User talk:Bidgee/Archive 17

Freeview
Again, you've reverted an edit with the label 'no discussion and no consensus'. Is this a meaningless label you give to every revert regardless of the circumstances and without bothering to check if it's true? Because there is a discussion on the talk page, and no one has objected to it, therefore consensus. WP:CFORK Fruit.bmp (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No discussion doesn't mean there is a consensus, fact is there is NO consensus. Bidgee (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Midlands_(Tasmania)#Requested_move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midlands_(Tasmania) - suggested change SatuSuro 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons
Dear Bidgee, I am wanting to know why you blocked me from uploading images on wikipedia. These are my images that I have transfered from my Flickr page. please send me an email regarding this situation, at ajpocan@gmail.com or in my dissucion page at User:MegaPackerboy.

Thank you, A.J Pocan —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaPackerboy (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for uploading unfree files on to Commons. Not only did you steal other people's work you also Flickrwashed which is not ok and is blockable on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Temora
Hey, I noticed you undid my edits to the Temora page which included the distances from cities and towns. There is no way in the world Temora is 97km from Wagga Wagga - It should be 83km. I just want to know why you changed it? Asdfghjklz123 (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A pleasure to be working with you!
See here.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Any comments on the 3rr.php script
Hello Bidgee. I was just going through some cases at WP:AN3 to see if anybody had been using the 3rr.php script to make their 3RR reports. I gather that your recent posting there was done with that script, or with a similar one. Are you satisfied with how that script works, and would you propose any changes? There is some discussion at WT:AN3 on what to do next. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Qantas A380 incident
Please see Talk:Airbus A380 where your views are invited. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bidgee, I just wish to place on record that I believe the warnings issued by Advanstra were unjustified and their removal was appropriate. He gave me the same warnings too. I put him straight over the sequence of events. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's looking like this will be closed as a no consensus, as is common for AfDs concerning 'front page news'-type stories which attract lots of editors with little knowledge of the guidelines. I'd suggest renominating this in a month or two when the caravan has moved on and there'll be a more sensible discussion (which, unless there are any longer-term results of the incident will lead to a straightforward deletion decision). Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be the way Wikipedia is heading, the way it is heading is now doing harm to its creditability (I know of a few organisations and institutes who now block or ban the use of Wikipedia). I will likely quit Wiki in the next two months and focus on Wikimedia Commons since I don't seem to be waiting my time there unlike here. Bidgee (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaving?
Bidgee, you can't leave the Hotel Wikipedia! Sure, take a break if you must, recharge the batteries. I hope your RL issues aren't too serious and that you soon feel able to contribute again. Don't let the AfD get you down. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't leave pet and please don't compare Wikipedia with those other trivial message boards. Just step back from the troubling parts and realise that while Wikipedia is a truly fantastic website it will never be perfect. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope that you return to editing as well Bidgee. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Bidgee, please don't disappear, just head for a quiet trouble free corner and take a break from trouble. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh. How sad. If you can't be convinced to return, then how about considering "semi-retired" status? Like the others above, I can assure you that your presence will be missed. In any and all cases, best wishes for the future! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's nice to see that you've moved to being semi-retired. It's a shame that I saw it as part of the YellowMonkey witch trial though... Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cripes when I was starting to think the only sign of sanity and good sense in some odd corners of this jungle were when I saw your signature, been there too - trust a break or re-think might help - but hey whatever you do - thanks for your help in some of the odd spots SatuSuro 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the YM witch hunting broke the camels back for me, having worked with him during my Wiki career, I know YM wouldn't deliberately abuse his Admin tools. Its a clear witch hunt by POV-pushers, Admins who have a plain dislike for him and anti-Admin editors. If they think they can knock a man while he is down (IE: he's currently not on Wiki), they are wrong. I'm off to bed, early start and a big day (including watching the 'bidgee flood again!). Bidgee (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah s--- happens like in the real world - but hey - good to hear ya got a flood - catch some water for us! (west coast oz is so dry i wouldnt be suprised if we get water restrictions extraordinaire if next winter is dry too) SatuSuro 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfC/U has now been escalated to an RfArb: Arbitration/Requests/Case. It's a shame some editors want to beat dead horses... Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn AFD nomination
Hi. Recently you your AFD nomination of Qantas Flight 32. Can I close it as no consensus? Or should it be kept open until November 11? Hey Mid  (contributions) 20:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion of this at Administrators' noticeboard where all the admins who commented thought that the AfD should continue. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 14:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Quote: To mark a page for deletion: Add the text "db-g7" anywhere on the page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Australian place appears to be broken
FYI, I think I fix the problem. Take a look. Checked several articles and it appears OK. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your C. longicollis pictures
