (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You didn't answer me. Why do you call that "over categorization"? I've already shown that it clearly wasn't over categorization, unless you have a different idea of "over categorization" than that of Wikimedia Commons guidelines.
Moreover, what did you do? Your edits worsened the situation and show really poor understanding of the topic. These are some of the gross errors drawn from your version of the category tree:
  • Metros branded as MGs were available in two models: the MG Metro 1300 (1982-1990) and the MG Metro Turbo (1983-1990). Before your edits there was just the MG Metro category for all Metros branded as MGs. Now you created the subcategory MG Metro Turbo: I don't think we need categories for single models (we'd have to create plenty of categories), but at least you should have created subcategory MG Metro 1300 too. On the contrary, you used category MG Metro for pictures of MG Metro 1300 and category MG Metro Turbo for pictures of MG Metro Turbo. This is wrong because 1) the complete name is "MG Metro 1300" not "MG Metro" 2) the two categories should be at the same level, as these are two indipendent models.
  • Your division of pictures is in part wrong. Some pictures of MG Metro Turbos are not in the MG Metro Turbo category and instead are in the upper category, amid pictures of MG Metro 1300s; there's a pair of pictures of make one cars categorized in the Austin Metro Mk2 category; and, at last, the Austin Metro category is filled with pictures that - I suppose - you weren't able to sort between mark one or mark two.
I wouldn't like to sound rude, but why don't you abstain from contributing in fields you don't know well?
At last, there are a few thing I can't understand at all:
  • Category Austin Metro is at the same level of the categories British Leyland Metro Mk1 and British Leyland Metro Mk2, while category MG Metro is inexplicably a subcategory of British Leyland Metro Mk1. Why this difference of treatment?
  • You created additional categories Austin Metro Mk1 and Austin Metro Mk2. IMHO we didn't need this, but why didn't you create category MG Metro Mk1 and MG Metro Mk2 too? Was that intentional, or simply you didn't care enough to be concerned with these "details"?
I always assume good faith, but I can't do so when I get my edits reverted with no valid explanation and your edits show an obvious ignorance. Please revert immediatly all your edits to the initial situation, which was error-free, or I will be forced to report your behaviour to the Wikimedia Commons community. Sorry. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 21:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Having two categories linking to the same parent category and added in multi-able images is over categorisation. I'm happy to fix the MG, Austin ect to the models they were released in, finding the information needed to create them, in a short amount of time is impossible. Take a look at Category:Holden VE for an example, notice the way each model is categorised? Bidgee (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a deeper look at it later. I'm currently busy. Bidgee (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

More than one account

I have more than one account because I (along with user:J_Bar) was being stalked a while back by User:Adam.J.W.C., who was following me around and undoing my work via the sockpuppet PoorPhotoremovalist, which was eventually blocked after I got Checkuser to investigate. Since then I haven't especially needed the extra accounts, but they're still there. Are you an admin by any chance?

Sardaka (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I always understood it wasn't necessarily a problem to have more than one account provided they are not being abused, as Adam was abusing his. Does "disclose" mean that I have to say I'm Sardaka on the user page of each account? This might defeat the purpose, since the purpose was to shake a stalker off.

Sardaka (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the process of putting tags on them now. As for ANI, I would have been happy to go to them if I thought I'd get any help out of them. In my early days, I felt I was being stalked by User:TheRingess and went to ANI, but they weren't in the least bit interested. I've found it's very hard to get any action out of them.

Sardaka (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I've done Clytemnestra. Sardaka (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Marquee (The Star Sydney) grand opening

Hi. I noticed you added all the photos from to Category:Marquee (The Star Sydney) grand opening to Category:March 2012 in Sydney and removed the uncategorized tag. But:

  1. Category:Marquee (The Star Sydney) grand opening is already in Category:March 2012 in New South Wales. (I put it there at the time because it wasn't clear to me, being from outside Australia, whether "suburb" meant adjacent to Sydney, or inside the Sydney city limits. It actually to be well inside the city limits.)
  2. The uncategorized tags were there because none of those photos have been categorized by person yet. There is no other way to properly add things to Category:Media needing categories, is there?

Am I missing something? I know enough about VisualFileChange.js that I could probably do a mass change of some kind if need be, like knocking Category:March 2012 in Sydney off things that are already in Category:Marquee (The Star Sydney) grand opening, or maybe even trying to guess a category name from the file name. --Closeapple (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh man. I just realized that I misspelled "Sydney" in Category:Marquee (The Star Syndey) grand opening! I can change that at the same time as the rest of the stuff so that, maybe, each file only gets one edit. Let me know. --Closeapple (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Bidgee, I've been the whole day off (and I don't I can write sort of statement in some hours). Does it make sense to wait until I can say anything or we'd better to close it down without further drama? Best regards and many thanks into advance --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought that it would be best that you knew of the thread on AN/U. Though the ball is still in Tomascastelazo (talk · contribs) court and if he keeps up, he'll be seeing an interaction ban or a block. Bidgee (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
On that topic, there is a bit of a study I did of the problem and it seems that there is some merit to Tom's complaints, I put up an analysis there.
What I came here about is that picture, the sourcing is a mess actually, and I see no way to fix it, the image is actually a collage and both image pages don't say as much and the original has a mess on it where sources or derivatives or whatever are supposed to be, so I'd say it's far from done, but I couldn't much care, if everyone else is happy with it then that's good enough. Penyulap 01:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Bidgee,

