User talk:Bidgee/Archive 27

Wagga Wagga
I noticed you removed the addition of the 2012 election results with the edit summary of "stupid". Was this intentional? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had infact stated that it was "Stupid to remove the fact as to why the city got a new GM, and a number of other undiscussed changes, such as the Cr. list.", as to why only "Stupid" was shown in the edit summary, I have no idea. Bidgee (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

NSW Route Marking
Hi there, just a point of interest in your changing of the route marking for the Hume/Federal Highways. I have recognised that what RMS has printed out has the route markers similar to those you have created, however if we looked at the extensive on ground signage across the state, its quite evident that the markers I've used match it. I agree that you are correct in what you state with removing my revisions, however I'm not entirely sure which way to go about it. I went ahead and did it with what is seen on-ground, however if you know how to create a discussion board, where other users could discuss the matter that would be great, and then what the majority of users agree to, we will go with.

Although with the A23 designation in the ACT, its obvious that the alphanumeric route changes that do occur in NSW will also occur in the ACT, and have reflected it so.

What do you think? Rom rulz424 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have yet to hear from you so I will revert back to the designations I placed last week for the Hume and Federal Highways, and please do note that the A23 does extend in the ACT. There is proof on the RTA/RMS website. I would really like to hear why you believe your designations of the routes are more appropriate - not to say that you are wrong at all, I just want to know why. --Rom rulz424 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The outer green you see on the signs is in fact the sign's background and not the outer colour for the route shield, same really goes for the current route shields except the black and white national shields. Bidgee (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hi my name is Julia, I am working on a class project at Clemson University. The article I am working on is Fauna of Belize. I saw that you contributed to the Fauna of Australia page, which is very similar to what i am working on. Here is a link to my sandbox. Do you have any suggestions or comments?