Please the photo you added is not Chelodina longicollis. If E. mac does not occur where you took the photo this does not rule out an introduction. I have worked extensively with this species. I do not know where you took the photo but it is not a long neck. Not all Emydura macquarri have a white stripe in any case but other than this that turtle is a short neck not a long neck. Faendalimas (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The only documented turtle/tortoise (by the Wagga Wagga City Council as part of a master plan for the Wollundry Lagoon) was the Common snake-neck turtle. There is no way that the Emydura macquarii can enter the lagoon from the near by Murrumbidgee River as the lagoon is only feed by storm water from the CBD and parts of "South Wagga" and is totally cut off from the river (it drains into the river via a storm water pipe which has a one way valve) and has a large levee bank to prevent flood waters entering the city. Coords where the photo was taken. Bidgee (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have trapped turtles in the Wagga area before, with David Judge when he did his Masters on Emydura macquarii. The short necks can and do travel across land and are often found in many lagoons, dams and waterholes surrounding the rivers from which they mostly occur. You will certainly get at least 2 species of turtles throughout the Wagga area, a third species, Chelodina expansa has not been demonstrated to be there to my knowledge, but is found lower down the Murrumbidgee. In fact looking at your Map one of our trap locations may have been in Victory Memorial Park. Faendalimas (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not too sure how they could get over the bank, let alone the levee (which is steep). I could understand if it was the Parkan Pregan, Bomen or Gobbagombalin Lagoons (all which now have water [but not full, could be today or tomorrow with new flooding] in them). Would be interesting for a study of the Wollundry Lagoon again, there is a number of them in the lagoon (the other day easy to see with the clear water but still toxic) and a number of water rats as well (hard to photograph). Bidgee (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cretins
Maybe cockroaches and others will inherit the place - unlikely any good sense will come from the crap that drops, best to be mushrooms, i suspect - otherwise they are bit like that which hits the fan - spray into the places they are not welcome or wanted ... SatuSuro 08:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! I completely agree with both of you!! I personally feel it is MOST unlikely that YM is the cretin that these zealots are accusing him of being. I seem to have missed out on witnessing this persecution. Is there anything useful I can contribute? Please advise. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is worse then Australian politics! Love to say more on this but I'll just have it rehashed on Wikiquette alerts just because they don't like what I have said or do. I have bigger things to worry about at the moment which is the flooding of the Murrumbidgee River (looking to be at 10m, 0.74m below the 1974 flood) and I'm trying to document (photograph) the event as much as I possibly can. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, look after yourself. (10m!) Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Keeping dry?
I hear that the Gumly Gumly and North Wagga levees are likely to top. Hope you remain high and dry over the weekend. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep but those levees are small, 9.6m at North Wagga and 9.0m at Gumly Gumly IIRC. I'll be right (going by the 1974 flood inundation map) but the flood could be only a few hundred metres away (not sure what the how far up it will go as the '74 flood was 10.74 and the predicted height is 10m on Monday). As long as it doesn't rain in the catchments we should be ok (Wagga City levee side). Wagga Wagga Civic Centre looks like it will be closed for a few weeks due to the flood damaged caused by the Thursday evening storm. I recorded 65.5mm on Thursday with 39mm falling during the evening storm. Bidgee (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also they are constructing some temporary levees along Hampden Avenue to try and keep some access until or slightly after midday (with the river is expected to be at 9.6m), though everyone in North Wagga has to be out by midday. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * North Wagga SHALL be moved! at least temporarily... Good luck and take lots of photos Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few who don't want to move, mainly those who have houses built up but I can understand why the SES wants no one to be in North Wagga, East Wagga and Gumly Gumly. Roads in the city will be worse then it was on Thursday night and Friday morning, fact is Wagga is a lot bigger then it was in 1956 and 1974. The only access to the airport is via the back road. Thank god that they built the Gobba Bridge, which will still give Estella and the Uni access to the city, but this will also test it as the first major flood since it was built, the bridge itself is safe. Bidgee (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, 200 km south west File:Australian Plague Locust Berrigan December 2010.JPG. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell! Reminds me of the plague a few years ago, we have a light swarm in the city now. Just what we need with all the flooding and now storm damage. I'm so busy ATM, hard to get access to areas (e.g. levee over the Sturt Highway). Bidgee (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. We capital city residents have it easy, don't we. Best wishes to both of you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Drought to floods and now locust plagues! Still got the fire season to go yet, but is delayed because of the rain! I've uploaded photos from the 3rd to the 6th (working on the others) on my Flickr account. Bidgee (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fire Season - having had helicopters hover over my house for half-hour stints, fire season is something I do understand. At the moment, everything is uncharacteristicly green and lush for November - much less December! I expect it will be brown & dry by the new year - won't that be fun!! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox bus service
Template:Infobox bus service has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox bus transit. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been (very peripherally) involved. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level
Hi, I am just dropping a note to inform you of a discussion currently taking place here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles). In summary, WikiProject Automobiles is soliciting opinions based on the separation of automobile articles by generation, as opposed to other means such as powertrain or trim level. For example, rather than having an article on the Audi S3, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to the appropriate location. This would place automobiles with common engineering in the same place, as opposed to grouping by a mere marketing term. Since separate articles are always provided to detail the powertrain (engine and transmission, et cetera), the partitioning of articles based on this principle is superfluous (the powertrain is only briefly discussed in the article about the car). The reason for giving the actual powertrain a separate article is to cut down on overlap: engines and transmissions are almost universally used in more than one model.

