User talk:Mattinbgn/Archive 3

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

Congratulations

Congratulations on getting your list completed! You've done better then me! I've got a list about that long thats not complete and has been that way since 2005 :|. I've almost got Ashmont, New South Wales completed but just got a few parks to photograph including one that I went past 4 times (and I forgot to photograph it :S) plus a few more parks, schools ect to photograph then I'll try and start on the Villages. I will be in Leeton (well just outside the town) for about 2 or 3 days so I'll try and get some photographs there as well as the little villages around the town. Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Still about 20 or so images to upload in Category:Mundubbera, Queensland. Leeton is an attractive place so you should be able to get some good photos there. Not so sure about Ashmont(!) but your coverage of Wagga Wagga has been exceptional. Some of the villages are a decent ride away from Wagga so that will keep you fit! I will be out and about in Victoria over the break and will have the camera with me. All the best for Christmas! Cheers, Mattinbgn/talk 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok not bad though. May ride some of the villages but not all of them. Just too hilly and deadly on the Highways! Use to live in Leeton but I'll get someone to drive me around so I don't get lost! :P Bidgee (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Not really busy now but it's a bit late I know but I hope you had a Merry Christmas and hope you have a happy and safe New Year. Bidgee (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep I had a happy Christmas. I did get some photos but not as many as I would've liked as I was busy but I have 2 more images to upload yet but I just got to fix them up. I do plan to head back to Leeton in the next few weeks. Whats your thoughts on the layout for Leeton, New South Wales? Bidgee (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

FOP tag

Hi. Thought you might like an explanation for my addition of a {{FOP}} tag on your picture. If you read through COM:FOP and COM:DW, pictures of statues, etc. are considered violations of the statue designer's copyright in some countries. Pictures of American statues are often deleted because of this. Since your picture is from Australia and Australia permits pictures of statues, you should be fine - I just wanted to add the FOP tag so no one tries to delete it anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks heaps!

for your fantastic additions of categories to some of my cricket pics - it's much appreciated from someone who kind of finds it a bit hard to really get to grips with how to categorise appropriately (plus I was having trouble remembering who was who in many of the shots, sad to say!) - you might be interested in this post too :-) thanks again! Privatemusings (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a blank.

Just noticed this in the Category:Buildings in the Riverina that File:AlburyA didn't upload and upload correctly. Bidgee (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just marked it as {{speedydelete}} with user requested with the diff.. :) Sort of got stuck watching Storm Chasers and now I'm behind on my editing and uploading of my Canberra photos. Bidgee (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Schools in Victoria

I stuffed up. :) Fixed now though. Just doesn't help being tired after the beauty of a storm we got yesterday afternoon. The back and front yard flooded even though I'm on a slight hill and also lost power for a few hours (Close lightning strikes and 115km/h winds does ;) ). The church on Kooringal Road got flooded and the drain/creek that flows past (now flows into) Lake Albert was full (2m deep) and running. I hope you have a happy and safe Australia Day. I'll be in the City (Wagga Wagga) for most of the day. Bidgee (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tottenham

Thanks for the compliments! My better half has family that lives in the town, so while it's pretty out of the way, I figured on my last visit that I might as well take some photos of all the sights in town. Figured it was an obscure topic that nobody else was likely to get to in the near future =). One of these days I'll use the photos to fill out the town article on enwiki, which certainly could use some more love. Lankiveil (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

File:BurrumbuttockGeneralStore1.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


File:NarranderaSturtMemorialSign.JPG

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dcoetzee (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Bill ponsford stance.jpg

The LIFE collection consists of images collected by LIFE magazine that they did not publish (hence, unpublished by them). The rights of those image are now managed by Getty Images. The LIFE link does not prove first publishing. Creation does not equate to publishing neither (the photo might have been kept in some storeroom or box until it appeared in Pollard's book). It would be better to point out an earlier publication that the photo appeared in. Jappalang (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The "magic date" is any time before 1961 (Pollard's book). The publication, however, should not have renewed its copyright in the US (which Pollard had done). I suspect the best bet is to find a 1930s local newspaper that published the photo, but failing that, any Australian book or magazine between 1930 and 1961 that does not appear in either the US Copyrights Office records, or the Copyright Renewal Database are good to go. Note that finding it as a first publication in an uncopyrighted British publication would only result in the same consequence as Pollard's book but for a different reason (see: File:PonsfordCigCard.jpg). Jappalang (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mattingbgn, I have constructed a navigation (in the form of a list) to determine a work's copyright status in the US here. Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Coober Pedy, South Australia