I removed the category Category:Buses in Victoria, Australia from Grendas-modern-bus.png because I was going through all bus photos in that category and moving them to better locations (mainly Category:Buses in Geelong‎ or Category:Buses in Melbourne‎) but in the case of Grendas-modern-bus.png it was already in Category:Grenda which is nested in Category:Buses in Melbourne‎ so I simply removed the Category:Buses in Victoria, Australia. I should have stated COM:OVERCAT and my reasoning in the edit summary, sorry. Can we reinstate my edit?

I also have two questions to ask:
1) is Category:Grenda needed? Should we just move the three photos in it to Category:Buses in Melbourne‎?
And 2) I've noticed that you move files from wiki to commons, could you please move the following files for me? [1] [2] [3] [4]

Thank you in advance. Liamdavies (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, just wondering if you've had a chance to give this some consideration. Liamdavies (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't notice the Grenda but your edit summary wasn't very helpful, I suggest to have a little more informative. Yes, the Grenda category is needed. Bidgee (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I know my edit summary was vague to say the least, sorry, people usually don't look over my categorising, and I can get a little complacent. I'm generally better though. If we need Grenda, should we also have categories for 'National Bus', 'Ventura', 'Sita' and 'Smartbus'? There are three or more photos representing all of those companies, what criteria is there for when a category should be established? Sorry for bombarding you with questions, but I've spent most of my time categorising trams, which can be a little easier. Also, would you please be able to move those photos (if not that's ok, I just don't know how, and don't want to mess it up). Regards Liamdavies (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, again, I'm guessing you're to busy to move those files from wiki to com, do you have an advice regarding categories? Liamdavies (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, been very busy with Commons drama and completing my Uni essay. If you ever need a file moved, best tool to use is the "Move-to-commons assistant" or "CommonsHelper 2", though the Toolserver is a bit slow of late. Doesn't matter if there is just one photo, having a category for the bus company helps later when more files are added. Bidgee (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Bidgee, I know the essay feeling, I got one in last week and have another handful due by the end of semester. I had a look at the helpers, but one was down, and the other just confusing, so I thought I'd ask someone else rather than cock it up. Regarding the sub cats for buses, I might go through as a procrastination to avoid class work. But I may reshuffle a few cats around, if you have any problems just tell me on my talk and I'll be as helpful as I can. Regards Liamdavies (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Canberra Airport terminal (10).jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Canberra Airport terminal (10).jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Danrok (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore the delete, I have fixed the information template so that the source is correctly displayed. I think you may have uploaded a number of photos with a broken template, due to faulty software or similar problem. Danrok (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It was caused by a bot and I've yet to see the error caused by it fixed. Bidgee (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


Also it would be wise to advise administrators, that if they don't want their name revealed, they should not rig votations using sockpuppets having their realnames. It's not me who created the sockpuppet and voted twice on a friend adminship candidacy.

At least Ecemaml admitted the sockpuppet was his and therefore that he double voted.

I suggest you to also oversight the image that Ecemaml uploaded on Commons linking the two accounts (the EXIF data shows his real name). That way, no evidence of his dishonesty will be available.

There was a legitimate complaint that an admin had used sockpuppets to vote twice. I posted the information proving the user dishonesty. And I also stated that I had no further intention, nor I asked for a sanction (moreover, I specifically said give Ecemaml the chance to admit his wrongdoings).

Be confident, however, that I won't post it again. Please advise administrators not to rig votes. -- Magister Mathematicae 01:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless if he used is real name or not, it doesn't give you the right to post links that contain personal information. Bidgee (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Bidgee, I have been following the discussions on user Ecemaml and am not surprised to see that his personal information was revealed by user Magister who has a long track record of revealing private information and of taking advantage of his former check-user privileges (at, he still has these privileges in Commons), using this information when it best suits him and to his own benefit. This was one of the reasons why he was subjected to a desysop process at where lost by a vote of 50 in favour of keeping his flags to 62 against.
Prior to that, many users from expressed their concerns about his habit of revealing private informatiom and of misusing his check-user privileges during the 2012 stewards elections and confirmations. I believe that what Ecemaml did 8 years ago should not be held against him at this stage of the game, but regardless of my opinion, I firmly believe that private info should be treated as such, and user Magister should cease to reveal private info in his own personal vendettas. Sorry for bringing this up here and of having you involved in this nasty episode, but revealing personal info on another user without the user's consent is totally unethical and should be strictly forbidden. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I slightly edited Magister message above. I don't think it's adequate that as a reply for revealing a real name he posts both in the talk page. I'm unsure about hiding them. 19 revisions would be affected (sorry, was going to do it earlier but forgot). Platonides (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


I am just forwarding copies of emails from the rights holders as I type this. Chanel and her photographers fully understand the rights they are releasing but are still learning the hoops of commons. It should be resolved soon with all images in her category correctly lincensed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries

Hey Bidgee, I just wanted to stop by and say no hard feelings about your removal of my comment on that board.

