User talk:Adam.J.W.C./Archive 4

AC/DC
The album has been officially confirmed today at http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=19 so we can allow edits that are properly sourced. Cheers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Those edits did look a bit suspect. I'm just glad the album is all official now so we don't have to keep reverting the rumours! Enjoy it :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)



Hi
Can you please check whether this edit to Sydney Harbour Bridge is vandalism or not? Im not an expert and i didn't really pay attention in history class, im sure they spoke about this important event :P Thanks  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure this would have to be looked into and if we can't find a ref or any info on the web then maybe it should be removed. I don't have time at the moment but I could look into this a little later. I am sure there might be some other wikipedians out there who could help. Cheers Adam (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bondi Photo
Adam, I had a good reason for moving your Bondi panorama photo from Bondi, New South Wales to the Bondi Beach, New South Wales because it was a more appropriate for that article. Now it appears in both. Your panorama features Bondi Beach and North Bondi, New South Wales in the foreground. The suburb of Bondi is a separate suburb that is located between the suburbs of Bondi Junction and Bondi Beach. Parts of Bondi can be seen in your panorama but they way up in the background and hardly distinguishable. Perhaps your panorama would be better suited to the Eastern Suburbs article but you should reconsider insisting on leaving it in the Bondi article. J Bar (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though Bondi is in the distance, it is a scenic view of Nth Bondi, Bondi and the beach as well. I will make some enquiries later on about this and then I will consider moving if ness. I actually have a shitload of photos from that area, all panoramas. But not just Bondi from all over sydney, just about nearly every suburb that you can think off, I have been holding back adding them to Wikipedai though. I have already added one pic to the Eastern Suburbs article which you have probably already seen. Adam (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that photo in the Eastern Suburbs article and it is quite appropriate there because it features a number of different suburbs. That's why I think your Bondi panorama would also be more appropriate there, rather than the suburb of Bondi. Have a look in the street directory an dyou will see that your photo includes suburbs that are not Bondi. I didn't delete your photo, I simply moved it to the more appropriate Bondi Beach article. J Bar (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury-Bankstown
I just noticed that you accused me of making edits to the Canterbury-Bankstown article. If you have a look at the previous discussions on the page, you will see that I am dead against this article even being considered as a Sydney region and suggested that it be deleted. Since I have no support from other ediitors, I have conceded that people consider it to be a separate region and have not pushed the issue further. I have made contributions in an effort to keep it standardised with other region articles.

The other editor does have a point though. The article should be about the region. J Bar (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

North Bondi
Adam, Why did you move a photo of the beach at North Bondi to the Bondi Beach article? Why do you think that the North Bondi photo shouldn't be in the North Bondi article? J Bar (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue Mountains
Hi. I hope I've got the right person here, but is it you that's worried about the Blue Mountains article not being a proper geographical coverage of Sydney? I deleted that tag the other day because Sydney isn't part of the Blue Mts, and vice versa, so it seemed to me the tag wasn't relevant to the article. Perhaps we can sort something out here.

Sardaka (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Blues
Hi again. Sorry if I had the wrong person. Who's the bloke who had me on his list?

Sardaka (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

no, I haven't tried that sort of thing. I've always been pretty straight with photography; just pix that are worth looking at, that's what I like. But that stitching business would be good with some of the views in the Blue Mts. Have you seen the view from Govetts Leap at blackheath? Very appropriate for panoramas, also view from Echo point.

have you been there lately? I went to Bullaburra the other day to get shots for the article, and I'll do more of that sort of thing from now on. I like the mountains.

Can your camera do black and white etc? I found that my camera has modes for doing b/w and sepia, which is nice, especially since I prefer b/w when it comes to prints. Have decided to get back into the arty farty stuff, and b/w is better for that. More subtle.

Sardaka (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Was it Ottre who had me on his list? merbabu told me it was him who kept putting the tag on the BMs article.

Portal Bankstown
FYI in case you havent noticed Australian Wikipedians' notice board Gnangarra 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you want to promote the portal you've done a lot of work on, but portal links belong at the bottom of articles (as it says here), and only in relevant articles. Somno (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You've put a lot of hard work into this portal, that I won't deny. Problem is, this hard work is only being performed once the threat of deletion rears its' ugly head once again. If the portal is maintained on a regular basis, and the information is kept fresh, the portal is safe my from deletion button. Should it go stale, I'll delete it. As was once said previously, if it's eventually deleted, you've only got yourself to blame. -- Longhair\talk 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your photo
I just thought I'd let you know that one of you pics is being used as the main picture on the City of Bankstown Portal. Check it out bro. Adam (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. J Bar (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Blues
Govetts Leap is the best view in the mountains, just made for panoramas. It's about 3 ks outside Blackheath.

Sardaka (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Urban exp photos on commens
I responded at my talk page. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Govetts
Govetts Leap isn't the same as Evans Lookout, it's much better. It faces east, looking right down the valley. Real Grand Canyon stuff. Check it out. I was in Blaxland today, getting shots for the Blaxland article.

The trouble with that shot you showed me isn't the shadow, it's the railing. try and keep that sort of thing out of the shots. But with it being hard to put shots into the articles, why not do a gallery at commons and link them to the articles? that's what I do a lot of, because I got rapped over the knuckles once for putting too many shots in an article.

Sardaka (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blues
I go by public transport, so travel doesn't cost much, but I don't do as much anymore. These days I just do trips to towns in the mountains, to get shots for the town articles. I've just been doing Blaxland and Bullaburra. The navigation bar sounds good; it's a matter of weighing up the pros and cons of that versus an article/list. The list has the advantage of enabling people to see all the articles at a glance. We shall see.

Sardaka (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Template
that sounds okay, providing you/we don't mind doing that many copy-and-pastes. I imagine there might be dozens of BMs articles (there seems to be an article on every town, as well as other aspects), so that means dozens of copy-and-pastes. Is that the best way to go (but I admit that what you say about templates sounds pretty good on the whole)? Sardaka (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Template
Thanks. I'll start adding things to it. Are you sure the copy-and-pastes won't be too daunting?

Sardaka (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit stumped by the editing. I added a new list, Valleys, and it didn't show up. Also, how do you do the dot between the brackets:, which is suspended halfway up the line?

Sardaka (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a rough count and there's about 50 BMs articles, so you're looking at 50 cut-and-pastes. And it's not really what I had in mind. What I envisaged was a list so that people can do a search for BMs, go to the disambig. page, click on the link for the list/article, then they have all the articles at their fingertips. I think I'll start work on the article tomorrow, and we can always add templates at our leisure if you really want to do it. They're not mutually exclusive. We can have both.

Sardaka (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue Mountains, New South Wales
The above article is the list. All ready. Only took a couple of hours. There's more than I thought. Over 60 articles.

Sardaka (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Blue Mountains topics
I removed the speedy tag from Template:Blue Mountains topics because it was being transcluded onto many pages such as Mount York, which might have led to Mount York being deleted. It seems like a harmless template. I would suggest keeping it. If you do want to delete it, first remove it from the pages where it is used so that the pages won't display a redlink to the template. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I will remove the template from all the articles later and then try to get the template deleted. I thought the template was a good idea to start off with and then realized that I would only be copying what was already in the category anyway, plus the fact that there was no team work involved with one editor quitting after adding one link into the template. Cheers Adam (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Adam, to me deletion seems a bit hasty. If you think there a problems, why not bring them up on, say, the Blue Mountains talk page first. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was enthusiastic to start off with but when I saw that what I wanted to add to the nav box was also in the categories for the Blue Mountains articles I thought that it might be a waste of time and that others might object to it. Also one of the editors who was going to give me a hand gave up after making one mistake with the template . If others still think that it is worth keeping I will keep adding to the template when I can find some time preferably on weekends. Cheers Adam (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blues again (got dem ol' Blue Mountains blues)
have you noticed how someone keeps moving the list of articles down to the See Also section on the dis page? Apparently they can't see the point of having a list of all the articles. can I perhaps enlist your moral support in this? A consensus might help. I can't understand how people can't see the point of having the list of all the articles.

Sardaka (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ps What was the technical problem with the templates?

NowCommons: Image:Chosen5.JPG
Image:Chosen5.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Chosen5.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Shelley Battery & Blue Mountains Tunnels
I have been able to find out that Shelley Battery was indeed at Shelley Head, Manly. It consisted of 2 x 12 pounder, which were mounted similar to that shown in the picture. It would appear that the observation post and other buildings may have been demolished, however there is a possibility the amenites blocks for the beach may have reutilised these buildings.

Also I have created two articles, Glenbrook Tunnel (1892) and Clarence Tunnel, which have been used as chemical weapon (phosgene and mustard gas) stockpiles during World War II. I saw that you are doing some work up in the Blue Mountains and was wondering whether you could obtain any pics to add to the articles? Regards --Newm30 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tunnels
Hi. I don't know the tunnels off the top of my head. I thought the glenbrook tunnel might be the one at Lapstone, described in Sydney and Blue Mts Bushwalks, but they say it was west of Glenbrook. Will let you know if I can find anything on my maps. Can the bloke who wrote the articles give you a better idea of where they are?

Thanks for telling me about the North Syd. site. Am looking at it.

I see the templates seem to be working. What was the problem with them? I thought I could put them on Siddha Yoga articles, but it would be nice if there weren't any tech probs.

Sardaka (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiswick not Five Dock
I removed your recently uploaded photo to the Five Dock article because it is obviously a photo of Chiswick, not Five Dock. I recognise the ferry wharf and flats which are definitely in Chiswick. Although your photo was a good one and it belongs in the Chiswick article, perhaps it would be better if you uploaded again into Wikimedia Commons with the correct name of the suburb. I'm also concerned about your other recent Five Dock panorama that you added recently. I can't work out where that one is exactly but I suspect it isn't Five Dock either. Was taken from the same vantage point? Can you have a look at the map or street directory to confirm that it is actually Five Dock and not an adjacent suburb? Cheers. J Bar (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Macquarie Park, New South Wales
I know you have a keen personal interest in drains, bunkers and tunnels but do you really think they are landmark structures? Do you think that the photos deserve a prominent position in the suburb articles? If there is some information in the article regarding the historical significance of the structures then I can see merit for inclusion of a photo but otherwise we might end up with a whole lot of photos of non-descript tunnels and drains in every suburb article. Maybe these photos would be better suited to a separate article about these structures for the whole of Sydney rather than in individual suburb articles? J Bar (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When better photos can be found that depict the suburb then these photos should be removed. As the article is not plagued with picture of single houses, pubs and churches like the Surry hills article, the pics should be allowed to remain for the time being. enjoy --Adam (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Adam - what is essentially a Canadian Urban exploration blog is not a site that can properly demonstrate the notability of the Hercules Pillar drain. Do you have a non-UE site that can verify the notability of the drain? - otherwise the image doesn't really seem appropriate for inclusion. There can be notable drains (the Tank Stream comes to mind) this one doesn't have its notability demonstrated sufficiently IMO. (If you are going to reply, please do so here) (Whereabouts in Macquarie Park is the drain, by the way? I've never seen it before). JRG (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I have added the coordinates on the image description page that will lead you to where the drain is in the area. To get to this drain you turn left of Epping Road into Wicks road and follow it all the way down past the freeway overpass. I think that there is an SES office there. After you park you car and find the drain you follow it in a westerly direction for about 100 meters there you will find the drain entrance. From here you will have to follow a pitch black tunnel for about one km. On the way you will have to climb down three sets of ladders and eventually you will come out at the other end where the pillars are located. Here is another example Image:Graffitiests busted in drain.jpg. When I work out how to add coords to the image description page I will add this. Adam (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Copy and past this into google maps -33.783718, 151.137587 or click this -33.78372°N, 151.13759°W  Adam (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Centro
Thanks for the message, I didnt realize that one of the links does not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, i do sincerecly apologize for any inconveniences caused. Thank You! Sheepunderscore (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion
I got that image you may or may not recall undeleted after finding appropriate policy. See commons:COM:CB in case it ever effects one of your contributions. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Photo Question
Thanks for the link you provided, I tried it but I couldn't get it to work. Any tips?

