User talk:Gadfium/Archive 18

84.125.164.30 who you blocked back in May for linkspamming (which is all that IP does) is back to his old habits with some new but very similar URL's. Just FYI; do as you deem appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see also

• 77.226.83.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.231.121.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same provider. I have just now removed a few links. - DVdm (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've blocked the two more recent accounts. It may be worth running a check for additions of that url occasionally to catch more.-gadfium 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have the entry—and its cousin—on my sandbox page. If/when they return, I'll propose blacklisting. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I just noticed this Special:Contributions/NZOFLC which appears from this [1] to act on behalf of the NZOFLC. I don't see anything wrong with their actual contributions but understand that organisations aren't supposed to operate corporate accounts. Could you have a quiet word with them to 'go legit' before they get blocked? Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I ask you deal with this COI issue? You are more experienced than me with wikipedia procedures and rules (and I probably have a COI issue by being a former employee).

Estelle is the Communications Officer of the school, so is obviously paid to promote the school in a positive light. In my opinion, the sports issue is important for MAGS and Auckland schools in general because it's a widely occurring (and unethical) practice. Very few schools have been caught or punished for it, which makes this important.

However, as always, I will listen to your experience and wisdom.

Regards gmoney484 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appropriate method for schools to deal with such reporting is to add references to how school policies have changed to avoid repeats of the problem. Unfortunately, the common response is to attempt to suppress the reporting, which may reflect a lack of policy changes.-gadfium 05:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:JonathanO Cunha (Me) was blocked by you, he seemed to have made a new account and make the same nonsensical edits on the Zealand and Danish-New Zealand relations articles: Special:Contributions/J.Ryan_O'Brien_1996_Girl. CRwikiCA talk 13:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've blocked the new account.-gadfium 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. A few months ago you blocked User:203.167.249.114 for persistent vandalism. It seems that, based on information about the IP address, it is a shared IP for Marsden Collegiate School. Unless there were other reasons, could you possibly add {{schoolblock}} to the block reason. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 18:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. Thanks.-gadfium 20:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

Christine Rankin And Callum Blair both got seats on the Upper Habour Board^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellfire424 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the silly season again and party-supporters are creating articles for candidates who are clearly not notable. Latest example is Callum Blair, created by Thecrystalcicero (talk · contribs). Procedurally, what is the best thing to do? Merge the content into Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs/Callum Blair and leave a redirect behind? Or move the content without leaving a redirect? Or do we have to go through a full-blown AfD (which would hardly be sensible, as that way, the article would remain until election day)? Schwede66 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For people who have no claim to notability other than standing as a candidate with no realistic chance of winning, nominate them for speedy deletion with {{db-bio}}.

Callum Blair does have at least some claim to notability, as a North Shore and Auckland Council politician. He will become an MP if the Conservative Party make the 5% threshold, which looks possible. This is borne out by @Mattlore:'s creation of a draft article on him. As I see it, you could either AfD the article, and withdraw it should election night figures show him to be a pending MP, or wait until after election day and decide then whether an AfD is appropriate. I wouldn't bother with a {{prod}} since that would only delay matters.-gadfium 23:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having been a councillor for North Shore doesn't give notability, neither does membership of a local board in Auckland. Mattlore and I are the ones most active creating draft articles for potential new MPs, hence the draft sitting there does not foreshadow notability, but it's there in case the Conservatives get over 5% (which would make Blair an MP, and then he would be notable). The beef that I've got is with bios being created a week out from election day; lengthy AfD processes won't manage to get them out of mainspace until such time that the election either confirms notability or otherwise. I'll copy the material across to the politics space and try db-bio. Schwede66 00:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's your call. I will not take any action on the speedy deletion tag, either to delete the article or decline the deletion, but I have no problem with any other admin taking either action.-gadfium 01:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to your changing the spelling back to Br./Australian spelling at Papua New Guinea. I just thought I'd mention that "enterprizes" -- "manually restored" by Jaguar -- is not even correct American spelling; it is spelled "enterprises", the same as Br./Australian spelling. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does Wikipedia make sure that the content is not copyrighted? And how can copyrighted information from somewhere be agreed on by Hamilton Boys High School?

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The school's web page says at the bottom that it's copyrighted. Even if it didn't make that explicit, there's an implicit copyright on everything published. It would only be usable on Wikipedia if it has a copyright message compatible with our own (ie Creative Commons BY SA 3.0), or the claim of copyright was bogus (which is not the case here). If you represent the school and want to place the information under a suitable copyright for Wikipedia, see the link I put on your talk page.-gadfium 06:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this may be of interest to you. Bogger (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a little confused here. I edited the Cameron Slater page because I felt it was bias, then it was changed back to the original because my edits where thought to be bias? I may see where you're coming from but I have no affiliation with Cameron Slater or any person involved with him. I made a few minor adjustments to a couple of sentences, for example "In 2014 his reputation was tarnished by revelations in Nicky Hager's book Dirty Politics that demonstrated his close ties to Justice Minister Judith Collins and Prime Minister John Key and that he had been paid to write attack articles on public figures who were opposed to the National party." I feel these are biased, please correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't "his reputation was tarnished" not be included in an article with a neutral standpoint? After all it's a matter of opinion (some may say his reputation was tarnished, others may not) so to fix this shouldn't it be more like "allegations where made". Also "he had been paid to write attack articles on public figures" should include the word alleged, like when writing a news article because the book by Nicky Hager is not a reputable source of information, unless the information has been proven or confessed, like a man can't be guilty without proof or confession?