User:Jsimps8174/sandboxJsimps8174 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves
Hi. This is to let you know that I have proposed multiple page moves at Talk:Disability judo classification and have also proposed a move at Talk:Disability racquetball classification. I am sending the same message to everyone who commented on the previous round of move requests for these articles. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Members' List
On WP:ANI you alluded to the existence of an off-wiki "members' list". Could you please elaborate on the purpose of this mailing list? Skinwalker (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Telstra
Hi Bidgee. I'll initiate a discussion on the talk page regarding the content I removed from the article. I hope you can participate there. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the main reasons is the fact that you work(ed) for Telstra and you failed to state on how it is undue. Bidgee (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. While I was reading the article, I noticed this material, and as I thought that the material I removed would be seen as undue to anyone, I removed it. I do feel I have a good understanding of the conflicts of interest policy (and the edits I made were as an individual, not as Telstra), but I am cautious to avoid any sense of improper behaviour. I'll post my comments on the talk page and leave it at that. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
"block review" process. Bidgee (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO this block appears to be more punative than preventative as it occurred 2 hours after Bidgee last edit to the article, additionally the IP involves appears to fulfill the critieria of the duck test of a sockpuppet making block this even less appropriate. Personally I'd remove the block but instead have ask Bbb23 to reverse his block. Gnangarra 06:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been rather suspect with the IP, strange to see they know Wikipedia so well and cause a mess in the Gibraltar Hill article. Seems the IP's goal was to have me edit war (yes I should have known better) and make it as if I'm the only one at fault by posting at the EWNB. I can't even archive my talk page and it's looking like the review of the block isn't going to happen anytime soon. Bidgee (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also try WP:UTRS. No comment as to the merits of the block. --Rschen7754 08:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, nothing will happen. I'm hugely pissed off that Bbb23 failed to block the other person, the longer I'm blocked the more I'm becoming frustrated with the whole
 * I haven't looked into details of the war, thus I would be willing to unblock under condition that you do not edit Gibraltar Hill, at least until the expiry of the block term. Materialscientist (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that is totally unfair, like the block. See Gnangarra's comment on the matter. Bidgee (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be far more welcoming if the article was protected for the time period of the block, since it would be totally unfair for the IP to edit while I cannot. Bidgee (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In your unblock request you apparently indicate that (i) you want to have the IP blocked too; (ii) you will not edit (well, revert) the article in question. Combined with your reply above, none of this makes sense to me. If you are here to edit, take the offer and edit; if you can't handle disputes, you'll wear out too soon. Materialscientist (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm basically saying, if I'm blocked the IP should be too. I'll not revert the article during the period of the block but I still would like to edit (possibly move it if disam is needed) the article. Bidgee (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. You might have best intentions in mind, yet you can also keep warring without a single revert. I don't seek justice in this case (sorry if this sounds unfair), and blocking the IP or protecting the article is not a solution. Materialscientist (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I said that I would not revert. If I'm adding content how the hell could I be edit warring?, if I undone/reverted an edit then yes I would be (edit warring). I'm seeing this as two people stab each other, one goes to jail but the other gets off, this was not preventative action as I had ceased edit warring two hours before the block. Bidgee (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to keep warring, I could rewrite and reshuffle previous edits, essentially obliterating them without a single revert. Materialscientist (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said I did? Bidgee (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would Bidgee, who is a long established editor in very good standing, take such a cynical and unproductive approach to editing? (especially over such a minor matter when he doesn't have a history of any such conduct). You can easily watchlist the article to make sure that Bidgee sticks to his promise if you're concerned that he's playing word games. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick, this whole matter defies my logic and attitude to editing, thus there is no "why"; I simply don't have time to watch - feel free to unblock, I stick to my condition. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC)Have you thought that I'm angry (largely), frustrated and upset? What defies my logic is the the IP editor get no restriction what so ever even though they are just as guilty as I am. My respect to the en Wikipedia Admins has all but gone. Bidgee (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ note I have protected the article in question so neither party can edit, Gnangarra 11:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, blocking the article is far fairer then allowing another guilty party free rein on the article. Though Bbb23 has a lot to answer as to why he didn't block the other party, had he done so, we wouldn't be discussing this. Bidgee (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't even further investigate while the WP:NOTTHEM/WP:EBUR issues exist in the unblock request. Normally I'd simply decline citing those.  There is an argument, after all, that editors who have been around longer should know better than to fall for a 3RR trap (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, we clearly have a IP socking, I have stated that I did was wrong but when you have someone who was in the war not get blocked and yet I'm left high and dry. Remeber it takes two to tango. Bidgee (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't read either WP:GAB, WP:EBUR or WP:NOTTHEM yet, so there's no sense even trying to reply. Without an amendment of the unblock, I'm prepared to decline now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring you, since you just don't seem to get what I'm talking about. I'm far more willing to work with Materialscientist. Bidgee (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to block a few of these editors as well! õh thats right you just wanted me blocked. Bidgee (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments that this is an unfair block, and hope that it is lifted. It appears that Bidgee has met Materialscientist's unblock condition above. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been off-wiki during this whole thing, so this is my first opportunity to respond: --Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that Bidgee was unblocked after his unblock request and the ensuing discussion, which only made things worse. They started off complaining about the IP, which is a classic reaction to a block and normally enough in and of itself to decline the request. They got even more strident, essentially making demands and threats and attacking admins who disagreed with them. Bidgee even had the gall to say they wanted to work with Materialscientist who was willing to conditionally unblock rather than BWilkins who was not ("I'm ignoring you ...").
 * I don't even see that Bidgee actually agreed to Materialscientist's rather generous condition. Also, the unblock reason is not very clear. I don't see any evidence of Gibraltar Hill being locked. Actually, I'm glad it wasn't because it would have made the condition meaningless.
 * As for my block in the first instance, first, I don't see socks lurking around every corner. Perhaps that comes from lack of experience, but no one accused the IP of being a sock, and usually those accusations fly at the drop of a hat. Moreover, just because they are an IP who seems to know the ropes doesn't automatically make them a sock - it just means they have experience here before. I did NOT assume they were a newbie. Socking requires something more than using more than one account - the purpose has to be illegitimate. In any event, I'm not saying that they are not a sock, only that it's not as clear to me and, based on the record, it didn't excuse Bidgee's behavior.
 * Second, I looked long and hard at whether both editors should be blocked. My first look at the article's history automatically set off alarm bells and, at first glance, looked like a classic "block them both" situation. However, I went to the trouble to look more closely at the edits, reverts, and even the discussion on the talk page. I'm not going to provide everyone with diffs because I'm already going into too much detail defending my actions. What I saw though was a fairly typical battle between an experienced editor and an IP, where Bidgee treated the IP dismissively and, frankly, arrogantly. There was no reason to template the IP and label their edits vandalism. One of Bidgee's reverts was to reinsert a grammatical error into the article, and that wasn't part of a larger revert, that was all there was to the revert. Bidgee didn't come to ANEW to discuss the issue. They apparently just assumed they didn't need to.
 * By my count, Bidgee transgressed 3RR, but the IP did not. I took into account the nature of the edits when counting.
 * Bidgee did not revert again after the report was filed, but they edited the article. In my view, when you're reported for edit-warring, you stop editing completely; you don't say, as Bidgee did above, I can edit as long as I don't "revert". You don't even permit someone to draw an inference that their edit might constitute a revert. Again, this is an indication of someone with a poor grasp of policy and an inability to control their behavior. Nonetheless, because the IP also edited the article (and did so first), that wasn't a material factor in my decision.
 * Finally, going back to the present again, I'm a bit disturbed that Bidgee has been given so much support by Gnangarra and Nick-D. I have no problem that they disagree with the block or even feel that Bidgee should be unblocked, but my interpretation of the discussion above yields more than that, particularly an implicit endorsement of Bidgee's post-block behavior, which, in many ways, was worse than their conduct leading up to the block.
 * Clearly you should hand in your Admin tools as you misused them.