I was just trying to inject some COM:MELLOW into the situation, but really, No worries, either way.

Have a great day!


-- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, at least you can see that I'm trying to keep AN/U for what it is designed for but it has now been hi-jacked and has become a joke. I just wished they would use VP and not the AN boards for their "off topic" chat but with the added insults, I would've blocked them if I wasn't involved. Bidgee (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 08:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the restriction on Penyulap

Hi Bidgee! You asked on COM:AN/U that if I had any better ideas to the current restriction, to put them down and let people debate them. I've posted there the kind of this I would consider as an acceptable alternative and would like your input on the matter. I appreciate you're busy, so if you don't get to it immediately, I'll understand. Thanks :) BarkingFish (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 42df8438ae9dd77ebf0cc8a5dcaf8c3a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Request for protected page edit

Hi, sorry this is a bit last minute, but I was looking for a currently active admin in hopes for getting a protected page changed. I have a picture that's being featured for Picture of the Day tomorrow (April 29th) and was hoping to expand the description before it went live tomorrow. I didn't realize that POTD images locked the day before so I wasn't able to edit it. I have a protected edit request on its talk page HERE. I would be grateful if you could help. Evan-Amos (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disregard this, another admin jumped right on it. Thanks though! -- Evan-Amos (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:FIFA Logo(2010).svg

Hi, I just reverted this page to its previous version before protecting it, in response to the discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#File:FIFA Logo(2010).svg. However, I didn't notice that it had already been protected by you. Do you care either way? I would have asked if I noticed the page was already protected, sorry –⁠moogsi (blah) 16:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just realized you commented at the thread linked above before you protected the file. I reverted the file to the version you protected. Sorry, I really messed up, here :/ –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee. Could you please reply to my question in that thread? Thank you. --Leyo 20:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo hid the Flickrmail option too

Dear Bidgee,

Just to let you know that Yahoo also hid the flickrmail option I notice as i discussed it here with Delaywaves. This flickr 'redesign' gets worse and worse sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft registration categories

Hi there, I thought we really need to include aircraft 's type in the name of the individual aircraft's category so that people could find what they are looking for in a museum's collection. Xyz (aircraft) tells the user nothing. How do we discuss this further ? Regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Free licenses

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:A commemorative plaque being unveiled at a parade to mark the change of name of the 19th Regiment Royal Artillery.jpg, you're thoroughly wrong about one of the most basic facts you need to know on Commons—in order for something to be freely licensed, it has to be copyright. I don't expect this coming from an admin. —innotata 17:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you rethink and strike what you just said. I've read the OGL and understand it, but File:A commemorative plaque being unveiled at a parade to mark the change of name of the 19th Regiment Royal Artillery.jpg clearly isn't licensed OGL when you don't have the Ministry of Defence marking it with a green tick on its image repository and you also have "Crown Copyright: This image may be used for current news purposes only. It may not be used, reproduced or transmitted for any other purpose without first obtaining a copyright license available from the MoD, Crown Copyright Unit.", hardly what I call "free use". Bidgee (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a different issue, and I'll address it on the page. Your previous deletion rationale was obviously incorrect, so I stand by what I said. —innotata 01:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to act with bad faith, consider it the last time I license review your uploads which I had done so in good faith. Bidgee (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
What's your issue with my complaint? What I said is that what you wrote was incorrect, and now it seems to me you were just a little unclear. I can't tell what you're referring to as "bad faith": I understand that to mean harmful motives, an intention to hurt the project, or something of that nature. And if that's what I'm doing, why would you act with bad faith in response?
Now, I've pointed out that there is a "broad site notice" on this photograph's source, so can you reply on the DR? —innotata 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

File:General Sir Peter Wall in No 1 uniform.jpg and File:General Sir Peter Wall, Chief of the General Staff.jpg

The links you added do not work—because of the design of the Defence Imagery website. I fixed them, to use search results for the image number rather than direct image URLs. Try the links. —innotata 02:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your URLs don't work and place do not modify the URLs added in the license review template, it was the URL I used for the review. Bidgee (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I said, try the links. Yours reliably don't work ("illegal parameters"), the ones I added do reliably—I've tested this (with different images, previously) on multiple devices and browsers, etc. Broken links aren't useful anywhere; you can't even get to the Defence Imagery main page from the links you added. Are you sure you haven't confused them? —innotata 04:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Capparis spinosa category

I've listed the category at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:Capparis spinosa in the Ukraine, although this should be rather obvious on the grounds of consistency.