This message will be/has been posted on the talk page of all editors who contributed to the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You missed...
The extensive and long discussion on the Talk:Newcastle_High_School_(Australia). -Danjel (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And you missed the "i.e." in your citation. i.e. means "that means", i.e., it's an interpretation. -Danjel (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Danjel and Meatpuppetry
Danjel has accused you and I of meatpuppetry at WP:AN3, where I reported him for continuing to edit war at Newcastle High School (Australia) with this edit. Sorry about this. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger discussion
As a follow up to the above message this is a note to let you know that there is merger discussion taking place here regrading the Civic and Accord Hybrids, the Ford Escape Hybrid and the Renault 5 Turbo, just in case you want to participate. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours
I have blocked you for twenty-four hours, with some regret that you choose not to engage in more measured and reasoned debate. I have opened a section on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding this.
 * You're not applying much patience with a new user, see Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
 * You're applying an inconsistant standard, which the new user is clearly finding totally frustrating.
 * You reverted twice and failed to use the talk page first, as you were warned was a requirement.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this: It's way better in the long run if you seek to establish consensus on the talk page, and don't edit war. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Following a request for review of the block, I have unblocked you. See here. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahahappy christmas - thank god we have him around any admin who can do this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMkativerata is a worthy member of the Australian wikipedia crowd - happy christmas to you, him and anyone else reading this :) SatuSuro 11:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wish it was a Happy Christmas but Aaron Brenneman has pushed the wrong buttons and he also gives Admin's a bad name. If it wasn't for Mkativerata, I would have been slamming my hand against a brick wall (if AussieLegend's unblock request is anything to go by). Bidgee (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know wher Mkativerata was during my recent block. "I'm unblocking Bidgee, because (a) this has now been open for well over an hour". It took one 23 to get to mine. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it helped that there was an AN/I or I think I would have ended up in the same boat (again). I can't see why my block log can't be deleted/hidden when it is possible to do it now. Chances of me ever becoming an Admin here is now 0% after that wrongful block, I'll rather be doing other things that sysops do rather then being stuck with the same old. Bidgee (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. I've already had one editor try to point score off my block. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * and it wont be the last, trust me! Bidgee (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Been there - know where you are coming from - and in the past the general advice was to have a break - walk away for a while - I do have a number of measures I take when I get that way - but hey theyre for an email SatuSuro 13:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me, next time I walk away from Wikipedia it will be for good. I've walked away and have come back too many times, all of those times it seems that all I'm doing is wasting my own time. Bidgee (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Away from ANI
I mentioned there that I'm always open to a recall request, and if you wanted to open a request for comment then I will have no objections, and am even happy to assist. (I know that sounds odd, but I'd like the idea that RfC is a de facto witch burning to be laid to rest.) With respect to both of those courses of action, though, I'm not sure they would turn out like you're expecting. Normally a request for comment requires a much higher level of "abuse" than this, and I had a recall request before that was luke-warm. I'll try to find a link to that for you if you want.