Anyway thanks for your time, I hope you consider my argument knowing your or anyone's opinion should not affect the outcome of articles on this website. Whether you change it or not is entirely up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CameronDV (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Cameron Slater, then you picked your user name and choice of article to edit rather poorly. In general, we regard published books as reliable sources. What is the basis for you believing that Dirty Politics is not a reputable source of information?-gadfium 04:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My name just happens to be Cameron, and is very common. I didn't say dirty politics is not a reputable source of information, what I said is I don't think articles in Wikipedia should use any information as a source without providing evidence of it's truth. You can write about Nicky Hager's book as an event in Cameron Slater's life, but what shouldn't happen is posting information suggesting an opinion, such as having his book tarnish his reputation without specifying that this is an opinion and is not fact. I also said that Wikipedia shouldn't indicate something is true without evidence (sources) proving as such, like above where I claimed "he had been paid to write attack articles on public figures" is not a proven fact and has not been proven to come from a reliable source (hacker) and so the word alleged be used is all I ask. I just feel the lines I speak of where opinionative, rather than just a recollection of an event. Also, should published books really be a source of information when the book itself was specifically biased and targeted in itself? I understand maybe a nature book talking about the biology of plants but this is not one, this is a targeted and biased book. CameronDV (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the statement that his reputation was damaged. You can use the article talk page to highlight other concerns you may have.-gadfium 23:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry if this was the wrong area to voice my concerns, I'm just new to the Wikipedia behind the scenes. CameronDV (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You seem to have reversed my edit it the page regarding Sue Bradford. While I admit that I may have gone too far, I think it is reasonable to say that the Anti-smacking bill *is* an anti-smacking bill. It isn't "depicted" to be one, it is. Are you willing to compromise?

Thanks, Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.129.124 (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to suggest modifications to the article on its talk page. Please include suggested sources to back up your changes. The appropriate article may be Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 which deals with the law change in more detail rather than Sue Bradford.-gadfium 08:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Gadfium. I wonder whether you can lend a hand with post-election tidy ups that require admin help. Chris Bishop (politician) should probably be moved to Chris Bishop over the existing redirect. Not sure why I can't do it myself, as there's only one edit on that redirect. Once done, Christopher Bishop would need a hatnote. Thanks! Schwede66 21:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, upon reflection, I'll turn Chris Bishop into a dab page; there are three pages it can point to. Schwede66 21:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest that.-gadfium 21:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I now need a hand. I've moved Misa Fia Turner into mainspace, but it would seem that she would be the 21st list candidate for National, and they only got 20 over the line. Can you please move the page back to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs/Misa Fia Turner without leaving a redirect in mainspace? Schwede66 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-gadfium 22:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Ohariu, New Zealand and converted the redirect Ohariu to a disambiguation page. We obviously have an electorate that is called Ōhariu that previously didn't have a macron, and the redirect for the previous version sits at Ohariu (New Zealand electorate). Given the electorate's name and the name's history, would you concur with me that the current electorate article should be moved over an existing redirect (with edit history, hence I can't move) to Ōhariu (New Zealand electorate)? If so, please do. If you don't concur, please suggest alternative action. Schwede66 23:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I see that the electorate appears to have two macrons these days: Ōhāriu. So it should supposedly be Ōhāriu (New Zealand electorate). Schwede66 23:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you can move it yourself to the two-macron version. No objection from me.-gadfium 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Have moved it now. Schwede66 01:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, we have a serial vandal who has a fascination with the Joshua Williams article, plus an interest in a few other articles. In the last 20 days, the judge's page has been blanked nine times (or the content replaced with random rubbish) if I counted correctly. The anon uses a variety of IP addresses (four by my count), and it would appear to be a range of computers rather than a randomly assigned IP address. I suggest either edit protection of the Joshua Williams article, or blocking of the various IPs that the vandal uses (one of the IP addresses is blocked already), or both. What do you think? Schwede66 19:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article.-gadfium 20:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The judge's article has been stable; they probably haven't cottoned onto the fact that the semi-protection has expired. User talk:111.69.22.250 is 'asking' for another block judging by recent activity; their 3 months have expired. Schwede66 23:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-gadfium 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The weblink I have put for the transcript takes up over half the page - any suggestions on how I can reduce it's footprint on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the third bullet point under Help:URL#Linking to URLs. Also see my edit on the article you mentioned. The text "Judgement" I used is just a suggestion. Feel free to replace it with something more appropriate.-gadfium 07:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cheers for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs) 10:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a neutrality tag on this article, but the lister has put not a single note on file to say why they are challenging it. Any chance you can get the tag removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs) 10:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it because it's been there for many months without any posting on the talk page. In general, you should post to the talk page of the person who placed it and ask them to explain their concerns at the article talk page.-gadfium 18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Benjamin Developments Ltd v Robt Jones (Pacific) Ltd may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Jones (Pacific) Ltd]] agreed to purchase a building being constructed by Benjamin Developments (a subsidiary of [[McConnell Dowell]] Corporation. The building later became the Coopers and Lybrand