I noticed this since I was checking if you'd addressed my concerns above in any way; I'm still waiting for responses. —innotata 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


As per this page the file was deleted because of copyright violations. But on the source page from which this images was got, the owner of the image - Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam ( - has clearly released these images under an acceptable CC license (see the note on the top of the page before the images begin). Is this not sufficient? Thanks Acnaren (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hazelton and Kendell

As you may have seen I've been uploading a shedload of aviation pics as of late, and I came across 3 photos each from Category:Hazelton Airlines and Category:Kendell Airlines. Can you believe that we have so few photos from each of these airlines? Any ideas on photographers who might freely licence some? russavia (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really surprised, I know of a large collection but it will never become "freely licensed" before the copyright protection end. I do wish that I had a camera at the time of the Ansett collapse, when most of the SAAB 340s and "regional jets" were stored at Wagga Wagga Airport. Bidgee (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I see there are quite a few photos on Flickr, I'll have to see if I can't get some of those relicenced for us here. Say, what do you think of a "Featured Gallery" here on Commons? I've run it by a few different people and they seem to think it could be doable if it was done up correctly. I know it would certainly get into immediate use many aviation photos I've been uploading (or organised to be uploaded) and would make aviation topics here on Commons much more pleasing to the eye. But of course, it could be transferred across to any and all topics. Thoughts? russavia (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want some idea of what I mean User:Russavia#Aviation_to-do_list has a list of galleries in progress (with more coming). The A320/Saab 340 ones give some idea. Of course there is more than simply the airlines that operate them, but prototypes, views of specific parts of the aircraft, etc. They are works in progress at the moment. russavia (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Road trains

While I can maybe understand your removal of the speedy tags from Category:B-Trains in Australia‎ and Category:B-Trains by country‎, what is puzzling me is why you decided to undo additions like this, and also empty several categories by moving them. While you may never have heard of a term like T2(AS), had you simply asked me what it meant, I would have directed you to the explanations in Category:Road trains by configuration. You've never heard of it, because I made it up, but that doesn't make it wrong. It certainly doesn't justify you getting rid of it for just a few images, meaning that if people want to find a B-Train in Australia, they have to look through a category that mixes up images of doubles, triples, quads etc, and if they want to find a B-Train in another country, well apparently that's not important. I also don't know why you felt the need to misrepresent your actions in the edit summary, for example in that case, you didn't just remove the T2(AS) category, you also removed the Timber road trains category. So, what I'm trying to say is, thank you very much for pissing all over what was a good few hours of work just because you couldn't be bothered to read the new category or ask me about the changes. If you insist on keeping the B-Train by country tree, fine, I can't really see the point if it's not going to be either comprehensive or further sub-divided by number of trailers (there are for example several B-Trains still in Category:Road trains in Australia‎, even after your reverting spree). But I am going to re-add the other trailer type & configuration categories, because they will be useful to other people, even if they aren't to you. If you still object to their existence even in parallel to the 'B-Train' tree you seem to want to keep, please use Cfd to discuss it. Ultra7 (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to the above, in all your mass moving to remove the config sub-divisions just for B-Trains in Australia, somehow you managed to leave 10 images in both Category:Road trains in Australia‎ and Category:B-Trains in Australia‎, even though one is a sub-category of the other. I've fixed that at least, because that's just bad practice whichever way you look at it. Ultra7 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Fact is, it is up to you to take it to COM:CfD. The terms (configuration) is not used in Australia but only in the United States. Bidgee (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The configuration terminology I've adopted such as T2(AS) etc is not used anywhere. I made it up precisely because different terms are used for the same things in different countries, and this is the only way to universally categorise images of road trains around the world in terms of what vehicle types and number of trailers are used (accepting the flaw that even the term road train is not used in all countries). I won't take it to Cfd, the current config tree is fine for that purpose, and your B-Trains in Australia tree can co-exist next to it if you really want. It's a trivial matter to periodically check whether anybody has put an image in there without realising there are more specific cats in parallel that might also apply. I just think it's very sad that you seem to think that it's not a problem to have a sub-tree which is neither comprehensive (a by country tree with only one country?) or even complete when compared to the rest of the images (the redundancy mentioned above, plus there is still one B-Train in Aus that you hadn't descended, that I will fix now). Whatever you think this approach is, it isn't good categorisation. What is more alarming though, is that you don't even seem to know what a B-Train even is - this and this are definitely not B-Trains, despite you putting them in there, and you can only say this is only one if you know something that is not shown in the image, because the cars are obscuring the part of the image which would show definitively if it's a B-Double or just a double (which is why I categorised it under unknown). Ultra7 (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Even more reason why we shouldn't be using it! If we are to use anything, it should be something recognised internationally or in the country origin and not something that some user has created for their own purpose (something that is totally BS [since it doesn't exist in the real World). In regards to the images, some of those I never selected to be moved (ie: it was unintentional). Bidgee (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. Just because I made it up, doesn't make it "BS". The format is quite easy to follow, and doesn't actually use any definitions not used in the real world. I haven't just made up any names for vehicles, for example, block truck is a real term, A-Trailer is a real term, dog trailer is a real term, etc, etc. As I said, the B-Trains category can remain in parallel if it makes you happy, but don't pretend that just because there isn't a universal real world real name for a tractor coupled to a semi followed by a full drawbar trailer, ie, a 2T(SF) in this system, means that they shouldn't be categorised together on Commons on a global basis. If you know of any internationall recognised terminology that can be used in place of the format based system that I've chosen, then by all means, let me know and I'll rename the categories, but I've yet to see it, which is why I created this system in the first place. I think using this system is better than picking terms that will probably not be universal or even unambigous, but by all means disagree if you have a better alternative (but obviously pretending specific configurations that exist around the world aren't the same just because there's no universal term, is not better, and neither would be lumping them all together in very unspecific categories). Ultra7 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It is BS. It doesn't exist in the real World, since you created it based on your own opinion that is unsupported. Bidgee (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I might have made up the format, but the configurations exist in the real world. I could rename these categories using simple English descriptions, so for example a T2(SF) becomes "Category:Semi-trailer truck towing a semi-trailer and a single full trailer", which is what happens in other branches where common global names don't exist, but I hope you can see how ridiculous that looks, and will only get worse for larger combinations. If you think this is unsupported, what are you proposing as an alternative? Or is a made up but logical naming convention that uses real world terms for the components so abhorrent to you that you'd rather Commons didn't categorise trucks based on their configuration at all? Shall we go back to the situation that existed before, where according to Commons, there is no actual difference between this, this or this, they were all just 'tank trucks' lumped in with simple rigid trucks, even though quite obviously there are very major and obvious differences between them that even a non-expert would spot. Ultra7 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said above the "Tx" (x = 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) exists in the US, but not outside the US, your codes are BS that doesn't exist. In Australia, the viewer will have no friggen idea what they are looking at. Bidgee (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you continued the discussion at the category talk page. It would also be helpful if you actually paid attention to what I've been saying, rather than framing your replies to things you've imagined I've said. The codes are made up, I already said that. But when they are translated into plain English, they describe things that a viewer would clearly be able to tell the difference between. I already said that too. And as I've also already said, any Australian viewer who is confused by the plain English explanation of the code system, is still able to trawl through the Road trains in Australia category, where they will get the awesomely educational benefit of having B-Trains separated from the rest, regardless of any other aspect of their configuration. And if that still doesn't aid them in finding what they're looking for, I guess they're just stuffed, as you don't seem the slightest bit interested in offering any actual alternatives that recognises that road trains come in many different configuarations, well beyond a simple binary choice between 'B-Train' and 'not B-Train'. Ultra7 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Category talk:Road trains Penyulap 15:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not copy my comments from my talk page to another talkpage, you did so without my permission. Bidgee (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually you did when you clicked save. Scroll to the bottom of your talkpage and you'll read "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.".
But I'll try to remember just to cater to your needs. Penyulap 02:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It's more that the history (diffs) of that is discussion is located here and anyone could change the context. It's common courtesy to ask before, regardless of what its licensed as/under. Bidgee (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, now I understand you, I often forget that not everyone is as open and honest as I am. Sorry about that. Penyulap 02:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
You're not open nor honest. Bidgee (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Bidgee, your input is requested at Category talk:Road trains, thank you. Penyulap 14:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact it was done per AusRoads and state/territory classification for road trains in Australia, it was meaningless having different types in the one category (all the images in one [B-Trains in Australia] category, when it was possible to use the real world classification and sub cat them). An if you don't know what the "A" means in the classification, it equals an "A" frame connection. Bidgee (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Another roaming one...

