User talk:Bidgee/Archive4

Category:Templestowe, Victoria

I noticed you recategorised my uploads from last week. Thanks for that, had been meaning to get around to doing so. Would you please also put Major Charles Newman gravestone.jpg (Major John Charles Newman gravestone) and Media:Read family milking shed.JPG (Reed family milking shed) up for renaming? Ottre (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Failed flickrbot upload

I saw your complaint about the flickrbot's failure to upload your image: Image:VC10, Sydney Airport 1969.jpg What you could do is hit the Ypu can You can 'upload it' link at the top of the page and download the picture with the same image title here from flickr: VC10, Sydney Airport 1969.jpg and same license, etc, all over again. Flickrbot is not perfect and failed to correctly review three images of mine which had the right license. So I had to reupload the image and 'override' the existing file with the same name. The second time, flickr review worked and the image appeared. This was a 'suggestion' made to me by an Admin. Anyway, just an idea. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Australian_Anarchist_Centenary_poster.jpg

Bidgee, I understand you proposed this photo of mine of a poster for deletion on 4 September. Unfortunately I was only notified by email of your notification on my commons talk page on Sept 13. I do most of my contribs on Wikipedia and seldom visit my commons talk page. I would have contested such deletion on the grounds that a similar scan of the poster has been on public display and continual access via the internet at the Internet Public Library site of the Labadie Collection for several years at this site. If there is some guideline forbidding photos of posters which have or continue to be publicly displayed, can you detail or direct me to it please. Thanks--Tirin (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this picture.

I would like to nominate your photo "Image:Cb-with-Pileus.jpg" for commons:Quality images or commons:Valued images. However, at full size it looks a little bit grainy; do you have an even better copy that you might be able to upload to Commons that I can nominate as a commons:quality image? In the alternative, if you would prefer that it be nominated for commons:Valued images, can you please geocode it? Thanks. 69.140.152.55 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to check that I have it on disk if not it's since been lost (Hard Drive died a few weeks ago). I can't check until Thursday since I'm rather busy ATM. Bidgee (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want I could try and find a larger res of Image:Cumulonimbus cloud.jpg. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That one is good too; feel free to self-nominate. But if I were to nominate, it would be the Cb-with-Pileus.jpg image. 69.140.152.55 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeap !

• I answered you here. That's the idea. How it will look like will be the fruit of the wiki system. ;) Yug (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Flickr review

Good day. As a result of your request at Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers, I have added you to the reviewers list. Please see the instructions at Commons:Flickr images/reviewers and add {{User trusted}} to your userpage. You can ask me if you need any help. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 09:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Eric Weissel Oval‎.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Weak support The overall lightning is rather unfortunate, it would have been more interesting if the photo had been taken at another time of day where the tribune was less in shadow. Also, there are some distracting branches in the foreground to the lower right which partially obstructs the view of the stadium. So the critrion about illustrating the scope well is a somewhat weak spot, but other criteria are certainly met. And now I have read about an abandoned rugby stadium in Wagga, Wagga. Interesting. Odss are i would never have done that if i had not reveiwed your image. I like the whole mood of decay and abondonedness in the photo, by the way, but that is just a fringe benefit from reviewing it. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I am spoiling you, I added heading information to the photo. Normally, I would have asked you to do it.-- Slaunger (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Best time of the day (Unless I wait for Summer when the sun moves further south so I can get a morning shot but then there is the risk of the oval being developed) at the time as in the morning and midday the sun would be shining into the camera :(. Best place I could get the photo due to a fence being in my way, as I would have liked to take the image away from that flowering plum tree. I've been thinking about a week or so the pros and cons before listing and have tried the morning and midday shots but didn't work out as well as this one. BTW thanks for adding the heading, Never knew about it until now! :) Bidgee (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    (ec) OK, It seems like you have actually given both the lightning and position some consideration. It seemed a little random, but I trust you have actualy done it as well as possible within reasonable limits. It was interesting to see on the map that it is in the middle of a town. From looking at the photo one gets the impression of being in a very deserted area. Seems like it is one of the last chances to get an opportunity to photograph this stadium. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion requests

