Revision as of 04:45, 1 September 2019 editBidgee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,550 edits Undid revision 913454432 by Andrewgprout (talk) Bad faith trollingTag: Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:47, 1 September 2019 edit undoAndrewgprout (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,657 edits Warning: Three-revert rule on Shellharbour Airport. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC) | Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC) | ||
== September 2019 == | |||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}''Perhaps you are not right all the time - it would be nice if you discussed the issue not simply revert.''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 04:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:47, 1 September 2019
Template:Archive box collapsible
Murrumbidgee River railway bridge, Narrandera
Hi, Bidgee! Given you are sort-of local to this area, I was wondering if you might be able to help me sort out a situation involving a former railway bridge. We have the article Murrumbidgee River railway bridge, Narrandera which was based on a NSW State Heritage Register entry with this photo. Over on Commons, there is a category commons:Category:Narrandera railway bridge but I am unsure if these Commons photos are really of the bridge in the Misplaced Pages article. Both claim to be railway bridges in Narrandera on the Tocumwal line, but visually they look too different to me to be the same bridge. Indeed, I am not even sure that the 3 photos in the commons category are actually of the same bridge. So I thought maybe you might have local knowledge than can resolve the matter. Thanks Kerry (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Kerry Raymond: Not the bridge but it is connected to the bridge, it is the viaduct that runs south of the river bridge which is constructed over the flood plain in Gillenbah. Section of it was removed over Sturt Highway to allow for "tall" vehicles. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Tutorial 4 - Week 6 (11-1 pm)
The demonstration during the lesson was very useful and I was able to apply it. Things I have gained from the demonstration:--Olesmod2019 (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- -good understanding on Misplaced Pages formatting
- -good understanding on how a Misplaced Pages page should look like
Lamington photos
I see you are updating the lamington photo. Do you want me to do this using AutoWikiBrowser once I am home (in the airport waiting for my flight ATM). there are thousands of them because of its use in the welcome template so I think it needs some semi-automated horsepower behind the task. Kerry (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Might be quicker than the bot move request on Commons! :/ If you could do that, it would be much appreciated! Bidgee (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've done the ones with user names but I haven't done the ones with IP addresses. There's about 600 of them and I wonder if it is worth bothering with them. Kerry (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- All done now. Kerry (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've done the ones with user names but I haven't done the ones with IP addresses. There's about 600 of them and I wonder if it is worth bothering with them. Kerry (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Fonterra logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Fonterra logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Sydney Airport logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Sydney Airport logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Nine2009.png
Thanks for uploading File:Nine2009.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Great Southern Rail (Aust) logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Great Southern Rail (Aust) logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hotel Hollywood
Hey Bidgee, can you take a look at my user page. I need some help. I created an article on the iconic Hotel Hollywood. Now I made a mistake and posted a draft with the name Hollywood Hotel, within hours the submission was declined due to too many issues with tonality, reading like an advertisement and not enough independent sources, I am a bit gobsmacked to be honest (somewhat offended). Anyway I need to delete that page with the wrong title and I have published the new one for review. I just want someone else to look at it as I cannot see how it reads as an advert. Significant is that the publican died last week and she was a sydney icon. https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Hotel_Hollywood pretty please --Carrolquadrio (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Carrolquadrio: I think change the article name from the hotel to Draft:Doris Goddard and the change the lead/introduction text to focused more on Doris, as the article currently largely focuses on Doris and have a subsection on the hotel. Not seeing any "advertisement issues" and "not enough independent sources" is a typical flag some people fly when they don't like an article. The building itself is listed on the City of Sydney Local Environmental Plan (There is a little information on Office of Environment & Heritage). Bidgee (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I thought about making the Doris page and then changed tactic but I agree. Do you think it is worthwhile making two seperate articles as Hotel Hollywood is notable enough in it's own right (architecture, history, not to mention its niche clientele ). Hope you are well. thanks.Sending a beer :) --Carrolquadrio (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- No problem, I've made some fixes and also added a photo of the hotel. I'll try and watch what happens though a little busy with CSU, WMAU AGM and my trip next week. Bidgee (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I thought about making the Doris page and then changed tactic but I agree. Do you think it is worthwhile making two seperate articles as Hotel Hollywood is notable enough in it's own right (architecture, history, not to mention its niche clientele ). Hope you are well. thanks.Sending a beer :) --Carrolquadrio (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Southern Cross Austereo logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Southern Cross Austereo logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
September 2019
Your recent editing history at Shellharbour Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Perhaps you are not right all the time - it would be nice if you discussed the issue not simply revert. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)