Been trying to get a Commons admin all day for this, User:Captchaa needs to be blocked also. See enwiki userpage for details, which are based on CU. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Blocked. Not sure how I missed that obvious sock! Bidgee (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


Fry1989 eh? 03:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

re: A

That's okay, I didn't even knew that I was blocked, since I wasn't on wikimedia. As I always say, research to a conclusive point before action.--Earth100 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding File:Denmark road sign A12.1.svg

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Bidgee (de-adminship)

Penyulap 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


This image was stolen from this page. Please delete. Thanks

Category:2012 Summernats

Hey mate, do you know who our Aussie car aficionados are? Category:2012 Summernats could do with some categorising under specific car makes/models, so if you know anyone who knows cars who might be able to help with that, it would be great. Cheers, russavia (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would help out, but I'm currently busy. Maybe ask OSX, they do a fair bit of car work and know a few others who could help. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've dropped them a note. russavia (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Can my son use your photo in his school assignment?


My son has a school assignment and needs a photo of Swanston St - would he be able to use your Swanston St photo in his assignment?

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Have no issues at all with it being used, one of the reasons why I've uploaded my work here is not just that they can be used on other Wikipedia articles but also be used for assignments. Bidgee (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you so much for reverting that vandalism on much talk page! You seem to be checking on my talk page often...-- 05:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Individual naming of naval ships in Commons

I realise that inclusion of HMS, HMAS etc. prefix is an important British Commonwealth cultural thing. It is unthinkable to refer to British, Australian Canadian etc. warships as anything else but HMS xyz, HMAS xyz etc. I know that. But: It has nothing to do with this international project of Wikimedia Commons. It is not more than normal than that the local Wikipedia's follow their own standard. Use any prefix that is the local standard there. But in Wikimedia Commons much attention is given to the fact that images of ships can be found by users who are not familiar with any cultural habits. If a not naval specialist sees an image somewhere with a pennant number painted on a ship, and starts looking for another image in Commons, he will find it here by pennant number and by name if he found that. And, if you look at the nameplate of a naval ship, you don't find a prefix.