Cheers,

--Loy Wong (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Harbour
I'm not sure what this edit was about. Did you mean to leave that on someone else's talk page? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The message that was left on your talk page was automated. When I put the deletion notice on a couple of pages that were recently redirect the message was placed automatically on you talk page. The page that you may have moved was Sydney Harbour anti-submarine boom net and article that I wrote.


 * 1) (Deletion log); 21:00 . . Ckatz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Anti-submarine boom net (Sydney Harbour WWII)" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
 * 2) (Deletion log); 20:58 . . Ckatz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Anti-submarine boom net (Sydney Harbour WWII)" (R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link, or misnomer: db-redirtypo)
 * 3) (diff) (hist) . . Sydney Opera House‎; 20:47 . . (0) . . 58.173.123.254 (Talk)
 * 4) (Deletion log); 20:43 . . Ckatz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sydney Harbour anti-submarine boom" (R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link, or misnomer: db-redirtypo)
 * _&#124;&#124;_Adam (talk)

Template:Wide image-2
Hi Adam. A little over a year ago you created Wide image-2, but it doesn't appear to have any documentation, nor is it used anywhere. Is it required for anything? Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I plan on using it from time to time. I created that version because I did not like the present one --Adam (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Was there something specific you didn't like about it? How do they differ? Jayjg (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't like the thumbnail frame around the wide image. I wanted the older style wide image template without it.

I thought that it would be better to have my own than have to debate on the talk page about making changes to the original w-i-template--Adam (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be better controlled with a parameter on the original template? Jayjg (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Watsons
Can't see why pix of houses don't belong in the article if they're heritage. At the moment there are too many pix of beaches. Also, 2 of the Gap. Is it worth having 2? Anyway, I can delete 2 of my pix, eg the boats in the water, and the little memorial to the soldier, to make way for heritage buildings. Like I said, it's not just a matter of wanting to use my own shots.

Sardaka (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Watsons agin
I suppose we can discuss it forever, but I'll put a few heritage buildings in and we can take it from there. Since this is an encyclopedia, it's better to have shots that are info-based, rather than endless shots of pretty scenery. Got some shots there today of heritage stuff, all of which is supported by the text. Still can't see the need for 2 shots of the gap.

Sardaka (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What did you mean about the apparition at Coogee? Looked at the article but can't see anything. As for Watsons, I'll leave it at the 3 shots I put there yesterday, and do a gallery at commons. Plenty of good subjects out there.

Sardaka (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

images
Can you give an explanation why is the close-up photo of the SHB better or as you say more decent than the photo showing the whole bridge? Do you think that this image shows Big Ben better than this one?

And please stop removing the wide image template. If you dislike it, contest it on Templates for deletion, but until then it's just your personal view that it's not good. You can't remove content based on "I don't like this" especially if this content is valid like widely used templates.--Avala (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The image that you are placing the wide image template on is not not appropriate for that kind of image. The wide image template is for really wide photos that are so wide that you have to scroll across to see the entire photo. That photo on my screen does not scroll across and simply looks like a large thumbnail. Also why would I need to discuss that issue on template for deletion, I am not trying to delete the template but simply remove it from that article. --Adam (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'The images below would be better suited for a wide image template


 * The photo that you are placing in the info box is of poor quality and the Sydney opera house cannot be seen in it. The other photo is much clearer and is used in several other websites internationally. You may find links on the image description page. It is also more pleasing to the eye.--Adam (talk)
 * Who cares about the Opera House in the Sydney Harbour Bridge article if the image doesn't show bridge pylons? It's literally the same as if you tried to use that same image in Sydney Opera House infobox. Why would we use that image there if it's main subject is the bridge? But why would we use it in the bridge article if what is supposed to be the main subject is not shown in full? And "Pleasing to the eye" is just POV.--Avala (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The image you are trying to use is of poor quality and is close to being a redundant image. It doesn't really belong in the article. It is also watermarked and has what looks like a copyright sign in the watermark which could possible mean that this image was uploaded in breach of copyright and could be deleted by admins if this is brought to their attention-Adam (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Call me a stalker! But I happen to agree on avala on this one. Whilst your image does give better context as to the bridges location and more detail as far as it's structure goes, it is cut off and hence not really suitable for the taxobox, which really needs to present the whole subject. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can try again later on with another pic I don't live to far from the subject to take another photo-Adam (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I may have another in my collection-Adam (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See how you go, some of your panos suggest you could go and take a really good picture for the taxobox without too much effort. I'd suggest a relatively narrow panorama in the portrait orientation just to get higher resolution (rather than anything particularly wide). I'm not sure if it is as pretty, but the article is actually lacking a picture taken in the daytime as well, so something at around dusk or dawn might be worth considering. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is much better. Though I think the article should have more contemporary daylight ground photos.--Avala (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Urbex
Hi Adam, your pushing your own image onto an article really doesn't present well. As I've said, I think it is a very good illustration of UE, but it's quite murky and isn't informative at the thumbail size.

Do you think your image could be enhanced to make it more suitable as a lead image? I might be able to find some specialists on that.

And I'll just say again, the quality of the image you've removed is imo quite high - though it doesn't present the subject as well as your own does, if one expands that to full screen and studies it very closely.

And I'd thought you agreed that your own images were well-represented in the article. Is this worth a contretemps? Can they both co-exist? Franamax (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me-Adam (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've put both images at the top, just to see how it looks. I'm also putting on my list a note for next time I talk to the image genii :)
 * Incidentally, while I have no particular expertise in urbex, other than following the exploits of Ninjalicious, I'm well-versed in rurex. I had a pretty rugged car for a while and beat it to pieces exploring every little track (or space beside the chain blocking the track). End result is a bunch of "remember-when?" moments with my long-time friends. :) Franamax (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put up both images in the Talk:Urban exploration page so that everyone can discuss and come to a conclusion on which image would be better or a third/fourth image may be better. Brothejr (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is probably no point because other people are going to vote for the other pic because it looks prettier. You would be better off putting it further down the article-Adam (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparition
Can see what you mean about the apparition. looks like a man wearing robes, but with this one there is no logical explanation, like there was with the Mary visions. Must admit I'm flummoxed. The spiritual explanation would be that a divine presence can manifest at a place where there has been a great expression of devotion, even if what brought them there -- the Mary visions --was bogus. Looks like you've captured a real vision this time, Adam. Worth spreading the word on this one mate.

To more banal matters, what sort of fisheye are you using? The kind that screws onto the front of the lens? I used to have one, but unfortunately traded it in when I went from Pentax to Nikon. Pity. The quality isn't too good, but you can get some interesting shots.

but how banal. how can I talk like this when we have an apparition on our hands?

Sardaka (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would actually advise against using a fisheye. They are absolute crap and ruin photos. I would recommend photo stitching. Have a look at the top four images in the article Middle Head Fortifications. To make those four images I used close to 100 photos. As for that apparitions photo I cannot really explain, I only noticed once I got home. If you have a look through the middle head tunnel pictures you may find one more like it but you need to look closely.-Adam (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MiddleGeorgeshedfort0155.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:MiddleGeorgeshedfort0155.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparitions
Today I went back to Coogee to get some more shots, but unfortunately there are no apparitions in them. Should have known. The cynics would say it's a CGI. What can one say?

I know fisheye attachments are crappy. With my old one, I had to use the smallest aperture to get passable quality, but if I had it now I'd still use it occasionally. Where did you get yours, how much etc? Nikon have brought out a full-frame fisheye for their digitals. Only $1000.

I looked at the fortification pix. Which one has an apparition?

Sardaka (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: My vote on you photo
What is your email address? I'll pop you a RAW :P Noodle snacks (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * here is a raw screenshot. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

List
Ok, I didn't realize my list was on the template. I suppose I can stop adding the list to the see alsos.

What about changing "Blue Mountains topics" to "List of Blue Mountains articles"?

How are you getting on with the templates now? Wasn't there some technical problem at some stage?

Sardaka (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, what about putting a "Miscellaneous" section on the template, with "List of BM articles" in the Misc. section? I'm not sure it's in the right position at the moment, because at first sight it just looks like a heading, not a link.

Sardaka (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hydro Maj looks a lot better since you lightened it. I did it myself once, but couldn't solve the prob of what user name to put to it when I uploaded. Didn't think I could put mine on it, but couldn't put the other blok's on it, got all confused and dropped it. It always need lightening; too much shadow.Sardaka (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Bilal Skaf
Please explain your move of the article Bilal Skaf. The original title is unambiguous and consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Template
thanks. Were you worried about the template I just put on my talk page? That's just for a different template, on another subject, which I will change completely; template for a template, you might say.

the new Watsons shots are good. Where is that old boom winch? Can't place it.

Sardaka (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Watsonsbaybeach.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Watsonsbaybeach.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Forts in Sydney
Hi. Just noticed a few edits of yours here and on commons. You must have a strong interest in forts and bunkers in Sydney :-Adam
 * Hello - thanks for posting all the great photos ! My interest is military history, mainly artillery, and I'm trying to sort out the guns used by the Australian colonies and where they were.. I have photos from the 1800s & 1890s that I'd really like to match up with pictures of the site as it appears today - to me having "then" and "now" pictures brings history back alive.

Example : this photo is from "UPPER CASEMATE BATTERY AT GEORGES HEAD." in 1892 - do you recognise the position ?

regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as I saw it I new exactly what it was. Thanks for showing me this. I have looked for info on the web regarding this battery but have found nothing. Do you have any information on this battery, maybe you could write an article. In this case we would have the before and after photos-Adam (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually snuck in here one night to take the photos. You can imagine what it would have been like at night in this place by yourself in the dark and in the middle of the bush as well.-Adam (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great, many thanks ! I've created a separate version of the photo : clipped it to show the same area as the 1892 photo, equalised, brightened, increased contrast to hightlight the creepy effect :

what do you think ? I'm afraid I don't have any more info about this particular fort yet, I'm just starting my research and it will take a long time... Rcbutcher (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it correct that this gun-room is at Chowder Bay, not Georges Head ? There doesn't seem to be a page for the Chowder Bay fort yet.. The 6-inch gun page where I show the 2 photos is BL 6 inch gun Mk I - VI. regards.. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like like the work you did to this photo. Very creepy indeed. Do you know of any articles where my improved version can go. Also this fort I beleive is on Georges Head where it meets chowder bay. Let me have a look at the google map and I will pin point the exact location of this bunker for you. .        Adam (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay just had a look at the map on google. The fort is not located in Chowder bay it is Georges Heights though.this link will take you directly to the roof of the fort -33.83635°N, 151.26067°W. Also I am not sure if you have been inside this fort but there are three room in it like the one pictured above. The fort would be about two hundred metres in length. Has a long tunnel with small tram line running through it and has many smaller adjoining rooms kind of like bedrooms all the way along.

