User talk:Bidgee/Archive2

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Litoria caerulea - Darwin NT.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 I am promoting this cute thing too, to keep the real frog looking at the frog mascot on board the cruise ship in the archives. -- carol 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC), Plus the quality is good. --Dschwen 01:29, 12 June 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:
Hakea salicifolia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info There is no Geocoding as this was taken in my own yard and for privacy reasons I haven't added geocoding as to where it was taken. Bidgee 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment If you would have added geocoding and not have stated that it was your yard in New South Wales, Australia, we would have had no geocoding/privacy deadlock, dont' we ? --Foroa 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Whether if it was my yard or not still would have shown up as a private property on Google maps. Bidgee 15:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment A cluster of geocoded image centered on a point could reveal or confirm the location of an editor's residence. Withholding the location for privacy concerns is explicitly allowed by the geocoding criterion (#5) and it is important to protect our editors. I would like to see a gallery page (with an interwiki link to w:Hakea salicifolia) created for the species per the guidance of COM:TOL. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment New South Wales is huge. There are other ways to circumvent pinpointing your residence and yet providing floristic valuable geo-information: like this or this. Lycaon 06:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Added but it's the maximum geoinfo I will be adding. Bidgee 06:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment That's great, thank you. Lycaon 07:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support It is a good picture of an interesting species and satisfies all six criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with Walter Siegmund. Lycaon 07:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

★ 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:
Evaporation Pan.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so" I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. --MichaelMaggs 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Now all OK. Best in class. --MichaelMaggs 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estuary mouth.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 {{{3}}}

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:
Litoria dahlii.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose Nah, just kidding ;-) Support Meets all criteria, and it is the only photo we have of this species. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Car photos

Hi Bidgee. I noticed that you have been taking some great car photos. I though I was the only user that actually took photographs of non-police cars in Australia. It is great to see that I am not alone. I would encourage you to continue to take photos of both police and "normal" vehicles so we can continue to illustrate Wikipedia articles. My only concern is that you upload photos without knowing the full details of the car. Below are a number of web sources that could make your job much, much easier:

• Red Book: contains detailed model information (including make and models along with model designations like VE and VZ for the Holden Commodore, and BA, BF and FG for the Ford Falcon).
• CarPoint: a used-car site that contains many images, thus making it very easy to indentify models. OSX (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Westpac

What does the last line of THIS page tell you, then? Ingolfson (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Better forum

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#CarolSpears_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

Cool heads eventually prevail. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Northern Territory

Protected for now. What exactly is going on here? Finn Rindahl (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff's - I'm reading up a bit but I must admit I'm a bit confused still. I hope protecting that category is enough for now, as you have seen the overall issue of communication etc. has been discussed by other admins, and I'm not very eager to step into this myself. As SBJohnny writes above, cool heads eventually prevail. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cumulus_clouds_from_the_air1.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Cumulus_clouds_from_the_air1.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!

Bidgee (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to delete a duplicate image, please use {{Duplicate}} or {{Bad name}}. Please ignore this message if it does not apply. Thanks. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Acacia pictures

Hi. Why not make a picture of the whole tree with an inset of flower/leaf detail? That would surely be very valuable? Lycaon (talk) 10:16, 11 August 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:
leaf/flowers of Acacia cardiophylla.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose Sorry but with this image I have better idea how the plant looks like. Why not taking a photo of whole plant? The scope leaf/flowers of Acacia cardiophylla would be more adequate, but too narrow on the other side. --Sfu (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Comment I've tryed this image with the past Valued image candidate but was told still not the best. I can't get a photo of the whole tree but there is two issues. 1 is it would be harder to see what the leaf looks (since it's a very fine and small leaf) like since I would need to move back and 2 is that I can't get a photo of the whole tree due to other trees around it and then the river. In the past I've been told that all I would need to do is have an image that would leaf and flowers for it to be adequate is which what I've done. Bidgee (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Hmm, I think (as write higher) this scope is too narrow — but maybe not — some other opinion? I've got two ideas: you can try make the picture of tree using some panorama software. 2nd idea is to make a set: flowers, leafs, fruits (?), but a picture of whole, or at least some bigger part of the tree would be still usefull. --Sfu (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Comment As I've said it's not possible even taking a photo up close due to other trees and then the river Image:Tempbidgee1.jpg and this would be the best image you can get as a tree Image:Tempbidgee.jpg. I would have got a photo of the whole tree if it was possible but it wasn't. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Can you get to the other side of the river? --Sfu (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Nope as the other side is private property and the bridge (which is about 50 metres max from the tree) is closed and has been for sometime. Bidgee (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Acacia cardiophylla to leaf/flowers of Acacia cardiophylla Bidgee (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support I can accept the narrowed scope as I find it justified in this case. A good image of the whole tree would also be valuable; but it would not show the details of the leaves and flowers shown here. The composition is a little messy, but I still think it is an adequate illustration of the subject and it is the best on Commons when I compare with other images in the species category. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hay images

They are now both been uploaded again. Thanks once again for your help. Cheers, Mattinbgn/^talk 10:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)