So you are not correct in your conclusion that the prefix is part of the name. Royal naming is just very old fashined and creates a lot of work from time to time. Here in the Dutch Wikipedia we had to rename all contemporane naval ships from "Harer Majesteits" to "Zijner Majesteits" with the new king Willem Alexander and we used the opportunity to skip the prefix and add the year of first commissioning. Look at nl:Zijner Majesteits (scheepsaanduiding) and nl:Categorie:Nederlandse kruiser. Now all Dutch naval ships with a certain name can easily be found, by sequence of yearof first commissioning. That is a very usefull way. Categorising more that 26.000 ships according this naming system makes a consensus in itself. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want the change so bad, follow COM:CfD. Since all controversial changes need to follow that path. Bidgee (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Looked there, discussion was closed. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Create a new one (ie: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/08/Category:Ships by name). Bidgee (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done See [[5]]

Thanks for moving the categories back to the previous names. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments about copyright in the HSR map

Thanks for your comment, Bidgee. Please see my response at (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:National Bus

Hi, yes, Ventura owned National Bus, for a little under half their existence. They no longer do, and I have placed a hatnote in the Ventura category, it is factually incorrect to list National Bus under Ventura, they are no longer operated by Ventura, and even then, operated as a self governing subsidiary, and independently for 11 years previously. Liamdavies (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate, they were owned, they are no longer, they no longer exist. Time will go on, and peoples knowledge of the complicated ownership nature of Melbourne's bus system will break down. They were a bus operator in Melbourne, they did operate for 20 years, and of those 20 years a little under half was under ownership of Ventura. They operated independently, under their own name, and were not assimilated. The category system I acted leaves National Bus in Buses in Melbourne, while hatnoting Ventura with the fact as a see also. What is your problem with this? Liamdavies (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
"National Bus Company" was the independent operation prior to the purchase by Ventura. "self governing subsidiary" irrelevant, ownership was Ventura. Bidgee (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Saying National Bus Company was independent, Nation Bus isn't is just playing semantic. National Bus was, but no longer is, a bus operator in Melbourne owned by Ventura. It is simply confusing to keep it added in Ventura when it is no longer an operator, but does contain images of Buses in Melbourne. It's natural location now is Buses in Melbourne, with a hatnote in Ventura. Liamdavies (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
How so? It isn't like that National Bus is being used by another company. In fact it seems rather silly to have buses that have the Ventura themed livery with the CDC styled logo to be unconnected to the parent category (regardless of the hat note) making it in fact over categorised. Also only one photo is of a bus that was pre the purchase, the rest are during the Ventura ownership. Also just because it is now defunct doesn't mean it shouldn't be in that category. Bidgee (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Pardon, could you please elaborate on that post (I'm having trouble understanding it)? What does CDC have to do with anything? What is overcat? Liamdavies (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
CDC = ComfortDelGro Cabcharge, the logo style is the same used on CDC owned Hillsbus and Westbus. If anything, the 1997 photo could be categorised as National Bus Company (as per ownership when it was photographed), categorised as Buses in Melbourne and National Bus remain as is. COM:OVERCAT. Bidgee (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I get what you're saying now, to a Melburnian CDC only operate Westrans/Eastrans, the analogy was a non sequitur to me. I understand OVERCAT, but was wondering what you were referring to that was OVERCAT. Would you be happy if we had a category "National Bus Company" sitting at "Buses in Melbourne" that contained that one image and the cat "National Bus", this would mean that National Bus has a logical progression to Buses in Melbourne, while remaining a child of Ventura. If you agree to that, as an admin can you close the CfD? Liamdavies (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I think that you could just be bold and do it. Bidgee (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Liamdavies (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry to bug you, but have you had a chance to thing about the above solution to our in-pass? I would rather try to gain consensus rather than get into a move war (sorry 'bout last night). I was also looking through Category:Busabout Wagga Wagga for pictures of each bus route to place in the table at en:Busabout Wagga Wagga, and wondered what your thoughts on a by route cat scheme for Category:Buses in Wagga Wagga would be. I'm suggesting to place six cats in Category:Buses in Wagga Wagga named "Wagga Wagga bus route 96X", thoughts? Liamdavies (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to sure if it would be a good idea or not. Will need time to look at the photos I've already uploaded and those that have yet to be uploaded, though it could be a few weeks as I've got a rather heavy workload (study) ATM. Bidgee (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking to fragment the current cat, but create a parallel tree. I might create a list, and await your response. Liamdavies (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


Liamdavies (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Australian 130 speed limit sign.png