No objections - a bit embarassing for me of course, but I guess a good thing really that someone with your expertise has now taken a look at all my image uploads. I've added a comment in the relevant space on all but one of the images. (Re: Tasman Bridge cars - I need to think back to what my rationale was at the time! I've seen your reply to my comment on the speedydelete. I've also edited the problem images out of the corresponding articles. Can I remove the posts on my Commons talk page now that I've aknowledged the problems, or is it more appropriate to archive the page? Cheers. Glen Dillon (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Help:Mass nominations

Please do mass DRs when nominating more than a handful of images for the same reason, especially when they're by the same user. Keeping things together makes everyone's life easier.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Holden Commodore (Unknown model)

If you want to, Image:Holden Commodore (Unknown model).jpg can be re-uploaded as Image:1978-1980 Holden VB Commodore SLE sedan 01.jpg. The car is in fact a VB with a VC grille, hence the double badging up front. Cheers OSX (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Australia_(Movie).jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Australia_(Movie).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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

66.31.42.26 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I voted keep with you on this one, but it's going to be very hard to get others to agree with you, simply because of the way Australia's FOP law reads. I encourage you not to leave the project over this little matter. Fight it at COM:UDEL if you want, but don't be discouraged by one deletion. Remember, Commons has very strict rules and must apply them a little harshly sometimes, even on our most valued contributors. (I will support your undeletion request if you make it). -Nard the Bard 01:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bills troughs

Great find! I have a little plan to find images of these troughs where I can. Good to see we have a start. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I (sort of) got another one at Image:AvenelHarvestHomeHotel.JPG. It's way over to the left, behind the chair and table and you can (only just) make out the top. Don't think it quite counts. :-) -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And another! Image:MarongHotel.JPG! -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Scope change at VI

Scope has been changed on Commons:Valued image candidates/Magpie chasing Brown Goshawk (Immature).jpg, you will need to revote if you still support it. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Plane on a stick

Glider on a stick?

A much better description! I have a friend of mine who calls the glider at Tocumwal the "plane on a stick" and it sort of stuck! Cheers, Mattinbgn/^talk 10:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

SVG

I just noticed your upload of Image:Australian Alphanumeric State Route B324.svg. I'm wondering what program you use? Bidgee (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I use Inkscape. Its quite good and opensource. I was going to do all of the png files to svg. Is that allright? Amada44 (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Scouts

I can't help with that specific building but can give some general information. I was in the Scouts down in Melb when I was much younger and we used to raise money collecting bottles for recycling. As well as a place for people to dump bottles we would do a house to house collection to pick them up on a six month or so basis. It was a reasonable money-spinner for a while.

Not a bad day today, got photos of Narrandera, Matong, Ganmain, Coolamon, Marrar, Collingullie, Lockhart and Boree Creek as well as two Bills troughs at Urana and Oaklands. A bit of driving but ... Cheers, Mattinbgn/^talk 09:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad little push uphill! I bet your legs felt it. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 11:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rail categories

Hi Bidgee, I noticed you reverted a couple of my edits on rail stations in Sydney and New South Wales. Because the CityRail network covers about 6 or 7 different "cities" (and some technically aren't in any "city" at all) and the distinction between them is a bit arbitrary we made the decision to put all CityRail stations in the "Train stations in Sydney" category and all the rest in the "Train stations in New South Wales" category which came along later on. This is also done at the large CityRail list on Wikipedia. I know it's incorrect to say that the Goulburn railway station is in Sydney, but that's the only way to do it without drawing up what station belongs in which city, etc - and the network is BASED out of Sydney anyway. I have an idea and that is to put all those photos back into the New South Wales category, and perhaps the ones that are there now (the non-CityRail ones) can go in a "Country train stations in New South Wales" category to distinguish them. JROBBO (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you so rude that you can't even bother replying to my message? Why cant you at least acknowledge that I wrote to you? In good faith I write on your talk page in response to your edits and make a valid suggestion for change, yet you just undo my edit anyway and proceed with whatever you like. You cannot leave the categories like that. It no longer accords with Wikipedia anyway (e.g. List of Sydney railway stations) and the Commons category still includes stations from the Central Coast, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle, Maitland, Wollongong, Shoalhaven cities and various other LGAs). We need to do it properly and move them all or leave it the way it was. Your choice. JROBBO (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WOW! Thanks for not assuming good faith. I never seen the new message bar until now! I had a thought and the only way to see whether it would work or not was to try it. I rushed it as I only came home from work and I've just had a few hours rest after working in the heat all day. I suggest that next time that it's possible that the person hasn't seen your comment. The way I'm now going to do it is to suit w:Category:Regional railway stations in New South Wales (Disused and Sydney categories will stay in the NSW train station category). Bidgee (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I'm sorry and I accept your apology. I assumed because you had not replied that you were ignoring my comments. Your solution is fine, but I think needs to distinguish Sydney, regional (CityRail) and country (non-CityRail). Disused is also good. Sorry and thank you. JROBBO (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Which was an idea I was working on but the idea (which flopped but I just didn't know how it would go until I tried it) just didn't look right. Problem also is that some stations (City and Regional are both CityRail and CountryLink which makes this even more fun!). I'm off (Got to be up in 5 hours time and will not be back on here until sometime in the afternoon/everning) Bidgee (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