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Al Dhafra Air Base may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• blogspot.com/2012/02/uae-380th-air-expeditionary-wing-at-al.html Al Dhafra Air Base] at OSGEOINT]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. Could you please have a quick look at Grahame Thorne. There are a couple of IPs adding rumours based on blogs that I don't think are suitable for a BLP. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the matter.-gadfium 05:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the shenanigans are now going on at the thttp://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/?page_id=216&id=32693alk page. Some people have too much time on their hands. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If this happens again in the middle of the night NZ time, drop a note to Fluffernutter who has dealt with this article previously. Chances are that she'll be able to fix it long before I wake up.-gadfium 21:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gadfium- can you have a look at the edits and reverts from various editors- especially Stuart Yeates. I believe I have acted as per wiki rules (at least the ones I can follow) and in good faith.It is annoying to have other editors remove edits without giving any significant explanation. In the case of Stuart's -it appears to be a hasty,ill tempered aside rather than a considered, thoughtful response. Can you sort it out please? Stuart has said I am "pushing a line" without being too specific. My point is the original edit in the article was simply facts (all referenced)without any "interpretation" or explanation. An editor then asked for an explanation which I was happy to provide BUT this did not form part of the article. It was merely there to show its significance and how it fits in to Maori culture which I believe was the general thrust of their Q. It is completely in line with the article ie a balance of detail about Maori culture from a very wide variety of sources. I suspect that Stuart thinks he knows a bit about history and has taken offense at the portrayal of a Wakefield in anything other than a dismal light!This IS the general way that Wakefields/NZ company are portrayed in NZ history. Note the edit is NOT my opinion it is simply quoting from a source. Thanks in advance for you considered help. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you have not broken the three-revert rule on that page, because you have edited different parts of the article rather than adding the same disputed material more than three times. However, you have been edit warring because you have re-added material after several different editors have removed it. I suggest you give that article a rest for a while. As always, you can make life easier for other editors, and thus for yourself, by improving the quality of your references. Is it so hard to copy and paste the url of the stuff article you are citing?-gadfium 02:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I see Claudia's already touched base with you but could you have a quick look at Talk:Māori culture as well and perhaps talk her back from the brink? I couldn't give a flying frog about the personal attacks (I've had much worse in my time, and anyone looking any deeper will realise they're a pack of lies) but she's now wasting the time of quality editors, like Stuartyeates and Blackcab, that could be better spent. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think she might already have passed the brink, but I've had a lot of dealings with her over the years and consider myself an involved party. Perhaps an uninvolved admin who watches my page might like to take a look.-gadfium 19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. Thanks anyway. I wasn't asking for admin action so much as hoping you could give her an 'elder statesman' type talk. I see she's now started bringing people she thinks are editors' family members into the mix so, unfortunately, she's probably a lost cause. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents' worth: [2]. In short, this editor is a troll and too much time has already been wasted on debates with him/her. BlackCab (TALK) 23:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackcab. I don't think she's a troll so much as just completely clueless about Wikipedia (and possibly about interaction in general). The main problem with her actual article edits is that she indiscriminately adds material from reliable sources, contentious sources, unreliable sources and absolute bullshit and with her refusal to properly source her edits it's hard to figure out which is which. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He/she is more than that. "Claudia" in fact displays five of the six listed signs of being a disruptive editor; it's only "cite-tagging" that this troll fails to practise. On the issue of the origin of the name "Hauhau", for example, "Claudia" has three times reverted the Pai Mārire article to their errant viewpoint since May 2013 when I endeavoured to make clear what reliable sources said. "Claudia" has made no effort to address this at the talk page: his/her comment was just another oblique rant. The opening paragraphs of this article on trolling provide fairly convincing evidence of this person's intent. BlackCab (TALK) 05:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No talk page stalker has intervened, so the next step is for someone to post to WP:ANI. Please include a link to the previous such discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#User_talk:122.62.226.243 advice and guidance please in any report.-gadfium 05:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. OK thanks I'll have a go at that. I'll try to word things as neutrally as possible but please feel free to clarify what I don't get right first time. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? I know you did this last month, but it wasn't a formal consensus discussion, but now it is. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took this article off my watchlist in early 2010, and don't recall giving such an opinion last month. What page did I post an opinion on?-gadfium 01:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I see you are most probably the most active editor on this page and I guess you followed its evolution edit by edit. This edit here introduced a longer version of the name, which makes mention of a "circumcised penis", with a source about circumcision. Whereas I am skeptical of the whole thing, I see that "circumcised penis" went through a number of - numerous - edits and as it stands now says "split penis". Your take on this? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kahuroa, who made this edit, was a most reliable Wikipedia editor and fluent in both Māori and English. He also conferred with me about this edit at User talk:Gadfium/archive38#Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu. It's beyond my expertise to say whether "slit" or "circumcised" is the best translation, but as "slit" is the word used in the source that's the version easiest to defend.-gadfium 23:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gadfium. Originally I thought it was vandalism, then I saw that no-one removed it even though the page went through numerous reverts of IP edits. Then I saw it was done by a registered user and with a source, but found odd the word changes. But thanks for settling it. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Gadfium. I have done that.Rick570 (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of clinical trials to wikipedia entries is essential. Once a trial is registered in the USA or any other government website such as clinicaltrials.gov it really should be okay to add to clinical trial headings. Waiting until clinical trials are completed as well as published would dramatically reduce the utility of clinical trial headings, since such data is usually only public years after the commencement of the trial, and also there is seldom a publication for a failed trial. Immunitor V5 is registered for two HCC trials https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02232490 and https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02256514, one of which is detailed in the press release provided http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/06/prweb11965485.htm.