Also there is another fort next to this one which cannot be seen by satt. I have seen this one myself but from what I have heard it is called the Beehive bunker or Cassemate. This is where some of the interior fortification shots were shot for the making of the movie Stone (film). If you want to see Middle head fortifications and the inside of the Beehive bunker check out the movie stone and as you can see there is a wiki article about as well. Cheers .        Adam (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again Adam, I've updated Georges Head Battery with 3 photos of the same (or one of the 3 similar) gunrooms, with an old gun in 1891, then with a new gun in in 1892, and as it is today - to show the passage of time. What do you thingk ? I have another photo below of the same area in 1893, where they are removing an old gun : can you identify the position ? It would be cool if I could put a similar "then and now" for this position on the page :

And here's another one - do you recognise this position ? regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

right|450px|Picture of Middle head fort TODAY
 * Hi, These are great historical photos. I would say that the second photo is part of the fortification that I have pictured. The positions in my image have elevated slabs of concrete thought where as the historical pic does not, so it must be another gun emplacement further up. With the other at the top I am not sure where this could be but I could look into this further. I think this is middle head with Manly in the Background. I do have a few other photos that could probably match this one. .        Adam (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

“Used at a website” links
Hi. If an image has been published somewhere (at least for mass media), you can mention that using the template Published on its talk page at Commons. --AVRS ( talk ) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That said, it is a bit pointless to list all the places that the images are used. People are interested in the image itself, not that it is published elsewhere. Comes across as self-promotional. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It’s interesting (unless the author publishes them there himself), because it also potentially gives information on who uses Commons as a media source (commons:Category:Commons as a media source), and how the licenses are obeyed or violated. --AVRS (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers .        Adam (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I know for a fact that quite often our Commons images are misused without regard for the licenses, as I am constantly coming across my images in use elsewhere without correct attribution/use, but I don't think that listing them on the image page is the appropriate location for this monitoring as it is beyond the scope of the image page. As I said, the image page is there to provide information on the image itself, not it's use on the internet. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wolli Creek
Adam, I actually moved the photos on the Wolli Creek article to remove some of the gaps that you had created with your cahngest. I'm only trying to make them look better. For example, right now there's a massive gap between the Commercial Area heading and text.

You must have a different set-up on your computer to most people because I've noticed that when you make some changes often other editors go back and change them again because we can see big gaps between the headings and information due to the placement of the photos. Something to consider. Have you tried using any computers in any other locations that have different set-ups to compare the difference? J Bar (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

gaps in articles
Hi Jbar. Can you have a look at this image. It is the wikipage and how I see it on my computor. I use two different computers, one with 19 inch and the 17 inch screen. They are both pretty much the same .        Adam (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * G'Day, Adam.
 * Thanks, this explains a lot now. I can see that it's quite different to the layout on my computer at work, at home and the library. The bottom of the infobox aligns with the bottom line of the Commercial Area text and top of the gallery. With my layout, more text fits in every row. There are only three lines of text in Commercial Area whereas yours has four and a half. I'm not sure what settings are causing this big difference. Maybe we can ask around? J Bar (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Polarisers
I don't know how many photographs along the line of File:Rainforest,bluemountainsNSW.jpg you take, but might I suggest buying a polarising filter? Since your camera would have a relatively small filter diameter it'd be a fairly inexpensive investment. They can make a huge difference to the look of vegetation and the sky. I've attached a vegetation example. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are looking to spend serious money on camera gear, in my opinion skip the 450D and go straight to a second hand 30-40D for similar cost. You could buy a larger diameter polariser and a step down adaptor for your current camera if you want to future proof. You could certainly do some cool stuff with an ultra wide angle and a bounce flash. Speaking of urban exploration I visited my dad's old school in Penang here a few years ago, it was completely overgrown with jungle. I'd also like to visit Prypiat, Ukraine one day, exploring there would be awesome.

Emplacements
Hi, You may have a slight interest in some of the pics I have added to this article cheer.        Adam (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that battery had 6-inch Mk XI guns - I have some photos from the AWM in 1944.. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And this picture of Dummond Battery in the aticle Drummond Battery.        Adam (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great, I've moved the images together and added a link to the gun spec page. Those guns were monsters, could sink virtually anything but battleships. Is there any particular reason why you upload some photos to English Wiki rather than Commons ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a wonderful photo of the Illowra battery...

because the steel gun shield seen is from a Mk XI 6-inch gun from an Australian cruiser that served in WWI : either HMAS Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney. Is it No. 1 or 2 gun position ? Rcbutcher (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pics that you have added to the articles. Great work, much appreciated. --Newm30 (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Kembla fortress
Hi, I think perhaps we could combine the Illowra Battery, Breakwater Battery and Drummond Battery into a single article, Kembla Fortress. They were all part of an integrated system, and each battery only had 2 guns so there isn't really much to say about each individual battery. What do you think ? Rcbutcher (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Hill 60 port kembla nsw6.8.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Hill 60 port kembla nsw6.8.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 01:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Luna Park
Hi Adam. I shuffled two pics around at the Sydney Luna Park article - ie, I made one of yours the lead pic as i though it was better than the current lead pic. I went there the other day myself and took a few (mostly with rellies in them), but there are a few I'd like to load up. I have one of Coney Island that I thought I'd use in place of your night shot of Coney Island (which I thought was a tad overexposed). But, i think the new lead pic is fantastic - well done with the sky. --Merbabu (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats okay, looks good now. I could probably find a spot for the other pic on one of the foreign Wikipedia's. I still think it would have been alright to have a day and a night shot of Coney Island.        Adam (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed you edited your lead pic - for what's it worth, i actually liked your first one - the edit seemed to remove the wow factor from the sky. --Merbabu (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to re-align the image so that the sky and the background had a more natural look, It also looks clearer than what it did. If you have a look at the previous version you will notice that the background scenery is stretched including the moon and the clouds, but if you insist that I change it back I will revert it.        Adam (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its been reverted.        Adam (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gun emplacement middle head monsman.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Gun emplacement middle head monsman.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hill 60 port kembla nsw4.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Hill 60 port kembla nsw4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Signal Hill Battery
Thanks for adding the pics; depressing, but it is what it is. Do you have any above-ground pics? Acad Ronin (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I'm afraid that I have no info re North Head forts. The only reason that I ended up editing some of the forts articles is that I lived in Sydney as a boy many, many decades ago (and haven't been back for over a decade), and I have an interest in things military. So articles that combine Australia and things military catch my eye, and sometimes I get sucked in and end up trying to clean them up, or even build them up a bit using on-line sources. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Steel Point Battery
Hello, please do not move content by cutting & pasting. This destroys page history. Please use "move" tab next to "edit this page" tab (see WP:MOVE). Also, redirects are cheap and harmless. There is no need to delete them if there is any chance that a person might look for the article under the old name. Thanks, Renata (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, normally I would use the move tab but in this case there was an article by the name of Steel Point Battery redirecting to shark Point Battery. I actually created both to start off with, I was simply transferring content from one to another. The subject has two names but the one that I moved the content to was the official name for the fortification..        Adam (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you cannot move a page because a redirect already exists, ask any admin to help you. But copy & paste is a no-no (all kinds of GFDL & copyright issues). Good luck, Renata (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos on websites
Hi, I just thought I would let you know that a whole heap of your photos are being used on this website. They are also attributing you and mention your name on the site. They are using my sand dune pic as well. Check it out.        Adam (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know Adam. That's interesting. I've had a lot of my photos used on other wensites and also have been told that they were used in a university lecture and conference. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyde Park, Sydney
What was wrong with grouping all the historical photos in one galleryunder history and all the rest in another gallery at the end? Don't you think it looks a bit messy now? None of the photos match the sections that they're in. J Bar (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fort Wallace
The coordinates in File:Tank Trap at Fort Wallace.jpg will get you to the southwestern corner of Fort Wallace. 250m north of there is the entrance. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your photos on EN Wikipedia instead of Commons, any special reason ?
Hi, you've uploaded some photos to the English Wikipedia with licence .. any reason why ? I'd like to accumulate all these photos into shared categories on Commons so people can see all the thumbnails together, before & after. But the picture needs a "free" copyright tag. regards. e.g. File:Positioin 2 drummond battery.jpg File:Drummond battery Win television1.jpg Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will transfer the photos later on sometime for you. Cheers.        Adam (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been done.        Adam (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Malabar Battery photos
Hi, I see most of the photos featured on the Malabar Battery page are actually tagged "La Perouse". and are in the Fort Banks category on Commons. Which is correct ? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time of taking the photos I thought the area was La Perouse, then later found out that it was Malabar. So Malabar is the correct location for the images. Cheers.        Adam (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.. I've added the Malabar Battery category and your text from from the gallery to the photos. This is great work, you're photographing the real Australia rather than the sterile crap that passes for architecture in the City. No doubt soon a graffiti-cleaning squade will arive and make it all disappear, or else it will be buried. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Noice...
Now that is a great contribution. --Merbabu (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Its a shame I couldn't have done it with a more expensive camera. Will be doing so soon. Cheers.        Adam (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet, you need to crop it on the right side though (black bar left from pano stitching) and maybe do some perspective correction. You should consider uploading a higher res version. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice on that. I will look into fixing this when I get a chance but what I may also do is wait until I get my new camera possibly this week sometime and go back and try again. I'll have to learn how to use it before I can start taking good photos though. I think I might go for the 40d like you recommended and go for the 24-105 lense perhaps. As for uploading a higher resolution well I actually made it small because the full rez wasn't very clear.        Adam (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, talking about urban exploration, here is my latest tunnel pic at the Middle Head Fortifications on Sydney Harbour. There is about 50 stitched photos in this..        Adam (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the camera, my advice would be, if you have extra money, spend it on the lenses rather than a better camera body. Ie, get say a 400D or 450D with a better lens, rather than a 40D or 50D with cheap lenses. But perhaps someone smarter than me might say something differently. I have the 400D with the kit lenses - about $200 each. A mate has a couple of $2000 dollar lenses (and a 5D), and they are amazing even on my camera. And, I'm thinking of upgrading - i won't trade in the 400D for the newer 450D, rather I'll get a decent lense. It's all in the lenses. --Merbabu (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, i took this with my 2006 Nokia 2MP: --Merbabu (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I might get the 40d with the 24-105 lens that I have noticed some of the other wikipedians use for their fetured photo's. I was qouted $2500 for the 40d with that lens so I may look into that. I was on the verge of buying a 50d with an 18 by 200 lense but I have heard some bad reviews. So the 40d it is.        Adam (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nice shot and atmospheric lighting, although the yellowy green reflections on the water look funny - I guess it is the mix of red clouds and blue sky. That said, it looks like it was taken about the same time/location as I was when in Sydney (Adam and I practically stalked each other it seems). Anyway, the reason I didn't bother taking any great photos of the bridge was the really ugly scaffolding that was up at the time and can be seen in the image. Admittedly it doesn't look too poor in this image owing to the great lighting and small image size, but I wouldn't say it is particularly representative of the bridge given that it only goes up for less than a month each year for the NYE fireworks and detracts from the simplicity of the structure. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually there the week before when the lighting display they had on for new years was still lit up but I couldn't be bothered going down to take the photo's. I was hoping that they would still be on on this occasion but they weren't. Also the orange lights along the harbour might have something to do with the yellowy green reflections on the water as well. I've also been back to Watsons Bay but this time it was to take photos of an underground bunker (Signal Hill Battery) on Old South Head Road. I was only expecting to take photos of the outside gun emplacement because normally the entrance is welded shut but on this occassion when I went there the door was mysteriously open, check it out. Cheers.        Adam (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't change a thing. That's the most beautiful pic of the old coathanger I have ever seen. Rumiton (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment but I would like to take the same photo again with similar lighting but with a better quality camera. When you look at the picture as a thumbnail it looks okay but when you look at the higher resolution version its kind of grainy and a bit over exposed in some areas, like at the bottom of the pylons. I've just bought a cannon 40d with a reasonable lens so when I learn how to use it I'll be going out there again. Cheers.        Adam (talk)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sydneyharbour bridge.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Sydneyharbour bridge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