 * BWilkins clearly came to the talk page with a set agenda and unwilling to act in good faith.


 * I had suspicions that the IP was a sock, but choose not to raise it until I had something to back it up.


 * If you bothered to look at the warning it was for adding errors into the article.


 * Sorry but edit warring is when you repeatedly undo another editor(s) edit, not adding content such as this (if you see that as edit warring, then you really need to read WP:EW since your the one who has the "poor grasp of policy")


 * "Bidgee didn't come to ANEW to discuss the issue. They apparently just assumed they didn't need to." Get you facts right before making such allegation and bad faith comment, I didn't read my talk page and didn't know about the EW report until after I was blocked. Bidgee (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * IP editors running to notice boards asking for blocks are red flags, its most unusual except in circumstance of sockpuppets, stalkers etc. Users 2 of the first four edits edits seriously screams sock, 10 edits later its at ANI challenging Bidgeehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=521377862] that is the only it made 13 hours after its last & 9 hours before its next. There are two location in NSW Gibralter Hill and Gibraltar Hill the waring didnt label the editor as doing vandalism its was warning about introducing false information something that is simple enough in such situations. Then less than 24 after his first edit the IP was able to correctly form a notice at WP:AN3 but was unable to follow the instruction in red that says You must notify any user you report. You may use an3-notice to do so.. A cursory glance show that thw two editors were both warring over the article, WP:EW says Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues blocking one party was always going to inflame the situation not resolve it. Then WP:BLOCK point 4 where there is no current conduct issue of concern. and Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved. 2 hours since Bidgee last edited the page, though he continued to edit other pages. Protecting the article warning Bidgee and the IP would have been sufficient response in the first instance.
 * as for me giving too much support for Bidgee, I approached you first with my concerns asking you to reconsider then waited, another admin responded to the unblock request. Agreed to conditionally unblock Bidgee response was to be expected if the first block was unfair the unblock conditions only continued the unfairness Bidgee also pointed out the issues I raised. IMHO your initial action to block was an error that served to inflame the issue by taking sides, blocking is a last resort not a first page protection and a warning should have been the response. Bidgee language choices were not the best choices he could have made, neither was being suckered into 3RR territory but I support is not an endorsement of those but a critical reflection on the circumstances then considering how to best the issue forward without further inflamming the situation. Gnangarra 14:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll only address a few points in an effort to be brief. Forgive me, but you really need to copy edit your comments; they are very hard to follow. The IP couldn't notify Bidgee because Bidgee's talk page is semi-protected; the IP said so. Your statement that I took sides is absurd. I didn't know Bidgee, didn't know the IP. My decision was as neutral as it could be; the fact that you disagree with it doesn't change that. I do not fault you for unblocking after I didn't respond to your post at my talk page. Your procedure in that regard was absolutely acceptable. As for the rest, I would just be repeating myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

CountryLink XPT
For when your Edit Warring ban is lifted. Your reversals of edits to the introduction has reinstated the errors listed below. If you don't agree with the content of the edit, at least you could contribute positively by correcting the obvious errors rather than just reversing.

CountryLink XPT

The XPT (short for "eXpress Passenger Train") is the main long-distance passenger train used in regional New South Wales, Australia, and on key eastern-seaboard routes including the interstate Sydney–Melbourne and Sydney–Brisbane services. It has been in service from 1982, and is based on the InterCity 125 High Speed Train (HST) designed by British Rail.

There is bad grammar, useless information and some that is just wrong in this section.