A reasonable way to decide whether or not to allow a clinical trial press release to be used for information in wikipedia is to simply have a prerequisite of the press release issuer to have had more than one previously published clinical trial. Immunitor has many published clinical trials, several of which involve the V5 product that is currently under clinical trial for HCC.

Finally, if wikipedia editors start to be decisive that all press releases of clinical trials be deleted, there would be a great loss of information and many unhappy users.

Thanks for re-considering the deletion about the very initial information about Immunitor's liver cancer immunotherapy clinical trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.12.88 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles require even more reliable sources than do most articles. Press releases do not remotely come close. As I suggested before, read WP:MEDRS.-gadfium 04:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit, you do not need to delete without consideration an entire entry. ClinicalTrials.gov is deemed to be a reliable source of information about clinical trials. The numerous publications of clinical trials of the same product, V5 Immunitor, for immunotherapy approach to treatment of diseases both related and unrelated to HCC, also gives powerful support for the reliability of both the NIH website records of the HCC trials, as well as the press release issued by the corporation.

You have referred twice now to WP:MEDRS which states ClinicalTrials.gov not even once, despite this being the most reliable international source of information on global clinical trials. WP:MEDRS mentions clinical trials 15 times but in no case states that the existence of clinical trials should not be included in wikipedia -- all of the points of quality control are with respect to the statements regarding outcomes of not existence of clinical trials. Are you suggesting then that all listings in wikipedia of clinical trials in progress be deleted??

This sort of widespread deletion from wikipedia entries would be wrong.

Clinical trials that are verified as taking place should be freely included in wikipedia. For example, in Hepatocellular carcinoma section on Clinical trials, where you and one other editor deleted my total provided information the ongoing Immunitor HCC trials, now contains only one product being stated as in clinical trials with no references provided, and the only references provided in JX-594 are press releases!! Of course, with additional web searches it is easy to verify that at least some JX-594 HCC are or have been taking place, and of course as noted above the ClinicalTrials.gov info would be a good source to verify such trials.

It's time to reconsider your approach which quite quite non-standard and inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.12.88 (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why you removed my edits on the Argentine page? All of the information I supplied I have first hand information with and I am the source. For instance, I built the Tapiz winery I made an edit on!Kermisch (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See our policy on sourcing. I am not disputing the accuracy of your edits, but because they are unsourced they reduce the quality of the article.-gadfium 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I produced and directed a documentary film on Argentine Malbec in 2011 called Boom Varietal. Can I or other people use this work to document edits here?Kermisch (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I also use Blog material?Kermisch (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what an independent reviewer on Amazon said about Laura Catena's book sourced in the Argentine Wine Section:

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful good book By Papa Moose on March 17, 2011 Format: Hardcover Once you get over the fact that Laura believes that the Argentinean wine business was solely created by her father she does have very good information about the countries wine world. It's well written and easy to comprehend.

The Wikipedia Argentine wine section is biased, written Catena's US importer and sourced to Catena's family authors. It needs more balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermisch (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the easy parts. You should revert the edits about who built Tapiz winery and that Malbec was voted to be the National Drink not national liquor as written currently. Bebida National means National Drink. Your page is currently wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermisch (talk • contribs) 05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate for you to reference a documentary you produced because you have a conflict of interest. It may be appropriate for others to reference this documentary. Blogs are normally not considered suitable sources. Reviewers on Amazon are not normally considered reliable sources. I already reverted the unsourced edit about who built Tapiz winery. Please, feel free to correct minor grammatical errors such as "national liquor" to "national drink".-gadfium 07:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. You did a good job in getting the List of schools in the Marlborough Region article up to featured list status. I removed the "Website" column because concerns about that column were raised in the ongoing TFL nomination for the article here. I do not feel strongly on this matter, so perhaps it would be best for you to discuss this issue at TFLS. I hope everyone can come to a mutually satisfactory decision so the list can be granted a main page slot.