But I really came to say that, as it appears to me, you're seeing me as somehow adversarial in all of this. I apologise for whatever it is that I've done to give that impression. (I hope that doesn't sound like a non-apology apology.)

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would very much prefer you recall yourself. I'm still making up my mind what action will be the best but I'll likely decide by tomorrow.


 * First of all I have a block log in which I should not have and you have made it much worse then it already was, fact is your block will be used against me and how many people will read the link in the unblock to see that it was a bad block? Have no longer have hope in RfA if I ever wanted to try due to the fact of the block log (no matter what it says). Fact you made bad faith comment about myself (which you have failed to answer on AN/I), fact is that you were not sorry for the bias actions against me. Sorry to say the very weak (I apologise for whatever) apology doesn't deal with the actions you did and the effect it has on me as an editor.


 * I was also negotiating with an organisation to donate their time on improving on images (historic) as well as historic (events, buildings, people ect) article but you actions and behaviour stuffed that up, total waste of my time. Bidgee (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to waste your time. Really.  We're two people who've had a disagreement.  We clearly view these events differently, and I'm trying quite hard to understand your point of view in order to reconcile the differences.
 * I am sorry to have upset you. No equivocation, I'm sorry.  Regardless of any feeling of mine that my actions were supported by policy and precendent, I don't like the fact that I have upset you.
 * With respect to request for adminship, my experiance is that people care more about how you respond to the block than about the actual log. But I haven't been around RFA for a while, so I could be wrong on that.
 * You've several times said that my "we don't do punative" comment was in bad faith. I don't understand this statement, I was trying to be factual: You were briefly blocked, I did block you for disruption, and the ANI discussion did say your actions weren't ideal. If you want to expand on this I'm happy to hear why you feel that way.
 * If you want to subject me to recall, just put a section on my talk saying so. If others agree, they'll come and say so, too.
 * At this stage I can't judge enough your reactions to know if I'm just aggrevating you further. So I'll leave you in peace, with the caveat that if you want to continue the discussion (or just get the last word in) it's cool with me. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fact is your the one who caused the mess by being trigger happy and it shouldn't be up to me to get my block log annotated again, as this is unsatisfactory as how many editors or Admins will bother to copy, paste and read what it says?
 * Myself and other Admins pointed out your actions were not supported by policy and the fact that your actions were bias.
 * No you have stated that you are sorry for the blocking incident.
 * I'ved watched a few RfA's and seen how most were shot down just over having a block log and not looking into why had they been blocked then unblocked no long after.
 * "that editor was blocked shortly to stop the disruption, and the discussion was clear that their behaviour was "not ideal."" that is what was bad faith, first of all how could I be disrupting over an hour later when in fact another editor (Rrburke, yet you never questioned them over the lack of edit summary or the use of rollback) reverted? Also your not the one to question ones behaviour while your are also involved in the whole thing.
 * Why shouldn't I request a RfC or Recall you? Convince me, I don't want to do one of the actions but I feel your actions as an editor and Admin was extremely poor, your understanding of policies and guidelines is not as good as it should be (Admins should know and understand them) and your refusal to generally apologise on AN/I and here over the whole block incident as well as you not annotating my block log. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying me that you had responded.
 * In large, you're repeating your ealier statements, and I don't think that it would be useful for me to simply repeat my earlier statements. I apologise if this gives the impression that I'm ignoring any bits of what you've said.
 * With respect to, you're correct that I failed to comment on their reversion. Thank you for alerting me to this oversight.  While this person had not had the formal warning that you had had, I should have alerted them to the fact that warnings had been issued both in general on the article talk and in particular one two user's talk pages.
 * I have not and will not try to "convince [you]" not to explore further forms of dispute resolution. I am in fact encouraging you, verging in imploring you, to do so.  If your interpretation of events is supported by the community, we find that out and move towards a solution.
 * As before, I'm happy to let you have the last word if you want it, and happy to continue the discussion for as long as we both feel it is productive.
 * Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * CommentAs an outside observer of this little saga, I feel, Aaron, that your responses are very much less than satisfactory. From my perspective it seems that your actions against Bidgee were grossly disproportionate and not warranted under the circumstances, a point which you refuse to concede or even talk about.  Your actions seem to me to be predjudicial and consequently IMO you have a moral duty to mitigate the damage you have done to Bidgee's Wiki-reputation by, at the very least, annotating his block log and publicly, genuinely apologising, not the fullsome "apology" you have produced so far. -  Nick Thorne  talk  06:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice.
 * Ouch. "Fulsome"?  Dude, that hurts.  Like, seriously, that's just how I talk.
 * "[R]efuse to concede or even talk about." I don't even know how to respond to that.  What have I been doing on this page, what am I doing now?  But this is not the appropriate place to continue this discussion, I'm trying to make clear.  Any of the various paths to actual resolution, yes, but this is not that.
 * "[M]oral duty, etc..." Please tell me that you're kidding?  If I were making a decision on support/oppose in someone's request for adminship, I'd be swayed far more by their response to the block than by the fact that he's been blocked.
 * Giving last word if wanted, keep getting notices, will talk more if asked, etc etc etc
 * Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say, Nick's comment explains just the way I feel over the whole incident and it proves what I had said, I have nothing to answer for (Re: the blocks including the bad block). The only one who has to answer for it is you (Aaron). Bidgee (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally off topic, here. Aaron: go to your userpage. Create it with, "Hi!" Now... your username is no longer redlinked!!! It's so damned annoying to see an admin with this (I'm sure you've been told this many times). "Casual Fridays" are one day a week: wear some sort of suit here since you're an "officer" and all. Have some respect for yourself! Sheesh... Doc  talk  11:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Suburban Katoomba
The above shot was pathetic and should never have been there in the first place. It is bad photographically, and also in encyclopedic terms, because it conveys no info of any kind about Katoomba, except that the sun was low when the shot was taken, so presumably this is something that happens a lot in suburban Katoomba. Sardaka (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. Are you a sockpuppet of Adam.J.W.C.? I can't believe that anyone but Adam would like that photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardaka (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all you are talking about something that dates back to October (2 months ago), if it is the best photo available then yes it can be used, your reasons (POV) are just personal ones.