File:HILL 60 PAN11OR21MA.jpg where exactltly is this ?
HI Adam, I've been trying to place this photo with the gun shield at what you've labelled as Illowra battery. But I can't match it with the other photos of the 2 gun positions : neither show the shield. ?? regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Criminals
I don't think notorious criminals should be given publicity by including them in a template for City of Bankstown. I doubt any criminals would be on such a list for other cities, towns around the world. If they were, I'd say they would have a higher profile than this character. I think the subject is sufficiently covered by the gang rapists topic which provides a link to him also. He isn't a resident of Bankstown now anyway. J Bar (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo deletions
Hi, I have noticed the removal of some of you pics from the Cronulla article. I have reverted this edit to restore the images but when I move back to Sydney in a few weeks time I will be heading down to Cronulla to take some images with a new camera I have recently bought. I hope you won't mind.        Adam (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Adam,
 * You've probably noticed by now that there is a new user (PoorPhotoremovalist) whose sole purpose it seems is to delete photos from Sydney articles and enlarge the size of a few remaining ones. I have explained on their talk page, the reason for keeping photos at standard size and also asked them to reconsider all these deletions. At the very least, the articles need to be linked to commons page and the photos need to be categorised so that they appear on that page. So far, I have had no success in preventing the deletions I see you have tried to revert some of these edits too but it seems that they are continuing. I suspect they may be a sockpuppet but I can't prove it yet.


 * I have no problem with photos being update with better quality prints, so if you have better photos of the same landmarks or new landmarks, then I have no problem seeing them in the articles such as Cronulla. I prefer to see photos of landmarks in the articles than random streetscapes or panoramas that could be any street or location in Sydney and not really indicative of that particular suburb. As far as deletions of old photos go, I just want to make sure that the old photos are still be available in wikimedia commons. This new editor does not seem to care about that. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

yo
Can yo please explain to me why my edits ar bad?

Poorarticleremovalist (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * read the message I left on you userpage.        Adam (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

dude,

no worries i'll just keep on improving the arts.

Poorarticleremovalist (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Article deletions
Adam, Good onya for reverting those acts of vandalism. There's a strong case of 'sock puppetry' between User:Poorarticleremovalist and User:PoorPhotoremovalist and have lodged an investigation Sockpuppet investigations/PoorPhotoremovalist. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Because I left a few message on his user page yesterday (warnings). I have noticed that he has been indefblocked. The name sounds like a vandal name, the kind of name a deletionist[sic] would have. I also warned this user for offending you as well, you may have seen the edit summary .         Adam (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries Adam. Thanks for letting me know. It's quite clear that User:Poorarticleremovalist was a sock puppet of User:767-249ER, who has been harrassing me and a few other editors for a long time after we reverted his attempts at vandalism on many articles. J Bar (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
I just had a look at the conclusions and the sock happened to be: For a while it looked as though the heat was on you but that was proven wrong .        Adam (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * blocked for abusive sockpuppetry.
 * Maybe the one that you mentioned and the above are linked


 * I find it odd that they suspected me of sabotaging all the hard work that I've done on the articles. This turned out to be a bit bizarre. Loy Wong kept asking me for advice on articles and hadn't acted hostile before. I thought it was a bit suss at one stage when I was getting personal questions and he was fishing for information about my other interests, but I just ignored it. Makes a bit of sense now because Loy Wong and 767 had been editing a few articles on airlines and airports. I still think there's another sockpuppet involved, so keep an eye out. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If his IP address is, in fact, 114.76.210.127 - there is a good reason to think that this is part of a major sockpuppetry situation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor AR left a similar edit summary in this edit to what the above ip was doing. Funny because Loy wong was actually doing this to himself, probably to make it look as though it wasn't him doing it.         Adam (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rodd Point
Hi J Bar.

I just noticed your photo of Rodd Point (This one). I noticed the gate under the rock. Do you know what this is and exactly where I can find it. Looks as though it needs to be investigated, maybe. The information on that plaque in the photo might explain. If it is something notable a picture of the plaque could be used as a reference for further info in the article. .        Adam (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have seen something about this on a Sydney blog recently. Apparently it was built as a family mausoleum, for the prominent Rodd family, but the bodies have since been removed. Did you think it might be a tunnel? Here's the link to the page of that blog:
 * Thanks for the lead, I've just checked it out. Maybe there should be a brief mention of this in the article seeing as though you've got the photo of it. We could use the link that you have provided as a reference or even hav just a brief mention in the caption and yes I thought it was either a tomb or some kind of tunnel, like this one that I have photographed. It gets about three-thousand-five-hundred hits a month.        Adam (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that it's a good idea to have that info there but unfortunately I don't think we're allowed to use blogs as references on wikipedia. I started doing that a while ago and other editors told me I couldn't use them and removed them all. I see their point though because anyone can start a blog and write anything the want, so it isn't necessarily a good reference point. J Bar (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ptkembla.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ptkembla.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:2007_0731_1klklk0154.JPG
Hi. Do remember where this track is in Heathcote NP, with the railing along it? I know the park well but don't recognise this spot.

Sardaka ( talk ) 10:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The track is around here -34.0863°N, 151.00177°W. You will have to zoom in on the marker.        Adam (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Possum image
I have already written to you on your Wikimedia talk page &mdash; but I thought that I should write to you here as well.

I notice that you gave the possum image the name of "Rodent1" - and that you gave the classification for the possum as "rodentia" at Wikimedia. These are both misnomers and misleading. The Possum is not a rodent &mdash; the possum is a marsupial.

Could you please change the name of the image to a more suitable and correct one for the possum. I have already changed the classification of the possum image to the correct classification of "marsupialia". Figaro (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look into it soon .        Adam (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please upload your image again under a better name and then tag the old image with . The old image will then eventually be deleted by an administrator. --Quartl ( talk ) 17:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅.        Adam (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is very much appreciated.  All the best. Figaro (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

track
I don't know how to find anything on that business. Can't you just tell me where the track is? Is it outside Heathcote?

Sardaka (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The track is behind the scout hall in Heathcote. To get to the track which is behind scout property you will have to trespass onto their land and walk to the back of the property. With the link that I gave you, it will lead you to the exact spot. You can look at it by satellite or you can look at the actual map with street names. Its on the corner of Boundary and Freeman Roads. .        Adam (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:FirstS0rahKoran.jpg
Hi,

Did you see ? It seems out of scope but more important there is no sources ! Cdlt, V IGNERON * discut. 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi protect
You should ask for you user and talk page to be semi protected so that only logged in users may edit these pages.        Adam (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that the person who is doing this has Psychological problems.        Adam (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adam. You're probably right. I think he must be school student and that's how he gets access to so many different computers and IP addresses. I've been able to make links to quite a few similar edits in the St George Christian School article. He has shown some very christian behaviour on wikipedia. His parents must be so proud. J Bar (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:1.-Nan Tien Temple front.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:1.-Nan Tien Temple front.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of hits
I saw your entry where you said a shot has had about 3500 hits. Can you tell me how to find the hits counter for these things? have never seen it.

Sardaka (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually found out from a message that you left on someones talk page. If you have a look at my userpage there is a link at the top of the article, just click the dickipedia article traffic report. .        Adam (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure if it was the same hits counter; thought you might have found a new one. Looked at Syl Waters, didn't see the address.

Sardaka (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Wikipage2.JPG
A tag has been placed on File:Wikipage2.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image which is not under a free license or in the public domain and it has not been used in any article for more than seven days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Plrk (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Double image template
Hi J Bar. Have you ever come across the double image template, It might be useful in certain areas.[User:Adam.J.W.C.|. Adam]] (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adam. That could come in handy for a few articles. J Bar (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos clearer images
I recently spoke to you about how some older images on wikipedia look blurry compared to when they appear on other websites. I tried something on weekend that is very interesting. I downloaded one of my old photos to my PC then uploaded it back into wikimedia commons file as a new version. The same photo was unbelievably clear now and looked brilliant in the wikipedia article. I have a feeling that something was done to all the files in wikimedia/wikipedia that has made them look blurry. If you upload the same version back into the file it has brilliant resolution again. J Bar (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
Thanks for telling me about the template. Hadn't seen it before. Can anyone use those shots at the war mem. site?

Sardaka (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Canberra
The one in Canberra, which is what the link leads to.

Sardaka (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai
FYI. Abecedare (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A look at other recently delisted articles like Kalimpong should tell you where it stands.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the answer.

Sardaka (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:1.3-Nan_Tien_Temple.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1.3-Nan_Tien_Temple.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey there. I see that you claim to have taken this photograph. Would it be possible for you to release it under a free license (like Creative Commons) that would allow you to retain the attribution but allow Wikipedia and those using it to use the image freely? If not it may have to be deleted. Thanks for your understanding. GARDEN  15:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The same goes for many of your other images. Are you sure these are yours?   GARDEN  15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Images with issues

 * File:Smiths hill fort 1.jpg
 * File:1.4-Nan Tien Temple.jpg
 * File:Breakwater battery1.5.jpg
 * File:Anti sub boom net sydney harbour.jpg
 * File:1 c-iron cove-balmain1, new south wales.jpg
 * File:Middleheadfort...jpg
 * File:Public_plaque_breadwater_battery.JPG
 * File:Public plaque breakwaterbattery.JPG
 * To the above who didn't sign. I will fix the all these of the next couple of days.        Adam (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you bring these images to the collective attention, can I ask why you have licenced them as non-free fair use? I can't see what justifies it... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a rather unorthodox way of doing things, but Adam generally has the right to remove comments from his talk page. The assumption is that he has read the message. Posting it again with reference to his parentage is not the best way to conduct our business. Franamax (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we all have the right to make changes as we see fit. It's just that there are consequences for our actions. :-) But really, he doesn't have the right to remove comments from his talk page any more than he has the right to remove content from anywhere else on wikipedia. As per policy, user pages are not the property of the user themselves and should exist to serve the project. I don't think that removing my comment is really particularly helpful. Perhaps I was a little less than courteous because I've had issues with his images in the past. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no comment on the copyright issues, but looking at this edit, I divine three simple facts:
 * My nose is much too long and pokes over to other people's business. :)
 * Lo-o-ngstanding convention has it that editors have relative freedom over their talk page contents and that if they remove other editor posts, they are considered to have read them. And yes, if they selectively remove or even worse, modify other people's edits to change the "story", oh yeah, consequences will ensue. Removal of the last comment from a thread reaching resolution, not such a big deal.
 * And signally, Adam was modifying a previously combative statement to a much more accomodating stance when your post was removed. So no matter what, we have an upward trajectory. It looks like the actual content problem will get fixed, so who cares whether concerned editors like yourself or nosey-Parkers like me have their views kept on record? It's all in the page history anyway... Franamax (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I know, but when editors remove dialog containing requests to discuss questions or issues of contention, then I think it becomes inappropriate, even if they have been 'acknowledged' them. It's a collaborative encyclopaedia and it isn't going to work without justification of actions IMO. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would the copyright issues with images that I upload bother you. I am not concerned with what other people do with their images. Relax and don't worry. Also be careful what you say about peoples mothers.        Adam (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Adam, copyright should be a concern for every one of us. If you see it, nuke it. It gets a little tense in the area of images, but - tough luck. Having some experience though, can you suggest any ways to improve the uploading process? Franamax (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. When you say improve the upload process, do you mean how I upload or uploads in general.        Adam (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uploads in general. Newer users especially have trouble figuring out what exact hoops they need to jump through for proper licensing. Franamax (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that we should only be concerned with our own images seems rather counter-productive to me. As Framamax says, we should all be concerned as we all contribute to the quality (or lack thereof) of Wikipedia as a community. A few bad eggs spoil the party for all of us (not to mention make life difficult for the rest of us). Anyway, I didn't say anything about your mother, I merely enquired about whether she taught you manners. It was a question rather than a statement, but if you choose to read between the lines, I was essentially asking why you deleted my question without answering it. And you still haven't answered it. Are you avoiding the question? I'm sorry if I come across as combative, but correct licensing is important. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:1 c-iron cove-balmain1, new south wales.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1 c-iron cove-balmain1, new south wales.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. ViperSnake151 Talk  15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:1 c-iron cove-balmain1, new south wales.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:1 c-iron cove-balmain1, new south wales.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC) =Archive 3=