Neelix (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of several issues found on the page, I have nominated List of schools in the Marlborough Region for WP:FLRC. The discussion can be found here. Significant work will need to be undertaken to improve aspects—in this case largely referencing—in order for the page to retain FL status. – SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this nomination. I have added a similar list which might be considered for featured list removal in the same nomination.-gadfium 07:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you! I have merged Pérrine Moncrieff with the more developed (and older) Perrine Moncrieff. DNZB suggests that the spelling with the acute accent is the common one, though. If you concur, would you mind moving the article over the redirect with edit history? Schwede66 07:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions have a history, and while I could do a history merge, I prefer to leave such things to people more qualified. Please make a request using the instructions at WP:HISTMERGE#Instructions for tagging a page for history merging.-gadfium 07:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have done so. Next one is Cyril Charles William White, which should be at Cyril White. That page is a redirect with an edit history of one, but I still can't move it. Obviously, it needs a hatnote to Brudenell White once done. Schwede66 08:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using Requested moves for this one too, as Brudenell may have as great a claim to the name.-gadfium 00:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, including a note on Brudenell's talk page. Schwede66 02:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you or anyone else cares about the category of Lorde being there, as she is a world-famous pop star who is a singer-songwriter that is a lot more famous than in September 2013. I do not think you should have deleted the category. Thebuck093 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page, feel free to take it to WP:DRV.-gadfium 07:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your advice and help on my talk page! Gamera1123 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!-gadfium 05:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artist collectives, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 15:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaff (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	you just won a award for a hard work! Bettifm (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!-gadfium 18:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gadfium. Would you mind protecting Northcote College which is under attack from IPs. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The attack seems to have fizzled out, but I'll keep an eye on the article.-gadfium 02:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this article as O'Connor v Hart, and someone had changed this to Hart v O'Connor. Whilst the final decision is was filed under Hart v O'Connor, I have never seen it cited as such, and I can cite 3 university law books that cite it as O'Connor v Hart. I tried the undo function, but it said this had already been actioned. Any suggestions????

You can ask the editor who moved it, @Wikidea:. See MOS:LEGAL#Article titles which says that articles are titled according to the jurisdiction they are filed in; in NZ that's the Law Style Guide. Section 3.2.1 of that says to use the form in the law report, and I think that it is usual to have to order of appellant v respondent. You can certainly challenge this; perhaps the Law Style Guide is not the most appropriate document to follow or this case is exceptional. Talk to Wikidea in the first place, and ask at WT:WikiProject Law if you need further guidance. I don't have the expertise to help further on this.-gadfium 04:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the actual report of the Privy Council, here. Often before, names in cases swapped as they went up the appeal chain. So, if authors of books became acquainted with the case further down first, they may have preferred to stick. But both names redirect to the page, so everyone will find it! Wikidea 10:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering what was wrong with the first Lancet reveiw [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seemed to be spamming across multiple articles for a device/technique called Deep TMS. Having found three near identical posts to parkinson's disease, addiction and major depressive disorder, and noting that other editors including yourself had removed other recent posts, I rolled back other very recent posts without examining them closely. I probably should not have done that, but when Germanbrother reinstated the posts I left them for other editors to deal with, and it appears all have been removed again.-gadfium 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Won a award fora 10 year long busy editing and You should support the All Blacks as a special treat Bettifm (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Tayste (edits) 20:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help. A Phd in Philosophy in the US has challenged the relevance of this article, even though I have cited 2 university law books as references, for which she is also saying that these references do not support this subject, even though I doubt she has even bothered to read these references in the first place. Any help you can give on this would be greatly appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs)

The article talk page is tagged with WikiProject Law so the deletion discussion will come to the attention of editors from that project who are better placed than me to judge its value.

You might like to look at the arguments of James500 in the previous discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catley v Herbert. That gives you an argument for keeping the articles based on Wikipedia guidelines (but note that the guideline did not achieve consensus, so it is not nearly as strong as the general notability guideline). Please couch the argument in your own words rather than simply copying James'.

I also suggest you avoid bad faith attacks such as doubting the nominator has access to the sources. Adding page and section numbers to the references as you have done is very helpful.-gadfium 03:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One reason why overseas people get into difficulty at Mt Cook is that they assume conditions at Mt Cook may be similar to mountains of the same height in their countries and are unaware of the serious nature of climbing at Mt Cook. To me it would seem appropriate to give some indication of what conditions are like at Mt Cook. Or at least state the number of deaths - 230 People without mountaineering or alpine tramping experience may not understand the significance of this. If you doubt what I am saying please ring DOC at Mt Cook or the NZ Alpine Club and talk to someone who has been to Mt Cook a few times.

I started a discussion on the talk page when I made my earlier edits. I'd never heard of WikiVoyage before today. Does wiki generate revenue from that site? Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage is a sister site of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation runs both sites and some others. It does not generate revenue from the sites but is primarily funded by donations.