St Michael's Cathedral

Great photos, but.... I've just transferred this description from the page of your upload of a pic of St Michael's. It's really hard to know what to say!

St Michael's Cathedral (Built in 1859) is one of 4 Gothic sandstone churches built in New South Wales and one of the last to be built in Australia

• Gothic. They are "Gothic Revival". "Gothic" suggests that they are truly Medieval.
• Built in 1859! It was begun in 1885. It was modified for use as a cathedral in the 1920s.
• One of 4 Gothic sandstone churches built in New South Wales? It is one hundreds of Gothic Revival sandstone churches in NSW. Edmund Blacket built more than 80 Gothic Revival churches, and they are nearly all sandstone. Every country town has at least one sandstone church and sometimes three.
• One of the last to be built in Australia? St Mary's Cathedral was still building well into the 20th century and got its twin spires in 2000.

Where on earth did you get this information from? Does the information that it is one of only 4 sandstone Gothic (Revival) churches pertain specifically to Roman Catholic churches, by any chance? Roman Catholic churches do tend to be brick. Even so, 4 seems a very small number. I can think of four of the top of my head.... No, there one at Hunter's Hill, that makes five, so it isn't right either way.... Mandy (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI this information is from the NSW Heritage Office. Bidgee (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee, that isn't nice! You didn't get that date from the Heritage Office. You didn't get "one in four churches from the Heritage Office. If you are going to cite the NSW Heritage Office as your source, then please quote them correctly.

• There is a very big difference between being one of four sandstone Victorian Gothic Cathedrals, and being one of four sandstone Victorian Gothic churches.
• Secondly, you omitted the word "Victorian" from the description. This is not such a big deal in Australia, But if you were talking about a church in England, then you need to be explicit about Gothic and Victorian Gothic.
• Thirdly, regardless of the fact that the NSW Heritage Office often uses "Victorian Gothic", the term "Gothic Revival" is the one more widely used. The use of the word "Victorian" causes confusion in Australia. A book on "Victorian Architecture" can mean two entirely different things. For these reasons, it's better to refer to it as Gothic Revival. If you are in doubt about this, look up "Victorian Gothic"[1] and "Gothic Revival"[2]
• Lastly, as an architectural historian, (who has written "statements of significance" for the Heritage Office) I'm always really hesitant about making claims like "one of four" anythings. For a start, it's pointless. Secondly, it's dependent upon a lot of "ifs" and "buts". Thirdly, it can disguise matters of real significance.

People who are not familiar with a subject often search for a numeric fact to guage significance. (tallest, oldest etc etc) The fact that this church is one of four sandstone cathedrals in New South Wales is not really any big deal.

The reason that this is unimportant and even confusing is that it is only one of four, if you are prepared to classify the building architecturally speaking as a cathedral. And we know it was built as a church, not as a cathedral. To put this more simply, this cathedral is really a large handsome parish church that is now used as a cathedral.

Now, if we are going to talk about what the building does, then you must count every sandstone church that functions as a cathedral. Under these circumstances, St Michael's is in fact one of seven that I can think of, off the top of my head. So, you see, being one of four sandstone cathedrals is a doubtful claim to fame.

