User talk:Bidgee

Archive 2006 March - July August - December 2007 January - December 2008 January - April May - July August - October November - December 2009 January - February March - April May - June July - September October - December 2010 January - February March - April May - June July - September October - December 2011 January - February March - April May - June July - September

Our

92 ip number friend seemed to be having a bit of a free run there for a while, sigh : ( SatuSuro 10:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It happens, I've seen IP's vandalise Wikipedia for a day or more and still have the vandalism in the articles and not warned or blocked. I only noticed it while researching DSLR's as my K100D has almost past its used by date and is starting to show it, looking at getting a Canon EOS 60D but looking at some Nikon's as well. Would have to stay with the K series Pentax as my current lens would fit them however I'm looking at DSLR's with the external mic jack. Bidgee (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding You placed a warning on User:FaktneviM's talkpage in response to his/her actions and are, therefore, peripherally involved. The thread is Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM. Thank you. -danjel (talk to me) 11:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Skywest ATR 72 image

G'day Bidgee, just wondering what your thoughts are regarding this image. It appears to have been scanned judging by the metadata and I was wondering if it might be a copyvio. For it to be an own work, as far as I can tell the uploader has to be either a Skywest employee over in Toulouse or an employee of ATR, and had to have taken the photo him/herself using a film camera and then scanned the print or negative - which of course is not outside the realms of possibility. I'd put a message on his/her Talk page, but s/he has made no other edits since the day s/he uploaded the image. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sent an email since I've found information which could be classed as outing. Bidgee (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Been meaning to send you a reply but been a little busy. I got in contact with them and they have stated that the uploader is the holder of the copyright. Bidgee (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Righto, cheers YSSYguy (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Australian Wood Duck

Hello Bidgee:

I saw you reverted Maned Duck back to Australian Wood Duck. FYI, Wikipedia uses the IOC (Internationl Ornithological Congress) bidlist as it's official english names list. (see e.g. Talk:Tasmanian Nativehen#Nomenclature). I realize that conversation was over a hyphen, but Wikipedia is making a concerted effort to use all the names on that list. Local/regional name preferences are not one of the reasons to use a nd alternate name. I am going to revert back to Maned Duck, unless you can find a more compelling argument. Let me know....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, International Ornithological Congress (which isn't the bible) is trying to force the name it wants not what is common (WP:COMMON) within its native country. Sorry but you will have to use the WP:RM per the bird project which states if it is disputed. Fact is Australian Wood Duck is a far more common name then Maned Duck and even the Australian Museum, Canberra Ornithologists Group, University of Queensland, Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association and Centennial Park (Sydney) uses Australian Wood Duck (not a "regional term/name"). Bidgee (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Brigee, thats not it all all. Many of the committees worldwide are trying to find a way communicate commonly about birds. I invite you to go to the Wikiproject Birds discussion page to learn more about why this is taking place.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Gallinula mortierii, the rename request was flawed from both sides and in fact is a no consensus. Parks & Wildlife Tasmania call it Tasmanian Native Hen (which is much likely the correct name, which could be the reason why - is commonly in the name) and they are a reliable authority. The name isn't regional since it is only known to be living in Tasmania in the wild. Unless you get a consensus at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board for Australian related articles since International Ornithological Congress isn't the governing body of bird names in Australia and the fact is WP:COMMON has more weight, not the Bird project. Bidgee (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

and before I go, please keep in mind that Australian English (WP:ENGVAR) which be used for titles and in articles. Bidgee (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

QantasLink

G'day, I can't see what is being changed when I check the diffs of the most recent reverts, he's not re-adding the callsign info that's for sure. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Lockyer, Reaction Section

Dear Bidgee, you deleted my addition of a reaction section and labeled my entry as a copyright violation. Please review the role of media releases because they are not copyright violations.

The use of a "media release" statement is not a copyright violation. In fact, the very same quote I added was found in another reference on the page that was published by a news organization. A researcher can find a public relations statement very easily and it's a targeted search. You can ask, what did this official or that organization have to say about this event. Journalists interpret media releases not as biased, copyrighted statements but as a statement of fact. This same standard would be used in a encyclopedia. Please review your decision. I've asked the community at the Paul Lockyer page to revert your decision. Thank you, and I appreciate your due diligence and attention on this matter.

DobryDamour (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bidgee, I have responded to the additional argument supporting you made by AussieLegend, and I show why both of you have misread and are mistaken about policy. For your part you need to show me the exact policy that using one sentence is ok, but using three sentences is not ok. Regardless of your answer, the original policy was talking about the straight copy of whole articles, which is far greater than what I did by pulling a relevant quote. You should revert the entire reaction section as your edit was overkill.

Dobry (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but quoting copyrighted text is limited (since it is fair-use) to a few words up to a sentence, use of more then one sentence is like using a large copyrighted image. The templated warning states this (but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images). I suggest you start giving me some good faith since your comments here, on your talk page and on the Paul Lockyer talk page is uncivil and bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the link you give me says nothing of the amount of words that can be used, which is what I asked you. We have very different views of what constitutes "extensive." I have asked you to show me the exact word count but you haven't answered. I suggest you review block quotation where Chicago style requires it after 100 words. My original quote was neither a straight copy of the entire release nor was it extensive using this definition in Chicago Style, which was no where near 100 words. Now please show me your facts. Dobry (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of style, I was not being uncivil. I reviewed the problem in the appropriate talk on Paul Lockyer. A bad review doesn't constitute uncivil behavior. The article is developing along one line of thought, Australian, and if you live outside of Australia, then you may have a different perspective. Wikipedia aims to be international and include multiple perspectives! This is in no way meant to be a criticism of the Australian points of view. I am merely criticizing overly prescriptive editing. And I've given you facts and reasons why it was overly prescriptive (not meaning to be uncivil). Dobry (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the climate chart of Adelaide in the Subtropics article?

Why did you remove the climate chart of Adelaide in the Subtropics article? According to the Köppen, John F Griffiths and Glenn Trewartha Climate Classification Systems Adelaide has a subtropical climate (specifically a warm summer Mediterranean climate) - and nor is it a borderline case.

I have seen that an edit war just occured over this, but the IP, despite his vandalistic methods, is correct on this.

To be classified as subtropical, the warmest month must average 22C or warmer according to the Köppen Climate Classification - very important - as Adelaide's average summer temperatures do exceed this and the coldest month must average no less than 0C, and the mimimum temperatures of Adelaide are significantly above freezing. Otherwise you need to use the John F Griffiths or Glenn Trewartha Climate Classifications which require the coldest month to be at least averaging 6C for the John F Griffiths Classification and in the case of the Glenn Trewartha Classification 8 months have to average 10C or warmer. If you can cite any other reason with sources why a Adelaide cannot be placed, especially when there are more than 8 months averaging 10C or better that its average coldest month is not below 6C. And also a semi-arid climate (maximum border 400 mm) and desert climate (maximum border 200 mm) is not solely based on a particular climate range and does occur in subtropical, tropical, continental and polar climate ranges as well. Adelaide's climate is not borderline with the semi-arid climate due to its annual average precipitation of at least 500 mm, despite being irregular and erratic from year to year.

Please definately cite all the sources you find and definately put them on the talk page, why Adelaide is not subtropical and why it should not be put.

Van de Kemp (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)