User talk:Bidgee/Archive3

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)

Mediation?

Hello, Bidgee. Please see here: I'd like to put an end to this conflict, and I'm willing to mediate any disputes you still have with Carol. It's no fun to have to block people when they are doing good contributions, and I'd prefer to use that as a last resort. Could you please ponder about it? You don't have to reply immediatly. Patrícia ^msg 16:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I see it that you will be bias. You've got past history with Carol (You have no history with myself) therefore I will not accept mediation. Bidgee (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry you think I have some "history" because I had one (one) exchange of ideas with Carol, and that I will be biased based on that, and the total absence of history with you. I cannot force mediation. May I suggest next time you remove comments from your talk page, to please not tell people to f* off in edit summaries? Thank you. Patrícia ^msg 17:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How many times to I have to tell her that she's no longer welcome to comment on my talk page with harassing and disruptive comments? Bidgee (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert this time, the mediation part would be a good idea. Please reconsider it. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to reconsider. This proves the bias ":I'm afraid he's not very much in a mood for mediation," Infact I stated that I'm not going to mediate with someone who I clearly see is one sided. I also dislike POV-pushing/trying to force someone to change their mind and that's what you're doing now. Bidgee (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No I'm trying to get both of you to discuss the issue. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried in the past and failed to do so myself and I will not mediate with bias Admin's. Bidgee (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This proves the bias - doesn't prove anything, since Patricia wrote that after you refused her help. Commons admins would like to see this situation resolved, and the only bias we have is toward the project. Bastique ^demandez 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not bias? Read the comment, I didn't say I was not in the mood I refused mediation with PatríciaR for the above reason. Look, Carol is the one who needs to sort herself out since I did a vaild tagging on categories then she insults me on my talk page after being told not to use my talk page as a place to insult and harass me then disrupted the community by attacking me in 4 categories. I've done vaild things in the past and what did she do? attack me. Bidgee (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)