Template:Adam.J.W.C. main page
Would you consider moving Template:Adam.J.W.C. main page to User:Adam.J.W.C./main page? Unless the template is actively being used in non-user space, it should be in your user space. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.        Adam (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's odd, the old one is still there. I guess you copied it instead of moving it.  Could you replace the old one with  so an admin can zap it? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, I meant to do that but forgot.        Adam (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Chosen4.JPG missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Chosen4.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:1.-Nan Tien Temple front.jpg
File:1.-Nan Tien Temple front.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:1.-Nan Tien Temple front.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo
Adam, The reason I deleted that photo of the Centro construction work on City of Bankstown was that I thought that two new photos that you added of Centro and the CBD were sufficient to illustrate the section on Economy. I believe that it doesn't add anything more to the article and is hardly a historical photo.

There's no need to make personal comments on your edits because you feel hurt that one of your photos was deleted: Restore historical photos that shows more than just a pub or house in a suburb.

While I have added quite a few of those photos that you've mentioned to articles in the past, I have been moving towards reducing the number of those types of photos as the photos have been appearing in the wikimedia commons pages and a link is provided. I wasn't being petty, I was just trying to do tidy up the 'City of Bankstown' article. J Bar (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With the edit summary I wasn't having a go at your images I just meant that if you removed the one that I added as not being necessary why wouldn't you have removed all those images of ordinary houses in the suburban articles which are also not necessary. I know that these are not you images and I notice that these are being added to every single article related to Sydney and beyond. A line needs to be drawn somewhere.        Adam (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Adelaide.
Nice photos! If you've got more, my personal preference is that you continue to add them to the relevant articles.

Please don't remove photos; if you think there are too many photos, create a "gallery" section and move the "extras" into it.

Many thanks for your contributions! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, Ive got plenty more to add and I have a few more of the city centre. Most of the photos that I took were around the North Terrace area, that seemed to be the only street that wasn't affected by shadows. If only I had more time there to compose better shots. Cheers.        Adam (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "If only ... " - Indeed!! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just uploaded some more images of Adelaide with more to come.        Adam (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Where? Pdfpdf (talk)
 * This is a link to my gallery on Commons Commons:User:Adam.J.W.C./South Australia gallery, I am storing all my Adelaide photos here so I can keep track.        Adam (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW: One of my little projects (that grew) is J150W. You may wish to contribute there too? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I may have one photo of that path in North Tce, if its the right one. I might even have a celeb in the background but I am not one hundred percent sure who it is. Cheers.        Adam (talk)


 * Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs of the various season residences of the American reality TV show The Real World to the articles for those seasons, so I’m contacting editors whom it appears may live in or near those cities. I notice you've uploaded many photos of Darling Harbour to the Commons. Would you be able to take some high-quality pics of the Darling Harbour location that served as the residence for the Sydney season, and upload them here if I give you the location? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I might be heading that way soon depending on the weather, it hasn't been to good here lately. Let me know the location and give us a ruff idea of how you want the photos taken and I will see what I can do for you. Cheers .        Adam (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Photos
Are you familiar with the Sydney Cave Clan? Saw them mentioned somewhere and thought you might know them.

And have you noticed the debate about photos currently going on? User:206.197.59.9 has been madly deleting photos from Potts Point and always reverting, and is threatening to take the hatchet to Sydney suburbs. You might like to join the debate. More at User:DarkFalls and User:Daniel. User 260 will probably add something here now. He follows me around.

Sardaka (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes I have heard about the Sydney Cave Clan. I actually went out on a couple of expeditions with them on a few occasions. I actually got kicked out of the group because I was posting pictures of their locations here, which they didn't appreciate. One of the locations that they took us to was a large reservoir located under the domain park adjacent to the Art Gallery of New South Wales. it was massive, it was about the size of a football field and the roof was about three stories high an was supported by these massive concrete pillars. They told us that it was safe but I was later to learn that the place was filled with carcinogenic fumes that could cause cancer so I contacted the people from the Domain trust and they had the place locked down. Another thing that I did with them was to enter a tunnel at central station in Eddy Ave, walk through the tunnel for about a km then as the tunnel became flooded we got into inflatable boats and floated out into Darling Harbour. Even though some of the things that they did were good, they were basically just a bunch of wankers who liked to walk through drains. I was getting sick of them and would have left them soon anyway. I was kind of trying to hang in there hoping to see something better but all they kept doing was walking through drains. I would advise against joining them. I will have a look at the other thing later this afternoon. Just having a quick look the the article history, looks as though he was deleting a couple of photos of houses.        Adam (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just uploaded a whole heap of The Rocks photos as well as Adelaide and Melbourne, Check it out..        Adam (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

North Epping murders
Hi, seeking support to keep regarding Articles for deletion/North Epping murders. Do you have an opinion on that? Thanks Ajayvius (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No I cannot just support this. I will take a look at it and make a decision for myself.        Adam (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

FPC
It would seem that you are still fairly productive in terms of image uploads. Why not try for some featured pictures? I find the critique useful for improving the mean quality of my photos. I'm sure you have some images floating about now that would have a reasonable chance. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for that. I have been meaning to pop by from time to time to vote vote for certain images that I think deserve to be featured pictures but haven't had much time lately. I think eventually when I build up the confidence I will nominate a few images, if they do well I might start to nominate more. I'd probably take the images to Wikipedai:Picture Pear review first just to see what people think before I go to FPC though. I've kind of lost a bit of confidence as some of the others that I have nominated in the past have received bad reviews. At the time I couldn't see how bad they were. I wouldn't mind learning how to do hdr. I might even consider buying a new lens, I though the 24-70 l might be a good choice.         Adam (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, bad reviews are often useful ultimately. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah your right about that, they have helped in the past. I guess its good to have the constructive criticism .        Adam (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Millers Point
Hi. The image that you place in the history section for that article appears as below. It may appear on the left hand side further up in the history section for Internet explorer uses but for those with mozilla firefox will see it as it appear below. Quite a few people are using mozilla so we might need to find another spot for the photo. Cheers .        Adam (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. That's going to make it hard to space out the article by putting any photos on the left hand side of articles but I'll stick to keeping them on the right if it looks better for others. Does the Mosman, New South Wales look really bad with mozilla firefox? J Bar (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Mosman article looks fine. I think it has something to do with the info box on the right pushing the image on left down the page. I have seen this problem before on other pages but it only seems to happen on Firefox.        Adam (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for that. J Bar (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments
Please don't leave comments like this on editors' talk pages, even where the account appears to be used only for vandalism. Reacting angrily to vandals gives them what they want, which is attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This happened over a year ago and you are telling me now. Look at the date its not August 2009 but 2008. I do not deal with vandalism any more, even if I see it.        Adam (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Forts, Gun Emplacements & Tunnels
Hi long time no talk. Just wondering whether you were able to find Shelley Battery or the tunnels in the Blue Mountains? Hope all is well. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, how are you. No I haven't managed to go out that way yet,actually I have been to both places but totally forgot about Shelly battery and the Blue Mountains tunnels, that doesn't mean that it is not on my agenda and thanks for reminding me because I totally forgott. I have been burnt out from work and training for the city to surf and other future marathons. Will get there soon.        Adam (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This place would have to have been one of my last finds. I was lucky enough to go there when the lock was broken. That bunker is surrounded by several other bunkers that are sealed. Also take a look at this pic and see if you can spot the tunnel/bunker entrance. There was a stair case leading all the way down the cliff face at one stage but now part of it has collapsed and the only way down is to balance you way across narrow logs or abseil.        Adam (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah been good thanks. Been through a divorce so that took its toll for awhile but back on top now. Let me know when you happen to get out to the sites. Been doing a few projects that interest me but still need to get information on Newcastle Forts to get that going. Have you seen Hobart coastal defences, its a good article. Regards--Newm30 (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * New photos added.        Adam (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just done a quick search on National Archives site and there appears to be a Search Light Anti Aircraft Battery in Vaucluse. Not sure if it is a tunnel for the site, however lack of water stains seems to indicate it is not a stormwater outlet. Note: A Fortress Observation Post (FOP) existed at Dover Heights, further south, as well as a Coastal Artillery Unit Radar Station and anit-aircraft battery. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pics of Shelly Battery, I have found references at National Arvices to "Shelly Head - Command Post for 12-PDR Gun (12- Pounder - Gun)". I can not find any further information. It is spelt Shelley in a book but in National Archives is spelt Shelly. Will try to do some more research and create an article soon. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus...
You need to seek consensus BEFORE your changes. I have threatened to seek administrator assisted on your persistent failure to this and your apparent belief that wikipedia articles are for the development of your own galleries of amateur photography. If I cannot explain WP:BRD, then perhaps I should seek administrator advice. Your panorama does not assist the encyclopedia anymore than a standard ratio pic. A good photographer could actually get the same result in a standard shot - panorama's are for lazy photographers. Your challenge should be to get an impressive shot with the limitations of the standard lens. I wonder if you are up to it? --Merbabu (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its just a matter of opinion. Stop stalking my edits every time I try to add an image. If I could take the shot with one frame I would. There is no bold reverting here, just minor changes.        Adam (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So why is your "opinion" superior and thus able to override the norms of wikipedia? Having a page on a watchlist is not stalking. I have a superior pic of the CBD. I don't dare add it as I know your reaction. --Merbabu (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said that my opinion is superior. I am talking about you opinion on panoramas and wide shots. Lots of articles have them and some are very wide. If you have a superior picture of the cbd I could out do this again and again .        Adam (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also have images of Balmoral and Dee Why that are better than the ones in those articles but because you took these I don't bother replacing them because I know you would be offended.        Adam (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
Blocked: You are blocked for using an alternate account in an impermissible manner. The period of time is indefinite, meaning, not yet determined.

The checkusers received a complaint that PoorPhotoremovalist was engaged in a long term pattern of harassing User:Sardaka by removing an contesting his photos on a wide variety of pages. Checkuser analysis confirms that 1) PoorPhotoremovalist is your sockpuppet, 2) PoorPhotoremovalist and Adam.J.W.C. have edited some pages together, 3) as Adam.J.W.C. you appear to be friends with Sardaka, or at least are in the position to give him friendly advice, while as PoorPhotoremovalist you are removing his pictures. That's fairly deceitful and not permitted behavior for a legitimate alternate account.