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Australian 130 speed limit sign.png 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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:01 UTC 07:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Austin Metro, Rover 100, and related categories

Hi Bidgee, I've been pretty busy in the last months and I didn't have much time to spend on Wikimedia projects, but now I'd like to complete the reorganization of the Austin Metro, Rover 100, and related Wikimedia Commons categories I tried to perform on February. I just wanted you to know, and I hope you won't object again as you did last time, when every time I asked explanations for your reverts and odd edits, you merely failed to explain your reasons and it was clear you didn't know even vaguely the topic in which you intervened so resolutely. Have a good day, Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 15:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that OK or not? I see you're busy, but almost a month passed and I'd like to have your feedback, to make me sure you won't revert all my edits in a month or two. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 17:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't agree with it. File:1982-1990 MG Metro 1300 3-door hatchback 01.jpg should remain in Category:MG Metro 1300, even though you feel it should be Category:British Leyland Metro mk1 but the current category is correct. Take for example Category:Holden Rodeo, which was a Isuzu built vehicle (See en:Holden Rodeo). I would recommend getting in contact with the Commons:WikiProject Automobiles members or posting a comment on their project talk page on English Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Mistake by Delinker!

Hi Bidgee

The Delinker made two mistakes: First the file File:Middle Coat of Arms of Belgium.svg (This image has been replaced by Blason_Royaume_de_Belgique_(Petites_armes).svg. I think this was suppose to be the other way around.

Secondly the changes made to User:Henk_Bolens should be reverted as the user was merely displaying his own work (File:Nederland wapen 2.svg) on his user page.

Regards! Sodacan (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Added request to move back and have undone the user page change. Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Sodacan (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:John Whitton bust at Central Station.jpg

Hi Bidgee, any idea who is the sculptor? Does the location fulfil the FOP-Austr. terms of "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public"? --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is located on the concourse at the station next to the heritage centre and the Eddy Ave entrance, not to sure who is the creator of it (though the base has "Vesco M.T.Sculptor" but it's in a public space and is permanent. Annotated photograph of the concourse. Bidgee (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that looks to fulfil the FOP terms. --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Historic Engineering Marker plaque next to the section of the old railway bridge in Wagga Wagga.jpeg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Historic Engineering Marker plaque next to the section of the old railway bridge in Wagga Wagga.jpeg 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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:2013 at Wagga Wagga Airport

Heya, don't know if you noticed but Category:2013 at Wagga Wagga Airport might be useful for you in the future. Categories for other years can be created as needed, and these will likely be done in due course I'd say. Cheers, russavia (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Why?

Hi Bidgee. Why? Because it is too narrow. Photos at air shows do not necessarily picture aircraft. Where is the aircraft in File:Finale fireworks display at the 2007 Avalon Airshow, "Friday Night Alight".jpg? IMHO, it also makes the air show category easier to find. All other air shows are are categorised below the place they are held, which seems logical to me. LittleWink (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, 95% of Category:Australian International Airshow contains photographs of aircraft, making it a better fit for Category:Aircraft at Avalon Airport (which also has Category:Aircraft at airports in Australia). Bidgee (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


Kaluga.2012 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WWI editathon

Hey Bidgee. Are you still a possibility for the editathon at SLNSW tomorrow? Would be great to meet you. I've prodded them a few times to make sure we have good lighting somewhere for object photography. --99of9 (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wished I could make it but I'm rostered on at the RWHC tomorrow, wouldn't have had any problems attending if it was on Sunday. Bidgee (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, that's a pity. --99of9 (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2OCU 1985.jpg

Hi Bidgee, Why did you flip this image? It's widely used (including in a FA), so this might make a few articles look a bit odd. Was it scanned in incorrectly by the USAF or something? Thanks for uploading those excellent photos of King Airs - I've added one to the No. 38 Sqn RAAF article (replacing my not-good image). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Was trying to workout the serial for the aircraft and worked out the photograph was flipped the wrong way. Feel free to roll it back. Bidgee (talk)
OK. I think that it's better for us to use the correct orientation of the photo rather than to persist with a messed-up scan. Thanks for fixing this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


This is exactly the same image but at a scaled down version so per the duplicate template I fail to see why you need to keep two of the same image. I disagree with your removal. Ww2censor (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If you looked, you'll note that the "scaled down" version was uploaded in 2009, but the other was uploaded in 2012. The 2012 should be deleted and the larger scale image reuploaded over the 2009 upload. Bidgee (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


A I'm not sure what needs to be 'discussed', 'whom' with, or in what 'venue'. There are already are extensive complaints on the actual page (as few people as there are who visit it) and the page you sent me to links to Commons talk:Overwriting existing files, which seems to be about general procedures and not individual files.

B You don't seem to have read any of the page before reverting my images. Even on its own merits, the existing map was grossly wrong, as pointed out by the annotator. My edits had nothing to do with the move request and were corrections to the existing map.