1) "eXpress Passenger Train", should read Express Passenger Train, the average reader will be able to understand X is for Express.

2) (HST), abbreviation not needed as not referred to in text

3) The XPT train cars operate... should read XPTs operate... or XPT sets operate....

4) list services to Brisbane and Melbourne, but not Dubbo, Grafton & Casino

5) ...operate passenger rail services up the east coast of Australia from Melbourne (connecting with Tasmania ferries) to Brisbane... Implies services operate from Melbourne to Brisbane. All services originate from Sydney and this should be stated.  To travel Melbourne - Brisbane involves a nine hour wait in Sydney.

6) connects with Tasmanian ferries. Terminal is at least 2km away and irrelevant

7) Brisbane connections. Again relevancy, fairly obvious that services for North and West Queensland will depart from the state capital

8) XPT's implies ownership should read XPTs

9) ...QLD and VIC services are subsidised by the Victorian and QLD governments.... Service funding not relevant to page on rolling stock, is better covered on CountryLink page.

10) ...QLD and VIC services are not subsidised by the Victorian and QLD governments respectively. Wrong, the Queensland government subsidise the Queensland services, the Victorian government, the Victorian Services 11) State names should appear in full.

12) Abbreviations for Queensland and Victoria are Qld and Vic, not QLD and VIC Mo7838 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) It is "eXpress Passenger Train" much like what we do for eBay.


 * 2) "HST" is in the further reading, therefore needed.


 * 3 & 4) That is personal opinion


 * 5, 6, 7 & 10) Do you have a source for that point?


 * 8) Feel free to fix it (I can't)


 * 9) Why don't you think it is relevant? The XPT services both states?


 * 11 & 12) As long as there is one wikilinked in full, it isn't necessary to have New South Wales to be repeated over and over, so abbreviations can be used and we state themn as ACT, NSW, QLD, VIC. Bidgee (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 5) CountryLink North Coast timetable, CountryLink North Western timetable, CountryLink Western timetable, CountryLink Southern timetable


 * 6) Google Maps search for Station Pier 3207 and Spencer Street 3000 and calculate the distance


 * 7) if connecting Queensland Rail services from Brisbane are mentioned why not rail services from Melbourne or Sydney? Where do you draw the line?  Best not to have to make article consistent


 * 9) the page is about the XPT, ie the rolling stock. How CountryLink is funded us more appropriate on the CountryLink page


 * 10) Would think it extremely unlikely the Queensland government subsidise services to Melbourne and the Victorian services to Brisbane as currently indicated. Should read the services to Queensland and Victoria are subsidised by their respective state governments


 * 11 & 12) abbreviations for Victoria and Queensland are Vic and Qld, capitals only required for first letters of new words Victoria Wiki page Queensland Wiki page. First time should be stated as Victoria (Vic) and then it is fine to use abbreviation Mo7838 (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Brindabella airlines
Sorry For adding the services flown by Brindabella. Why I did it, as the Aeropelican page had a list of routes copied from their website so I thought I would do one for Brindabella too. Thats where I got the idea from and did not realise it was illegal as already on the other page.CHCBOY (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi Bidgee, I mentioned an edit you made here. In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Sunday_(storm)&diff=494232352&oldid=494227091 the edit in question], you weren't reverting a text removal at all – the user was trying to compact the article's references (see ibid., in case you aren't familiar with the abbreviation). That system is discouraged on Wikipedia, but it would have been more productive to point this out to the user (or leave the edits alone if you didn't understand them) rather than reverting the edits and giving the user an irrelevant warning. Graham 87 06:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

eXpress vs Express
eXpress is grammatically incorrect. The spelling of the word is Express. The use of X as an abbreviation for Express is quite common. For example NXEC is the abbreviation for National Express East Coast, not National eXpress East Coast.Mo7838 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your view. NXEC is called by its full title, XTP isn't. There are a few other articles where the company is known by its abbreviation and the formation of the name is done in the way of the abbreviation, not the grammar. Bidgee (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have sought a third opinion on this. I hope you will join me in accepting the decision of the third party should one be receieved. Merry Xmas Bidgee.Mo7838 (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I provided a third opinion on the talk page. Merry Christmas! Go  Phightins  !  15:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Brewarrina Notable People
Rewriting the two rugby league players into the Sports section seem to be a logical fit. I note the example you suggested Wagga Wagga has done just that for its NRL stars. Regards CamV8 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)