The conditions of your unblocking are as follows: 1) You remain blocked at least 7 days no matter how you respond to the remaining conditions. 2) You agree to enter into mediation with user:Sardaka, and any other users who are aggrieved by your behavior regarding their photos. This mediation will be facilitated by a neutral editor or admin who is acceptable to all parties. 3) During the mediation you may edit other articles freely but you may not remove any other editors' photos from articles, lists, galleries, or any other pages. You may suggest such removal on the appropriate talk pages.  (It is expected that if the mediation is not resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, the next steps could include RFC/U and eventually Arbitration.) 4) Obviously, no further sockpuppetry.

If you agree to these conditions and the 7 days is past, then any admin may unblock you without further consulting me. Thatcher 01:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC) If you agree to these conditions and the 7 days is past, then any admin may unblock you without further consulting me. Thatcher 01:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree to the terms and promise to remove any photos from now on. If I new that this behavior was abusive I would not have used another account. I did read Sock puppetry before I started the new account. Also there was a long period from where I treated Sardarka as a friend with this account and started removing pictures with the other account. But still I will agree to the above terms and hopefully if we do get to mediate we can possible come to an agreement***Adam*** (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC))


 * see Feb 2009
 * It's not a matter of forcing you not to remove photos at all, but to approach it in a collaborative manner, with discussion of disputes rather than pretending to be someone else while acting the friend with your good hand account. Please consider some kind of facilitated mediation. However, if you don't want to try mediation, your agreement not to remove other people's photos is also acceptable.  I'll formally shorten the block to 7 days. Thatcher 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I appreciate your above comments. When the block is over I would like to try mediation. I have a proposal that I would like to discuss. It would involve not removing images but replacing some of them (just to keep it fair) with better quality images. I plan to work my way through the entire Sydney suburban articles and I think this would be a win for us all, especially Wikipedia. Also it looks as though the other party has left some kind of personal attack on his user page, I don't think this is appropriate and would not be helpful the mediation process. Also, how will this mediation process begin and who will initiate it. Cheers ***Adam*** (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

QVB
Adam, I reverted the pix just for the pleasure of undoing what PPR had done. It doesn't matter what pix are used. Do what you like with them.

While I'm here, I'd like to know once and for all if you are User:206.197.59.9. And don't bother lying, because we can find you out.

Sardaka (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the whois link in the ip address***Adam*** (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
I've noticed that you are labelling almost all your edits as "minor". Please review Help:Minor edit. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been set as a default in my preferences. Now that you have brought this to my attention I will fix it immediately. ***Adam*** 22:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:THE-GAP.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:THE-GAP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please delete, I have replaced this with a better free version on commons ***Adam*** 00:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Duplication
Why are you duplicating pix that have already been done, at Annandale, Ryde, St Leonards etc? Why don't you do something that hasn't been done? What you've done in these articles is completely superfluous. And at the same time you were criticising photos by me and JBar. Do you think your shots are intrinsically superior?

Sardaka (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to take better quality shots of the same thing. After editing these articles and seeing some of the images I wanted to try my hand at photographing them. I have also grown to like some of these houses, especially the Abbey and J street group. Thats why I have taken my own images. The quality and composition is better. I don't plan on replacing many more but would like to photograph some of the houses in the article, Heritage homes of Sydney***Adam*** 09:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to any auctions in the near by future, I know of one. Also I have a picture of the Abbey that I would like to use in that article ***Adam*** 09:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Duplication
You may say you are just improving on a few shots, but to me it looks like you are just getting rid of other people's shots so you can use your own instead. As PoorPhoto you were deleting other people's shots, now you appear to be doing it more indirectly, by replacing them with yours. That's certainly the way it looks. I hope you aren't going to start doing silly things again. You've already been blocked at least twice; if it happens again it could be fatal. You can rest assured that the eyes of the world are on you.

Sardaka (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any law against replacing poor images with better quality ones. If I click on an article and see images that I know I can improve on then it should be my right to replace them with better shots. You are using this situation to try to get your way with the articles. If you wish to discuss this further then you will need to do it with the mediator as discussed before. Bring in the mediator and then I will discuss this further. ***Adam*** 10:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look closer you will see that I haven't replaced all the images. I have left quite a few of yours in the article even though I could have replaced them but refrained. I would also like to use one of my images in the Highroyd article, Hunter Baily and Abbey articles, as well as the Sir Henry Parks article. But just one photo in each, you would still have 3 or 4 of your own images left in each of the articles. What do you think? The images have better lighting and give people a better idea of what these places look like because they show a bit more. I was also nice to someone and am in possession of interior shots of the Abbey ***Adam*** 12:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds feasible, but, assuming for the sake of argument that you're acting in good faith, why duplicate what's already been done? Why don't you find articles that have no or few shots and start filling the gaps? There's no point duplicating.

Sardaka (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I've had run-ins with Adam about his images in articles, in the end it doesn't really matter what his intentions are as long as the images he's submitted are better than the older ones. I'm not sure if that's actually the case or not though. Just my two cents. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diliff for you neutral comments. I don't plan on replacing every single picture in the Sydney suburban articles, just the odd photo here and there. That's what I have tried to do in the Annandale, New South Wales article. I think that if a certain picture in an article is brought to my attention then I should hold the right to go out to the site and photograph it. If the image is considered not to be better than the original then it should be reverted. Cheers ***Adam*** 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's all it is, then no problem, but tread carefully, Adam. After all, you have a track record of getting rid of other people's shots. That's what started all this crap in the first place.

Sardaka (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured that if I cannot remove a few images to clean up some of the articles I might as well try to take better quality photos of the same thing and then replace them. There are a lot of photos in the Sydney subs that are in need of either removal or replacement. Also looking at your historical houses of Sydney article I noticed that some of those images need to be upgraded. Some of them look like old scans. If you can go out there and take better images I will not bother doing it myself. Also there is one image that I would like to use in the Abbey article. If I place this in the article it will either be removed as not being appropriate by another editor, or on the other hand the one image that I have in mind will eliminated the need of the image of the front gate and the close up of the chimney. Also there are photos in the Ryde article that I have my eye on as well, like the college photo and one of the other church photos. ***Adam*** 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Barracks Batteries Bunkers and Forts, South Coast, New South Wales
Template:Barracks Batteries Bunkers and Forts, South Coast, New South Wales has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please delete the template is redundant to Barracks Batteries Bunkers and Forts in Sydney***Adam*** 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Breakwater battery1.5.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Breakwater battery1.5.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos
Just looking at your statements above, you talk about removing "a few images to clean up the articles", but you've put in a few superfluous images yourself, like the group shot of the witches houses and the frontal shot of the Abbey, which doesn't even show much of the house. Then there's your shot of "suburban Katoomba" and the pointless shots of lookouts in the mountains. Hmmmm, looks to me that if you want to "clean up" the articles, you perhaps should start with some of your own images. Just thought I'd mention it in passing.

Sardaka (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not the one that keeps adding pointless images of houses to the articles. You are adding images that no one wants to see except for your self. You are ruining Wikipedia article with these images. Some of them are quite laughable and cringe worthy. I know that I am guilty of adding crap to wikipedia but I am trying to improve whilst you are not. If I am adding pointless photos I can show you a whole lot more of your own that are pointless and would be quite embarrassing to you. It would take me ages to gather them up and display them here so I will do later when I have more time. If I can't remove images from Wikipedai then the deal should be like this, if I come across an article with bad photos I should be allowed to replace it with a better quality image that are already on Wiki, if there isn't a photo available I will go out to everyone of these sites and take better quality images to replace them. If you think there is an injustice we could discuss this with you friends here and not with cowardly private emails. Also with the frontal shot of the Abbey my photo shows the door just like you image but a whole lot more, especially with the side shot. The only thing that is blocking the view is the vegetation. Also most people would prefer to stand back and view the entire house. Not just the door or the roof, I think you should also consider reducing the photos in the Potts point article. I actually have better quality images of the same things to replace these as well. If you can reduce some of those images I will strongly consider removing a Katoomba photo or 2 or I could simply add my own versions which is not a removal but a better quality replacement. ***Adam*** 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We could argue the point forever and it would just be a waste of time. I'll just point out that I'm not the one who's been blocked twice (if not more). So, I'm just suggesting that you tread carefully. It makes no difference to me or anyone else if you get barred. There a few people who think you should be.

Sardaka (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then, from now on I will only try to add better content when possible. I don't think there is a law that prohibits me from replacing poor quality images with better ones. Even if all of them are yours. ***Adam*** 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that there seems to be a gap between what you say and what you do; in short, that you talk about "cleaning up the articles" and getting rid of pointless pix, but you don't delete your own, which would be the logical thing to do if you really wanted to get rid of pointless pix.

Sardaka (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you take a closer look you will see that I have deleted some of my pictures, even with the rightfully name other account that I was using. A lot of the pointless pics of my own are the older photos. If you can go out and take better ones then be my guest. Also, I will remove the ones that you don't like in exchange for the removal of the pointless Potts Point house photos minus 2 or so. ***Adam*** 23:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Pointless Potts Point shots of houses? You never showed any interest in the PP article, but 206 did. Looks to me like you just admitted to being 206.

Sardaka (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The check user would have worked that out, I don't know my ip address. I watch all the Sydney articles and the drama that goes on behind the scenes. Also talking about pointless photos, what is this image. There doesn't seem to be any references to prove what this is, so stating in the caption that it is the remains of a bush dwelling seems to be original research to me. Without any references all this seems to be is a mettle pin of some sort. Maybe this image should be removed or the caption changed to read mettle pin in bush rock. There is also no evidence that this is even in the suburb mentioned. Why would people want to see this, if there were foundations there why didn't you photograph that instead. ***Adam*** 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser didn't check 206 out, only PPR. I don't care what you do with that shot, but if you want to delete it, delete your "suburban Katoomba" while you're at it. The point I've been trying to make is that you've been one of the worst offenders when it comes to unnecessary shots, so you're not in a position to criticise others. When you've deleted all your unnecessary shots, you might be in a position to do the same with other people's shots. And don't bother getting aggressive; you're the bad guy around here, not me.

Sardaka (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not the bad guy, I am and was the the good guy that was cleaning up crud from the Sydney suburban articles. The only thing that was bad was using a sock puppet. If I used the one account there would have been no probs whatsoever. You were never targeted or stalked, its just that every time I clicked on an article to remove crud it always seemed to be yours, it was a coincidence. What about this image of BM from WF, was I justified in removing this. Also My Katoomba shot was one of the first photos that I ever took, it gives people an Idea of what suburban Katoomba looks like even though the quality isn't the best and it is quite dark in the foreground. If I were to removed this I would replace it with another picture of a similar nature but of better quality. If you were to remove anything perhaps you should consider removing your bed and breakfast photo. I could probably point out quite a few more but would prefer not to at this stage. Also where was I ever aggressive in my final draft.  ***Adam*** 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Dissapearing gun emplacement.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dissapearing gun emplacement.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been amended and the deletion tags have been removed. Thanks ***Adam*** 00:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted Licensing notification File:Anti sub boom net sydney harbour.jpg
The above noted file may have conflicted licensing, if possible photos you have taken yourself should be released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 for Wikipedia use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Looking over temple in berkley.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Looking over temple in berkley.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Georges head battery.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Georges head battery.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Midheadfortifications.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Midheadfortifications.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:2_b-iron_cove-balmain,_new_south_wales.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2_b-iron_cove-balmain,_new_south_wales.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Middleheadfort...jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Middleheadfort...jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

File:2008 0329klklk0074.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2008 0329klklk0074.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 09:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Public plaque breadwater battery.JPG
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:MiddleGeorgeshedfort0155.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MiddleGeorgeshedfort0155.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:MiddleGeorgeshedfort0155.JPG
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

St Sophias
It looks like you were right the first time about St Sophias and Rose Terrace. Gregorys show the boundary going down the east side of South dowling St, which puts those 2 in Paddo. On the west side of the street it's Darlo. The church might as well go.