I removed your edits because they were unsourced and giving such advice is not really part of the role of Wikipedia. See WP:NOTGUIDE for the guidelines. However, you are most welcome to add figures for the number of deaths on the mountain, with a suitable source. This might be better at Aoraki / Mount Cook rather than the article on the national park. There is already a climate section in the article on the mountain. If you have a suitable source comparing the climate there to that of other mountains, that might be appropriate.-gadfium 18:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was sloppy editing of mine not to have a source. I don't know if there are numbers of deaths for Mt Cook itself. Some people go missing and its not known what happened to them.

With so much overlap between the mountain and national park maybe there should be just one article, rather than 2. Thanks very much for the information.Aaabbb11 (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium you are so Hungry since nearly 11 years editing Bettifm (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gadfium.Rick570 (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday on Wikipedia turning your 11th Year of Editing Bettifm (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I'm Sorry for copyright violation on NZ Herald Article. So you go a Editors Barnstar for Busy Work Bettifm (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Just won a Cheeseburgr Bettifm (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides following this user around correcting/reverting many of his edits, what do you think should be done about him? The only way I'm aware of him is I deleted his second RfA and left a post on his Talk page (no response). At best, he seems to be suffering from a severe case of incompetence, but I can see you know more about him than I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've already linked to Wikipedia:Competence is required. See also Wikipedia:Competence is acquired. He does need to improve the standard of his edits, but he is editing in good faith.-gadfium 05:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, I commented on an instance where Bettifm's enthusiasm is obviously getting ahead of his current competence. Schwede66 06:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you have a suggestion for an appropriate action for Bettifm's overall edit pattern? I've tried to give him advice, but it's not working. He is currently "on holiday", so I suggest no action is appropriate until he returns.-gadfium 06:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I have less patience with editors like Bettifm than some. Given that you have tried to give advice and he continues not to heed it and continues to make poor contributions to the encyclopedia, we have to ask ourselves if there's any point in continuing? ("is the editor amenable to suggestion, to changing the way the do things and to resolving difficulties"). Editing in good faith isn't all that's required. One can be disruptive while still editing in good faith. Bettifm doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes. I'm assuming he's young based on his userboxes, although teenager covers a wide span of years, and we have some very good, young editors at Wikipedia. If someone wants to take the trouble to help him, I suggest mentoring where he is given concrete goals he must meet if he is to continue as an editor. In other words, try to help him but more forcefully and with consequences if he is unable or unwilling to learn.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the ten newest pages that he has created to get a feeling for this:

• The X Factor (New Zealand series 3) was changed to a redirect by another editor.
• Decades in Colour is currently at AfD (likely to be deleted would be my guess).
• I have tagged Nigel Latta Blows Stuff Up and When We Go To War with "may not meet general notability"
• I have merged Hyde Street party to Otago University Students' Association after having enquired previously with Grutness.
• List of The X Factor finalists (New Zealand series 2) is a useful contribution, added to by many other editors already.
• New Zealand State Highway 56 is a useful article, although it has only been turned into something of value by other editors after Bettifm's single-sentence contribution.
• Mayor of Carterton is a useful contribution and when Bettifm finished his work, the only concerning flaw were bare URLs (easily fixed, but somebody with experience would know better).
• Mayor of Masterton is another useful article.

