User talk:Bidgee/Archive 46

Orphaned non-free image File:Australian Federal Police.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Australian Federal Police.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

busy?

you are always... JarrahTree 09:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't have a chance to add it. Two day break is over and back to loading aircraft for the fourth straight week. Bidgee (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Greyhound Australia

Are you repeatedly re-tagging this article for rewrite, undue weight, neutrality and encyclopedic tone because you don't like one sentence which no one was arguing with you about? If that's all it is, why don't you just remove the sentence? What's with the attitude about this? I'm sure I've interacted with you before and not known you as someone to fly off the handle for no reason so I'm just plain baffled. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't just because of one sentence. Secondly I'm sick of people using Wikipedia as an advertising platform, including political, by inserting POV and undue content to further their agenda. To me it seems that you are following after the note left in RSN a few days ago, waiting for something that is controversial. You cannot say the article doesn't need a clean up, history is a bit of a mess. Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm so confused. What note in WP:RSN? The only edit of yours I can see on anything I've touched there is "I have posted on the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season due to content that has been removed and re-added to the article. Bidgee (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)", which isn't exactly grudgematch material, not least since it doesn't disagree with anything I'd said. I looked at the edits because Greyhound Australia, like most Australian articles is on my watchlist. Can you give me an example of what about that history section is a mess? We certainly have many articles where people use Wikipedia as an advertising platform by inserting POV and undue content, but I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with this one. Everything seems to be sourced and nothing stands out as problematic about from the one sentence in the lede you already highlighted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)