What I am saying here is, I am sure that the the Cathedral of St. Michael Archangel at Wagga Wagga has claim to fame for its own unique character and special features. I personally do not know what they are. But being one of four sandstone cathedrals is not one of them. If I ever get an invitation to Wagga Wagga, I'll take a look.

For a start, I'd like to know what the changes were that were made in the 1920's. Can you find out and let me know?

Mandy (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you're stating to piss me off. The date I entered was a typo (Since I was going to have about when the original St Michael's Church was established but I ended up leaving it out but taking out the wrong date) that I didn't notice until I started doing more research. NSW Heritage has a sign in place at St Michael's but since it has copyrighted stuff on it I can't upload it to commons to cite it. Australian Heritage has Victorian Gothic so I've used that so don't blame me for something said by reliable third partys, Also you saying there are seven Sandstone Gothic churches is your Original Reseach were as I've gone into a lot of trouble finding information on this church and if you don't like the information then take it up with Australian Heritage and NSW Heritage and not me as I can't do anything to change what they have said.

I'm also finding your above comment sounding a little arrogant and if you can't keep a friendly tone then keep off this talk page and away from any of my images. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning sandstone churches, there are several hundred of them in New South Wales.

What I told you is not "Original Research". It is factual information. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney is very large, and consequently has created several regional cathedrals, two of which are large sandstone churches, and the other just a small church in Wollongong. Like St Michael's Wagga Wagga, these three churches were not designed as cathedrals.

You may not be aware of the fact that traditionally Gothic-style (including Gothic revival) cathedrals have a somewhat different appearance to large parish churches. St Andrew's Sydney, for example, is the size of a large English parish church. But no-one would ever mistake it for a parish church because it was designed to look like a cathedral.

St Michael's, Wagga Wagga, on the other hand, looks like a large parish church. For this reason, it is wrong to claim, from an architectural point of view, that it is one of New South Wales' four sandstone cathedrals. If that claim is going to be made, then it can only be made from a point of function, and then we must also include the other "parish church cathedrals" that also have that function. That adds up to seven.

With regards to the Heritage Office, they need to stop being so insular when it comes to using terms like "Victorian Gothic". I certainly don't blame you for quoting the expression. However, if you are going to quote them at all, then you must do it accurately, because the same errors - the date, the use of the word "church" instead of "cathedral", and the lack of identifying that the building was in Wagga Wagga were in the caption of three different photographs. That's your problem, not theirs.

And because this is wikipedia, anyone who adds anything simply has to be able to handle the fact that someone will challenge the validity of the statements and demand citation, correct the spelling and grammar, and is perfectly entitled to take it up with you. And they do, all the time. I have just had someone identified only by number who found three errors of syntax in just one sentence! Believe me, it's preferable to have a boffin demanding citation or correcting ones grammar, than some idiot vandalising the articles you write, day after day after day.

I am the person who has written many of the major architectural articles on wikipedia: Romanesque architecture, Gothic architecture, Renaissance architecture etc. You might like to take a look at Cathedral architecture of Western Europe[3], Architecture of the Medieval cathedrals of England[4], Poor Man's Bible[5] and British and Irish stained glass (1811-1918)[6].

Mandy (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anas superciliosa family.jpg

I disagree with your identification; it looks very much like a pair of adult en:Chenonetta jubata with young (grey plumage and distinctive beak). 192.43.227.18 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anas superciliosa family 1.jpg further re-inforces my thoughts on this; the mottling on the female is a lot more visible in that image. 192.43.227.18 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that. Went past the same family today and you're correct. Bidgee (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the comment on my talk page. Giggy (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures location

Hi there, actually all images (Scania/Volvo) were taken in South Australia. Have a fun Panoha (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Aurora Stadium map.png

I don't suppose you have a scale that could be added to this? :) SGGH (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please comment

Hi, you recently nominated some photos for deletion. The original uploader asserted there that his photos are from his personal album. I know the subject of the photos, and am quite sure that the uploader is a family member of the subject(s) of the photos. He has also emailed me with his full name and address, and if necessary he is willing to show further proof of the photos being from his album. Can you please comment on this at the del nom page? Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Gulf of Carpentaria Tropical Low.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Gulf of Carpentaria Tropical Low.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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Joan97 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)