More to come... Schwede66 18:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to a great deal of trouble, for which you should be commended. What with you and Gadfium, I'm going to bow out and leave it in your (collective) capable hands.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four out of ten isn't a fantastic record by any description. Ok, I've then looked at the last 90 contributions, but only the last edit to individual pages, and excluding those listed above. I count 22 reverted edits (not including one self-revert, but including two by me, and including one cut-and-paste move for an article with an active move request) and 9 useful edits. Plus adding climate data to Hokitika, which is of concern given that it's not referenced to a particular page on the NIWA website and the editor's past trouble with climate data as shown on his talk page (I myself don't know where to find the data on the NIWA website so can't check this). Most of the reverts are related to a poor understanding of grammar and spelling. At this point in time, my impression is that the work created for other editors by Bettifm outweighs the usefulness of his good contributions. This balance should change very quickly and if it doesn't, he should be asked to retire from editing Wikipedia. As an immediate measure, he should be asked to stop introducing spelling and grammar fixes, because he gets 95% of those wrong. Schwede66 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he starts editing again, I'll make such a request of him (and draw this discussion to his attention). If he ignores that, you or I can take it to ANI.-gadfium 20:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bettifm indeed shows abundant good faith and enthusiasm, but the quality of his contributions is unfortunately dire. His written English varies from error-ridden to unintelligible and he adds little to no verifiable, notable content. In a short time his talk page has gathered a swathe of contacts from other editors and bots, to which he does not seem to have reacted - save to offer tokens of WikiLove. His new articles may be related to his entry into the WikiCup, for which 'articles created' is a point-scoring metric. I toast your patience and the help you have given the young lad, remote as the prospects may seem of raising his game appreciably. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting on Bettifm's talk page, Gadfium. Unfortunately, the advice to "not create any further articles except through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process" is not being heeded: Westside and One News at Midday were both created yesterday in mainspace (one of them with a notability tag placed by Bettifm himself!). Gentle prodding doesn't work; it's time to impose another ban as an attempt to get the message across. Schwede66 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a heads up before I go to bed. I just indefinitely CU-blocked Bettifm as a sock master. The puppet is User:Tamaora, also indeffed. The technical relationship is  Confirmed. The behavioral evidence is striking.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also think they are probably the same people, but they could have been brothers sharing the same computer so I wasn't quite ready to indef. No problem that you have done so.-gadfium 05:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I saw this edit and clicked through to that user's page, "sock" was the first thought that came to my mind. But before I could say anything, Bbb23 had it all sorted. Thanks! Schwede66 05:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry to come in late to the party here, but I think you guys are missing a big part about the sock puppet accusation. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tamaora&oldid=655168116 . Tamaora admitted to being a sock puppet, or at least a meat puppet. They were never disguising that, nor were they using it abusively. I am not sure what "sister editor" means. It could literally mean sister, as in they are both using the same computer and are related to each other, or it might mean something else. But in reading WP:SOCK it doesn't prohibit 2 accounts for a person anyway, just so long as they aren't using the two accounts to try to get more support than they would otherwise get, or other forms of gaming the system. I for one can see no evidence of that. I am not going to comment on Bettifm himself, as he seems to be a bit of a novice editor, as you guys correctly noted beforehand. He probably does need some kind of a mentor to go around to help him out. He seems to like you, Gadfium, so you may be a good candidate for that. I just think that going straight to indef ban for removing an AFD notice that, to be frank, should never have been there in the first place (look at the AFD if you are in any doubt - it was a bit of a bad faith nomination by the looks of it, or at least one that was made in haste, as nobody at all thought even for a moment that it should be deleted). We are supposed to encourage people to be bold, and I think that that is all that Bettifm was doing by removing the AFD. Perhaps he didn't know the rules about what you can and can't remove. And perhaps a 1 week block was fair enough to teach him that rule. But I think in principle this is a good editor in the making. Oh, and in case you want to do a CheckUser on me, yes, this is my 2nd account. I am not using my 1st one because I was being wikistalked so I retired that one to make this one. I would hope that you wouldn't indef ban me if you find an old account I haven't used for over 6 months. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a checkuser. I and several other editors have tried to mentor Bettifm, but he has shown no signs of improvement and I think we've all reached the end of our patience with him.-gadfium 18:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Someone else checked it. Just as a hint, we are in different countries, and the reason I supported him is because I had previously supported someone else (in that case in relation to my normal editing) that was in a similar situation: blocked and then an AFD was started, with both being related to each other. It was unfair that time and it was unfair this time. Tamaora is not an abusive sock puppet, and furthermore is an admitted "sister editor" so is not in violation of WP:SOCK. If he is blocked due to behaviour, that is a different issue entirely, but I thought that a 1 week block had been agreed to already? The sock puppetry accusations seem unfounded. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will reconsider. I had no idea that here had been a previous article, but the two articles cannot have been "substantially" the same because the article I created today included discussion of the ongoing conversation around this death in New Zealand, where articles continue to appear discussing the stone-thrower as an unusually young defendant in a murder case, and, more significantly, to the case itself in the context of the ongoing problem of death and injuries caused by rocks thrown at motor vehicles, and to the ethnic tensions in New Zealand and the problem of delinquency. (I happened on the topic precisely because it is still being discussed) It is also discussed on more random occasions, such as the retirement of the prosecuting attorney, but even these ongoing mentions speak to the fact that this death continues to be familiar to New Zealanders more than a decade after it occurred. I created the article in good faith, having seen many WP articles about individuals notable only for the memorable conditions in which they were murdered. Not only can the old AFD not have reflected the fact that this case continued to receive significant news coverage more than 10 years on, it was not a very persuasive AFD. More editors wanted to keep the article than to delete it, there was little discussion of policy, and many of the objections were on the gorunds that Currie himself was not notable, although no editor proposed the obvious alternative to deletion, which would have been to create an article on the Death of Chris Currie. I argue that an article on the Death of Chris Currie would not only pass WP:GNG on the grounds of the extensive coverage in major sources, but also that part of the notability would come form the ongoing coverage of the death, which could have been no part of the earlier article and long-ago AFD. I hope that you will agree, restore it, and allow me to improve it. Then, if you still find it inadequate, put it up for AFD and see how other editors view it. It does not seem, to me, to qualify for SPEEDY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your arguments at WP:DRV.-gadfium 22:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium you just won a Kitty

Bettifm (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you like the Wikilove, but that it's sometimes not mature enough. Schwede66 06:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/me tries to look as large as possible and yells to deter the tiger from attacking.-gadfium 06:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tiger has risen from the ashes. Schwede66 18:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. So far their edits have been more useful than not, I think, so I have taken no action with regard to previous accounts.-gadfium 18:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on my talk page about a recent block you performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium Thank you for your comments about the University of Canterbury . I am very concerned about the entries on Wikipedia about the University it is have clearly been hijacked by some negative staff who were made redundant in the wake of the earthquakes which heavily damaged our city. I am not employed by or have any interest in the university other than the fact I went there but as a barrister I am horrified that some negatively minded people can make such patently misleading comments and these are picked up on wikipedia and then not removed . This is an urgent matter and it needs to be corrected regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert1964 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revisit the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you like the Wikilove, but that it's sometimes not quite mature enough, so you just got a kitty