The whole article is bloated. The pubs could go for a start, and "a quiet back street", which doesn't convey any info at all. At least the schools are heritage-listed.

Sardaka (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC) The street directory put St Sophia's in Surry Hills***Adam*** 08:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Cronulla
Don't you think 12 shots of the Cronulla dunes is rather a lot?

Sardaka (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there is plenty of text to accommodate the images although a couple less wouldn't hurt. How about thirty-one images in the Rockdale, New South Wales article, 23 images in Arncliffe, New South Wales, 27 images in Bexley, New South Wales, 45 photos in Kogarah, New South Wales  and so on. These article are barely half the size of the Cronulla Dunes. Articles like these need to be cleaned up just like the Annandale article was cleaned up.***Adam*** 12:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

St James Station
Adam.J.W.C., if you have a moment, please take a look at St James railway station, Sydney. I'm new at this, and would like to get some feedback. Basically, I've added a number of references and beefed up the article. tia, Nuujinn (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tram accident
Concerning the tram accident, the picture you added was a relevant picture on a tram accident. But please mind the entity. All the pictures were positioned, numbered, and you transferred pic n:o 1 to the middle of article. Adding a relevant pic is a nice idea, but now you destroyed the idea of other pictures. Of course it is possible to reconsider the numbering, positioning etc. of all the pics. I've done some work with the article, taking pics, editing & numbering them. I'm not saying my work is the best possible, but if you want your picture in the beginning, should be nice to do the work logically - I mean renumber the pics, look good positions to transferred pictures etc.

Please see the discussion on the article Tram accident. I'm not willing to fight in a undo - undo -battle.

With kind regards, Pöllö (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I have moved the black and white picture down a bit, if thats ok, I may look at the renumbering later on. That photo I thought was the best example a tram accident, the other is of a tram in Sydney Harbour, but that is copyright and I cannot upload at the moment***Adam*** 12:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

W macdonald
I have no idea if I am using this right, but will have a crack anyway.

Can you pls clarify a piece in your article about: William MacDonald (serial killer).

In regards to the death of Frank Gladstone McLean you wrote: ..........until he was interrupted by the young family approaching. MacDonald had hidden himself once he heard the voices and the sound of a baby's cry. Once the man and his family had left to get police, MacDonald returned to the barely alive McLean and pulled him further into the lane and continued to stab him until he was dead.

What is your source for that? I have been doing some research into that bit and I can't find any reference to that fact anywhere, except on your page. Can u confirm that it is a correct fact, i have incorporated it into a project I am working on and I would like to confirm the info

Thanks in advance mate Tony
 * The information came from this book |9780330362931. ***Adam*** 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding back :)

I am doing a quiz on the subject and I just wanted ot ensure that the info was accurate. Nice article btw, a great read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lssah2010 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I was actually thinking about removing or rewording that piece after you brought it to my attention. Cheers ***Adam*** 02:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No dramas, I have done a bit more snooping around and found this bit that is consistant with what u wrote. I have no idea of the original source though: At 10:50 p.m. he was found lying dying in the gutter by a Mr. and Mrs. Cornish who believed that the crying of their baby in a pram may have warned the murderer of their approach and in turn may have saved theirs and their baby’s lives —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lssah2010 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the source that you found can be provided then maybe we could use some of this information in the article. ***Adam*** 02:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link: I have no idea what the original sourceis, you will have to contact the author I would suggest. Good luck :) https://serial.knifeymcknifeyknife.com/killers/themutilator.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lssah2010 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, much appreciated, cheers. ***Adam*** 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries Adam, let me know how you go. :)Lssah2010 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PS - go to www.funtrivia.com (find my user name: Lssah - and you will find a few quizzes I created on "australia's sordid past" that might be up your alley. The Mutilator gets a mention in the next one (still working on the quiz at the moment)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lssah2010 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

.
im doing a project on luna park can you help me with some facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.184.71 (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, when I get a chance I will look into it further. Cheers ***Adam*** 04:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mosman and moving articles
Hi Adam. I have reverted your move of Mosman. When moving articles, please don't cut and paste the content but use the move function provided by the wiki software. See Help:Moving a page for tips. If you are moving over a redirect you will need an administrator to help. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 00:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I tried to move the page back the proper way but couldn't, I guess I will have to ask an administrator ***Adam*** 07:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Images
Hi. Have you checked out flickr and lulu.com? They offer scope for using your photos, without having clashes with other people.

Sardaka (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an account there but can't be bothered using it. I would rather clean up articles and add photos here. ***Adam*** 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment below this line.
Lulu.com is a self-publishing company, where you can put galleries of shots (or text) and offer them for sale. It's like doing coffee table books and having guraranteed publication, whereas normally it's impossible to get these things published (I speak from experience). I was thinking of doing one on Sydney heritage buildings.

Sardaka (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I might look into it when I get the chance. ***Adam*** 12:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your weird bouncy thing...
... has screwed up the way things on your page(s) appear. You might need to reformat it - there are places online that you can see if it works for different browsers. As it is, it is blocking out some text and some - what appear to be -- really nice pictures.  S a u d a d e 7  08:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, when I get a chance I will check it out with a few different browsers.***Adam*** 09:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Crossways
I restored the statement about the Crossways being the finest example etc etc, which is supported by the reference provided. Possibly I didn't make it clear enough at first (and I see you've identified my IP, you clever boy, or if you didn't, you know now, but never mind).

Sardaka (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The ref is not an encyclopaedia so the pov rule would not apply there as it does here, we should also try to reword the text a bit so that it is not copied word for word from the reference. The reference is simply pushing for the preservation of the house so it may exaggerate a bit to make it sound more important. The ref does prove that the house is of significance and is of the arts and crafts style though. Also I am working my way through all the Sydney suburban articles, I have one on one pictures to replace most pictures in every Sydney suburban article, I just haven't uploaded them yet. ***Adam*** 12:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not doing anything wrong, I am improving articles by cleaning them up. There is nothing wrong with cleaning up poor quality content. ***Adam*** 13:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a look you will notice that I have given some of the photos more prominence even making one of them the info box photo on merit because it give a good 1970s view of the main road of the Cross. The other photo was categorized as Dalinghust as well as being displayed on that article so I removed that. It can't possible be in both suburbs, unless it is on the border. Your other photo only showed half a building and was poorly composed, probably not a good photo for a suburban article but would be okay in an article about that particular building. ***Adam*** 13:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone out of my way to be civil towards you, but I still think you're pushing your luck in some respects. You mysteriously turn up wherever I go, and now you're talking about replacing everyone else's pix, which could be seen as somewhat arrogant, to say the least. You can rationalise it any way you like, but it just looks like another way of doing what you were doing as PPR, namely undoing other people's work for no good reason. Can't you find anything better to do? Why don't you concentrate on doing something new instead of just undoing everyone else's work?

There are plenty of articles that don't have any pix at all, eg the one on Stanley Street. Do something about articles like that instead of treading on other people's toes. You'll end up getting blocked again if you keep doing what you're doing now.

Sardaka (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no law in replacing poor quality images, you have been told on previous occasions that if the quality of the image is better then you are allowed to replace them. I do plan on doing something new but other articles also need to be updated, if not then there would be no improvement just more clutter and poorly taken images. You cannot tell someone not to replace your photos with better quality images just because you want your photos to stay in the articles, you cannot tell someone to do something different just because you have photos in a particular article it doesn't work that way and there is nothing arrogant about wanting to improve the overall look of an article by replacing photos. My intention is to improve the articles and you keep filling them up with bad photos. I would prefer not to go into to much detail at present about the photos. I know that mine are not the best and have many defects but at the same time they are not the worst either. May I ask how long you have been taking photos for. ***Adam*** 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way PPR was not undoing or vandalising but improving the articles ***Adam*** 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Street
I won't worry about redirecting it, but East Sydney is just a small locale east of College Street. Potts Point and Darlo are suburbs in their own right, not just part of east Sydney. Check Gregory's.Agamemnone (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is how other streets in the vicinity have been named and the street passes through more than one suburb, not just Kings Cross so Victoria Street, Kings Cross doesn't seem appropriate. At least Darlinghurst has been classed as East Sydney as well as the Cross being a locality located near by. I could have named it Vic st, Sydney but there is probably about thirty Victoria street in Sydney, so East Sydney would probably be the best option for disambiguation. ***Adam*** 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

.
=.= =.= =.= =.= =.= =.= =Style manual etc=

The problem isn't that I object to people improving articles, it's that (First) I don't like being followed, (Second) I object to your attitude that your work is better than everyone else's and you're entitled to go around deleting other people's work and replacing it with your own. Other people's shots aren't so bad, and your shots aren't so good, that they justify this attitude. I have always respected the right of other editors to make a contribution, and rarely delete their pix unless there's a pretty good reason for it, including your pix, even though a lot of them deserve to be deleted (starting with "suburban Katoomba", which is one of the worst pix I've seen in an article). You've always been one of the worst offenders when it comes to unnecessary and often bad pix. (I remember when I once deleted a pic of yours of Manly and you nearly had hysterics.)

And your changes aren't always improvements or even competent, like shrinking the lead pix when the MOS says they can be 300px, or putting Vict. St, in East Sydney, which it isn't, if you would just take the trouble to look it up in Gregory's.

If you want to have any credibility, you have to start by deleting a few of your own pix. Failing that, you're just another "editor" trying to use his own pix instead of other people's.

Sardaka (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (First) You are not being followed, if you are using multiple accounts or ips to contribute then how am I supposed to keep up, maybe you should reveal who you are in edit summaries so at least I know who you are, (second) I never said my work was better than anyone else's and I know very well that it isn't as I have said this before, its not the best but I can say that it is not worst, that award goes to you. As for the Katoomba photo, well I have explained this before, this was one of the first photos that I ever took and there has been some improvement since then, whereas I cannot say the same thing about you. As for px size well that should also depend on the article size, an intro with one sentence would barely accommodate 300px whereas the Italianate architecture aritcle has plenty of text to accommodate the larger image sizes. Some of the images were actually made larger in vic street. Also Victoria street passes through more than just one suburb not just Kings Cross, how many times do I have to repeat myself, its east of the CBD and no, I do not prefer my photos over others, only when the quality is better otherwise there would be no argument. Also you should not provide false statement as in saying that the Katoomba photo is the worst, the worst I have displayed below. These are the photos that you fought tooth and nail to save in the article. The poorer quality photos that I have uploaded are the older ones, whereas yours are still the same as the below. It also seems that you keep repeating the same arguments from previous occasions. ***Adam*** 13:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Johnston Street group

St Mary's
Adam, your picture of St Mary's at night is beautiful. However, before you make changes like the one that you did to Cathedral, could you please look at the context. There are thousands of pictures of cathedrals that could be used in that article. The few that are there have been very carefully chosen to illustrate the text. Every one of those pictures is used to make a general statement about the nature of cathedrals. The caption under the picture that you removed stated that St Mary's has a cruciform groundplan. It linked directly to the section in which it was placed: cathedrals are often symbolic. In other words, that pic was not there to illustrate St Mary's; it was there to make a point.