So you're after the files in Category:Coober Pedy, South Australia to be moved to Category:Coober Pedy or is it the otherway round? Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO we should have Category:Place, State as those articles that have been disambiguated just makes it look messy however if there was no disambiguation ever needed for articles I would have just had it just Category:Place but thats just my opinion. Bidgee (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've moved and redirected Category:Coober Pedy, South Australia to Category:Coober Pedy. Bidgee (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Barossa Valley South Australia.jpg

Hello,

I saw that you included this picture in a vineyard category, but where do you see the vines ? Teofilo (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see the lines of vines. I think it's fine but maybe a Aerial view of vineyards category is needed? Bidgee (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I can see lines of something. How can we be sure that these are lines of vines and not another plant ? Why not Category:Lavender fields , for example ? Aren't vines usually tied to stakes ? I can't see the stakes. Is it normal to see green leaves in winter ? Here in Europe, vineyards look like File:Tailledesvignes.jpg in winter. For example here's an example of an Australian vineyard in winter. Teofilo (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, looking carefully at this other picture from the same Flickr account, one can see that the green lines are not the vines, but some plants cultivated between the lines of vines. The picture is a bit fuzzy so it is difficult to guess what sort of plant that might be. Anyway it is OK to categorize this picture as a vineyard. Teofilo (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


File tagging File:MuralFest 06.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:MuralFest 06.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

I know you weren't the uploader of this photo, but you marked it as checked. The uploader doesn't seem to be active anymore. Maybe you can provide your opinion? Thank you Nillerdk (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:CoreenChurch1.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 07:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


File:BerriganPublicSchool1.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


File:2008BerriganCup4.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:OaklandsHouse.JPG

File:OaklandsHouse.JPG is missing its file. I can delete it if you want me to or you can just upload the file. Bidgee (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-uploaded, thanks. It was there, I swear! It is frustrating when Commons loses images. Cheers, Mattinbgn/talk 07:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I've had the odd file go missing but not a real lot you can do about it other then have the file backed-up. Bidgee (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


File:Castlemaine_commercial_building.jpg

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


File:Castlemaine_post_office.jpg

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

4000 and still counting!

You're doing well and not far from 5000 photographs!

The Railway yield sign File:AmphitheatreMainStreet.JPG is rather new! You really don't see them in NSW anymore as it's been replaced with the yellow advisory sign (which also happens to be in that photo) though one road in Wagga still has the old set of yield signs and that is on Bourke/Docker St level crossing, wonder it that they are still there though they have faded over time. Bidgee (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will almost certainly pass 5,000 photographs in the next two weeks. I am on a bit of a trip around the Western District (in Portland as I write) and will be in SA later today. Picking up images of lots of towns not previously covered by Commons (and plenty of Bills horse troughs as well). -- Mattinbgn/talk 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! AvocaSoldiersMemorial.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good composition of the memorial. The colours come out well. Sky's slightly over powering IMO. --Jolly Janner 01:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! PortVincentAnglicanChurch.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good and useful. --Cayambe 10:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Thanks for adding the categories - I'll try and remember to check for "... in art" in the future. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! EdithburghPostOffice.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments With acceptable chromatic aberration, QI to me. --Cayambe 20:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

File:OwenWarMemorial.JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 02:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! HeywoodRomanCatholicChurch.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Comment Distracting objects - wires at the upper left and image tilt right. Correction and crop need --George Chernilevsky 12:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks, new version uploaded -- Mattinbgn 11:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Now good. --Iotatau 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User rights

Hi,

Do you want to have patroller or autopatroller as I'll be happy to assigned it to you, as you're trustworthy here on Commons and Wiki? Bidgee (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee. Thanks for the kind words. Happy to have either permission. I guess I had better look at what they actually do now! Cheers, Mattinbgn/talk 08:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Autopatrolled would actually be pretty handy and I am happy enough to mark some files as "patrolled" from time to time. Thanks! -- Mattinbgn/talk 09:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You're now a patroller (meaning your edits are marked a patrolled and you can patrol other editors edits), no doubt there will be back log of edits that need patrolling! Autopatroller is a step down (IE: only your edits are marked as patrolled). :) Bidgee (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Also see Commons:Counter Vandalism Unit (has a list of the edits that need patrolling) and Commons:Patrol (some info). Bidgee (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Very slowly

With my back to the door, both guns muzzled and turned off, and heat seeking devices disarmed (thats what an en rfa needs), I am here in that mode - I am looking forward to use each strand of the new mop separately and slowly does it, first the recconiassance is taking it very easily, just viewing the territory, and at the right time with the right strand of the mop fluttering in the breeze or dragging in the mud (whichever), it will happen ... :) - oh btw - thanks SatuSuro (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattinbgn/Archive_3&oldid=609313610"