 * Second, I'm not a sock puppet, we live is different locations (very different infact, if you have ever looked at the images we upload) and nor do I know Adam.J.W.C. personally. Bidgee (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Further against the claim of sock puppetry, File:Verbascum virgatum 05.jpg and File:Sir William Wallace Hotel, Cameron Street.jpg which are taken from different locations but taken on the same day, we use different cameras and I've not been to Sydney since 2007. I suggest that you get the facts before making unfounded allegations. Bidgee (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

returned greetings
good thanks - hope yours has been ok - the other stuff best explained offline (again) -cheers SatuSuro 01:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Population of Wangaratta
I've reverted back to the 2006 numbers (your two reverts had the population of Wang set to the Rural City of Wangaratta, which is incorrect). Note the source you reverted for population of Wang was a 2010 study by the Rural City of Wangaratta, likely to be more current/reliable than old ABS numbers, no? Weedwhacker128 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Rural City of Wangaratta didn't state the source for its population in Wangaratta. Using Rural City of Wangaratta as a source (in fact it goes for any local government) is discouraged due to the fact it is a primary source, local governments will tend to talk-up populations (Albury-Wodonga is another example where the local newspaper and the two local governments stated the population was way higher then the ABS' prediction by citing a commercial companies stats [which are not reliable]). There is a very good reason why we use the ABS which is due to it be more reliable even though populations other then LGAs, Statistical, State and Territories (though they are only estimated in between Census') are out dated. Bidgee (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I ran over to the ABS to update the page for Wangaratta (versus the incorrect super-shire of Rural City of Wangaratta) when the bogus 24,000 number was added, and the number just for Wangaratta was not readily available at the ABS site as far as I can tell. Keep in mind that City of Wangaratta and many other surrounding shires were amalgamated and it's unclear that the ABS will be providing a number just for Wangaratta (unless they've hidden it very well). What would be the population source in that case if not the ABS? Weedwhacker128 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found the new maps at the ABS reflecting the shire amalgamations and something covering Wangaratta (and not surrounding Rural City of Wangaratta towns/districts) will likely be represented in the next census.Weedwhacker128 (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)