C If you really had a problem with B, you need to recommend the entire map for deletion since the 2010 version was grossly inaccurate on its own terms. It includes some client states as Roman territory but not others; it lacks Roman Britannia; its northern border is completely wrong for both Rome and Han; it includes territories the Han never even claimed, let alone occupied; it gives locations in AD 1 that the Han hadn't held in 80 years; it includes the Tarim basin as Chinese territory, although it was held through clients.LlywelynII (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to take it to the talk page for the image, since your changes are controversial and past changes by others have been contested. Since this image is in use and has had issues in the past, any sort of changes needs to be discussed or you could upload your version under a new file name and add {{fact disputed}} to this file. Bidgee (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
In what universe is adding Britain to a map of the Roman Empire c. AD 1 controversial?LlywelynII (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the past history (uploads and edits) speak for themselves. If you want to have your version so badly, then upload it at File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD117.png, rather than overwriting File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD1.png. Bidgee (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor @

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (red).svg

This DR may be of interest to you. Fry1989 eh? 19:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Christmas Belles at Crown - 11366677816.jpg Happy Holidays!
G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

New URL for OgreBot's old version filemover

Hello. I've identified you as a user who has previously used OgreBot's old version filemover. Please note the new URL: toollabs:magog/oldver.php. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Queensland local government

Hi Bidgee. Absolutely no pressure at all but did we make any progress with the individual LG maps for infoboxes? If not, that's OK - it was a huge job. I haven't been out and about for photos lately - hopefully next month. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just needing to replace the hard drive (close to failing) on the computer that I use for mapping, hoping to have it running again later in the week. Bidgee (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Old socks/RFCU

Hi Bidgee. Through checks and contribs, I've determined that Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rukshanawahab are early accounts of sockmaster Jermboy27. I've re-tagged the Rukshanawahab socks to demonstrate the connection and avoid any future confusion. If you see further accounts like these with edits on roadsigns, please block them as socks of JB27. Thanks. INeverCry 19:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories of File:LED traffic light.jpg


Category:Traffic lights at green state is a sub-category of Category:Green light. Thus with your revert File:LED traffic light.jpg is categorized two times into Category:Green light (one times directly, one time as part of Category:Traffic lights at green state.Torsch (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Road signs copyright and no exemption under FOP

Hi Bidgee,

I have been tooling around some Riverina articles on WP recently and have spruced up a couple of images as I go. I uploaded a new version of File:Entering Old Junee.jpg and in less than 24 hours later it was nommed for deletion as likely having creative rights and having no FOP exemption for 2D artwork. A bit of a surprise but there you go. It might have implications for some images in Australia and articles on WP that use them such as Millwood.

Some thoughts include; are these images worth going into bat for? What would the owners of the rights want? (Presumably the councils involved. They may wish to give permission to use to retain images in the project.) That maybe an OTRS issue.

Appreciate your thoughts. Bleakcomb (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

FOP for 2D, even if it's in the public space, isn't "free". Thankfully Queensland Government has made its road signs free under the CC-BY-SA license. With town signs, I think the only hope is to get OTRS permissions. Bidgee (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Flag of the Minister of Defence of Chile.svg

Hello Bidgee: I don't want to start an edit-warring. So that's why I left a message on the Administrator's page. Many times I tried to explain my reasons and sources to Fry1989, but it seems that he prefers the confrontation instead the collaboration. Best regards, --Echando una mano (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You both edit warred before the AN/U topic was created. Collaboration is more then just uploading, it is also discussing when conflicts arise. You will have people who have different view points, this is were a civil discussion becomes helpful to work towards a positive out come (even if it doesn't end in your favour). Bidgee (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to talk to him about this, but I'm not who have a lot of conflicts with other users. And I am always polite to others. --Echando una mano (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Now there is no problem. It's not necessary the dialog with anybody... the file is lock indefinitely. Regards, --Echando una mano (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

category on Gymnorhina tibicen

Because it serves no useful purpose, and also acts as a diversion away from useful categorisation (people use junk categories like this as a dumping ground for (± unidentified) birds, where they then get lost, instead of properly using the species category, or category:unidentified birds). I am planning to propose the category for deletion. - MPF (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Style and manner

Hi Bidgee, I hope that you're as Fit as a Mallee bull and enjoying your day. The world is such a great place, with exceptional diversity. Yet I often find your style and manner a little less smoother than most. Some editors would, upon seeing a number of images without the appropriate licence, simply drop me a message in private to say Did you know? in lieu of placing a tag against the file. I guess these editors operate within a collaborative environment and I find that they simply give a relative newcomer like me the chance to learn in a friendly manner, with assistance and guidance form an experienced editor. However, we're all different and I take your edits with a good dose of (Epsom) salts. Thanks for letting me know. Enjoy the remainder of your Sunday. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:NTRoads.png 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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− 13:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


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

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


Hello Bidgee,

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

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

File:1989 Newcastle earthquake map.png

Hey Bidgee

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

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

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

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

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

adding photos

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

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

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

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


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

Notification about possible deletion

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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


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

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

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

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


Jee 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Australian F-111s

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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


Hey Rob,

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

Well Done buddy


EurovisionNim 01:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)