You'll find, that in selecting the pics, I tried to spread them across the world (hence one pic from Australia). You may also notice that for reasons of space and layout, every single picture is landscape, not vertical.

I'm taking the trouble to write at this length because I want to encourage photographic editors to be more sensitive to the context in which they place things. People often think "Wow, I've got such a great shot here!" and shove it into as many articles as possible without 1. Reading and 2. Looking.

I'm sure there is a spot for that photo somewhere else. Amandajm (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just put your pic into the St Mary's article, in place of the one that was there previously. It looks good because it is the same gold colour as all the interior shots. Amandajm (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for that, sorry for the misunderstanding. I may try to take some more interior shots at a later date and maybe even replace my old interior shot which is a bit outdated, but no panoramas this time, just single shot portraits and in HDR. Actually that recent night shot of the cathedral is my first exposure blended night photo, its a three in one. Anyway thanks and cheers. ***Adam*** 12:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Me again
Last week I decided to check your movements for the week, and I must admit you didn't follow me. My apologies for accusing you of something you weren't doing. That just leaves the question of your attitude...

Sardaka (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no issues regarding attitude especially when I am concerned about the continued use and addition of excessive poor quality images with no visible improvement foreseeable. Its not a case of me versus you or anyone else, but a case of you competing with yourself and me likewise. ***Adam*** 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Henry Head Battery image
Please see the discussion page of the La Perouse, New South Wales article at Talk:La Perouse, New South Wales. Thank you. Felix505 (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, doing it as we speak. ***Adam*** 12:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Image display problems at Beehive Casemate and others
Hi again Adam. Had a look at the articles and yes they are very interesting and good work doing the images. Shots of a dark hole are always a challenge and I think you have done very well. They are good quality images and they both document and tell the story well. There is a problem though. I note that some of the images are not displaying on the article pages. The core image seems to be available but the article and sometimes the File page do not display the image. Clicking on the image space on the (WC) File page does seem to bring things up. For example has no image on the file page but displays OK at MiddleGeorgeshedfort0264.JPG. is not displaying in the article but is available on the File page. WC is not displaying an image on the file page. also has issues at WP:Middle Head Fortifications. I will not list them all out, maybe better for you to check all the articles and then the WC files. I am not seeing this problem on other WP articles or other WC images so I don't think it is a generalised problem. I loaded the pages in an alternative browser and repeated the error. I cannot see any signs of mischief in the edit histories. I will not mess with it as they are your images. I tried a test edit cutting and pasting Beehive casemate obelisk bay.jpg image file name back into the article but it remained unchanged. Let me know what the problem was once you have fixed it as I am a bit curious. Just a note on this I forgot that if I used enclosing'Felix505 (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that they are all displaying ok today. Did you fix them or was it some weird passing aberration. I looked over all the 'emplacement' articles and the images are fine now.Felix505 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I had a look at the Engadine article yesterday and noticed that there was a problem with the images over there but today it all seems to be fine. I think it was a Wikipedia glitch. Thanks for letting us know about this potential problem. Cheers ***Adam*** 03:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, yes I looked over the articles and images the next day and all looked OK. Strange as it was not apparent elsewhere that I looked. Anyhow, gone now so no longer an issue. I like your improvements to the detail on La Perouse suburb in Sydney. It is good to see those structures getting some description and historical detail. Felix505 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. After the attempted deletion I thought I would try to explain the relevance of the sights in a bit more detail. Also I found this website about those sites. I might try and sift through it later later on and see what I can use. Cheers ***Adam*** 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Suburban Katoombas
I finally got sick of the sight of suburban Katoomba and deleted it. You can delete Balmoral if you want to get even.

Sardaka (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the suburban shot of Katoomba is bad and I have explained why in previous discussions. Also I won't be doing any revenge deletions or revenge anything. Cheers ***Adam*** 11:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just recapping the edit summary you left in the Katoomba article that the suburban pic that I took was the worst that you had ever seen. I just had a look through some of the photos you took with your brand new $500 camera and put them together into this gallery. I like particularly the 5th shot in the gallery, the one you consider an art photo, this is one of the photos as seen in Art photography user Sardaka on commons. The few photos that I have displayed in this gallery are but a few of hundreds of poor quality images that you have uploaded, and as sad as it might seem these are not the worst of them. So if you think the Katoomba pic is bad and wish to delete it, have a look at some of these photos that I have displayed in the gallery and then reconsider. ***Adam*** 13:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL Felix505 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * LMAO. I was hoping someone would see the funny side. I notice you fixed the brightness off he pic, big improvement. I also did the same thing in photomatix. ***Adam*** 22:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Heritage homes of Sydney
Thanks. However, a better solution is How to fix bunched-up edit links. (But requires more effort!)

Example:

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I will place a link to this article on my user page for future reference. Cheers ***Adam*** 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

;-) (I've done exactly the same thing!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of History of Strathfield, New South Wales
I have contested the proposed deletion of History of Strathfield, New South Wales on the grounds that the term is a plausible redirect to Strathfield, New South Wales, and I have redirected it accordingly. If you disagree, feel free to list at RfD. Cheers! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This works for me. Thanks ***Adam*** 20:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Strathfield, New South Wales
This article has many good points, but there is no in-line referencing for many parts of it, which would suggest the current C rating is appropriate.--Grahame (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Arsenal Bridge
I'll just post this here, I also replied on Commons...I'm mostly just concerned with the image being on Government Bridge cause it is an incorrect animation. How about he historical photo for the infobox, and my newer photo where it is? C T J F 8 3 chat 23:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be okay, I think there would be room for all of the photos. Maybe the gif could be re uploaded as a still later on and then re included. I did not know the history behind this image removal until I went through the page history for government Bridge. But for the time being the historical photo in the info box and your photo where it is now would be a good option. Your photo actually has a bit more prominence with the larger pixel size too. Do you want me to change the info box photo or are you going to do it. ***Adam*** 23:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can do it if you don't mind. Thanks, C T J F 8 3  chat 23:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, the gif file is also in the swing bridge article so I am not sure if you would like to raise your concerns there as well. Cheers ***Adam*** 23:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I just end the deletion on Commons, or is my concerns about the tag valid. C T J F 8 3  chat 23:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not to sure but if we wait a while someone who knows a bit more about copyright will come along and discuss it. Thanks ***Adam*** 23:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your image is now a Valued Picture

 * Thanks for that, much appreciated. It's good to see some of the work that I have done is being recognised. Sorry about the tip being cut off the top. When I get a chance I will return to the same spot and take and even better quality image without the tip being cut out of it. Cheers ***Adam*** 06:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fallsburg
The lake and pine forest in the shots you removed are on the SY ashram property, which is why I put them in the SY category. Would you care to put them back in the SY category where they belong?

Just out of curiosity, how did you happen upon the SY category? Didn't know you had any interest in the subject.

Sardaka (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Forest pictured does not represent any religion, I also have a right to look at anyone's gallery on commons and recategorize anything that has been inappropriately categorized. Just remembered how I found them, it was when I was looking for examples for the below gallery and the Sidha yogi commons link that was wrongly placed in the Hurlston Park article, the one that I removed shortly after it was put there. ***Adam*** 11:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Strathfield article
I'd just like to compliment you on the good work you have put into the Strathfield article. I edited this some time ago, and I think your changes are excellent! - 210.80.189.226 (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, it makes a really big difference to an article when you remove a few crapy photo's. Cheers ***Adam*** 06:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Convent shot
I knew you'd delete it. You're getting predictable, Adam. Sardaka (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The photo that you were trying to replace was more of a representative photo, better quality and more suitable in that position whereas I don't think that your photo was suitable at all unless there was absolutely no other photo available. In my edit summary I stated that you should find another spot in the article for your photo but even if you did add the night photo to the article I think the day shot that you took prior to this would be more suitable. If you knew it would be reverted then why would you try to replace a good photo with an inferior one. Someone needs to protect these articles***Adam*** 12:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Request...
Hey Adam - are you able to brighten or remove shadows from an image and re-upload it into wikipedia? . Many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, when I get a chance I will have a look at it for you, can't guarantee that it will be good but will have a go at it. Thanks ***Adam*** 05:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I ended up doing it - not hard as it turns out. It's not brilliant, but it's certainly a significant improvement. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Shelly Battery
Hi Adam, its been a long time in the making, however, I have finally created a stub article on Shelly Battery. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work, I have added the navigation template to help more people find the article. Thanks ***Adam*** 06:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Suburban Katoombas
I finally got sick of the sight of suburban Katoomba and deleted it. You can delete Balmoral if you want to get even.

Sardaka (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the suburban shot of Katoomba is bad and I have explained why in previous discussions. Also I won't be doing any revenge deletions or revenge anything. Cheers ***Adam*** 11:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just recapping the edit summary you left in the Katoomba article that the suburban pic that I took was the worst that you had ever seen. I just had a look through some of the photos you took with your brand new $500 camera and put them together into this gallery. I like particularly the 5th shot in the gallery, the one you consider an art photo, this is one of the photos as seen in Art photography user Sardaka on commons. The few photos that I have displayed in this gallery are but a few of hundreds of poor quality images that you have uploaded, and as sad as it might seem these are not the worst of them. So if you think the Katoomba pic is bad and wish to delete it, have a look at some of these photos that I have displayed in the gallery and then reconsider. ***Adam*** 13:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL Felix505 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * LMAO. I was hoping someone would see the funny side. I notice you fixed the brightness off he pic, big improvement. I also did the same thing in photomatix. ***Adam*** 22:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Ice
I see you're one of the top contributors to Black Ice. Well, I've rewrote the article recently aiming for the GA - can you take a look at it, clean up the prose and such, to help before it gets reviewed? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I will have a look at it. Cheers ***Adam*** (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There are also a few things that were taken out recently that I would like to re-blend back into the article ***Adam*** (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Milsons piont example.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Milsons piont example.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Please look at his change I made to your edition. I think the error could have been due to your using of an automatic corrector (the word you introduced does not make any sense in that sentence). Sometimes that's risky. Regards. --Againme (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File used by an italian online newspaper without credits
Hello! I write here to tell you that one of your pictures (File:King street near george st sydney..jpg) has been used by Corriere.it, an italian newspaper, without giving the correct acknowledgement, just mentioning "da Wikipedia" (from Wikipedia). If you like to do a complaint, you can write to them using this form, unfortunately only in italian language; just put your name, email and select the first point (Redazione di Corriere.it), then I think you can write freely in english. Bye! -- Roberto  Segnali all'Indiano  11:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can actually see that they are using the wrong photo and the wrong street for the subject. They are talking about the banning of smoking on one side of the road in a Street called King Street, the street that they are talking about is in a suburb called Newtown, the picture of mine that they have chosen is a totally different street in the City of Sydney also called King St. Scriverò a loro e spiegare il loro errore e parlare del fatto che si sono dimenticati di mettere il mio nome alla foto. Grazie per l'avermi permesso di conoscere. I will try to write a bit of Italian as well. ***Adam*** (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :-) Bye! -- Roberto  Segnali all'Indiano  11:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Software
I noticed one of your shots of st mary's didn't have convergence, so I presume yopu must have some software that helps with these things, maybe? What software do you use for these things?Not-Blotto (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)