Kahungunu (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I'm thinking of ducks... Schwede66 00:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had recently came across a stub called "Operation Vula" that was on the Army chief of the SADF wiki page, and I did a brief 2 sentence entry which an administrator thought was a breach of copyright (which I disagree with), and nominated it for speedy deletion. I challenged this, and it was deleted anyway, without any discussion. I then redid the article, and within hours, I found this article deleted again by the same administrator, this time on different grounds of "no evidence" (although it is specifically mentioned without challenge on the army generals page), and this time it was simply deleted without out any discussion whatsoever. Surely, deleting an article without any discussion is a breach of the wiki guidelines, but the administrator has done this anyway. Is there anything you can advise on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs)

You need to find a source which meets WP:RS. A blog is not sufficient, although the blog you have used looks more reliable than most and could perhaps be used as a secondary source for additional details once you have a better source for the basics. Create a draft article at Draft:Operation Vula. Then contact Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) directly on his talk page and ask his advice for what might be necessary to bring the draft up to article-space standards.-gadfium 08:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the locality of Hunua its own entry but can't move it into mainspace as the electorate of the same name is in the way. Would you mind moving the electorate over the redirect, please? I've tidied up the incoming links. Schwede66 19:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and I've also moved the page out of your userspace.-gadfium 19:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gidday Gadfium - I am a new editor, and am only concerned with this single page at present.

I have noted, as a former pupil of the college, a weak contribution in the subject Notable Alumni, which gives the impression Scots College is only interested in the couple of outstanding sportsmen it produced and an obscure Irish aristocrat. It looks odd, and is plainly misleading.

I wish to set about listing the exceptionally gifted former pupils that I am aware of, which include three leading university professors and a highly successful architect, and others. But I am not au fait with the verification references you require to corroborate these additions.

One of the reasons I am in touch with the continuing careers of these people is that I have organised three reunions for the year I am concentrating upon, 30,35, and 40 years since we were last pupils together at Scots.

What do you need in this regard to get the changes re-instated? I have spent the last 2 days phoning the people in the list to verify details and obtain permission to quote from their biographies. I can provide external links to many of the people, though this will certainly not verify every detail quoted. Every detail i have includeed hs been checked and approved by the person named, so email addresses for them all are possible except where deceased.

Kindly also note that I made some grammatical changes whilst not logged in (sorry). Plase hold my hand for this process the first time, as i have searched the site for guidance on protocols to no avail. Thanks Chinomis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinomis (talk • contribs) 05:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC) that was me! Chinomis (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If any of these people have existing Wikipedia articles, then reinstate them with a link to the article. See Help:link for how to create links to articles. If they do not have existing articles, then consider creating the articles, but first read WP:BIO. It is also acceptable in some cases if you link to an external source which meets the standards of WP:RS which explains why the person is notable, and preferably also mentions that they went to this school.-gadfium 06:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to verify these people went to Scots. The annual published school roll is in print and distributed to all current pupils in that year. I am in possession of "The Scot" anual for every year I was a pupil 1962-74. Would this suffice? Chinomis (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing that they meet our notability requirements is the more important requirement.-gadfium 09:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gadfium - that all looks very cool now... many thanks for your kind help. I am particularly grateful to have learned how to edit my most used website (other of course than comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com). Kindest regards. Chinomis (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have spelt Freidman wrong in the title - it is actually Friedman. Can you correct this for me?

 Done-gadfium 02:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The edit I made to the lead of Pakeha was discussed for some time on the Talk:Pākehā#Proposed_change_to_the_lead_of_the_article, can you please join the discussion on that page. 101.98.220.113 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must have hit rollback by mistake. Sorry. I've restored your edit.-gadfium 21:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadium, I noted on your user page that you have a science degree and wondered if you or if you know someone who could take a look at Tsunamis affecting New Zealand to make sure it is accurate. While I put most of the article together I am not science grad and therefore would like some factual oversight. NealeFamily (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Avenue: has an interest in volcanoes, weather and geology, but hasn't edited since March. Your best approach might be to ask at the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Geology and WP:WikiProject Earthquakes.-gadfium 19:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've written an article about Copland Pass (New Zealand) and it's disambiguated because there was already an entry for a pass in Antarctica of that name. The pass on the southern continent is named for the New Zealand pass, and I'm sure you'd agree with me that the NZ topic is the primary one. To that end, would you mind moving the new article to Copland Pass over the redirect? I've checked and there are (no longer) any incoming mainspace links for the Antarctic pass. Schwede66 02:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-gadfium 04:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You gave Wanganui City College an infobox recently (on my new page, thanks). Please could you do the same for Wanganui Girl's College, it is also a long established school but it has found itself stuck in a draft.Riverviewhouse (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See Draft:Wanganui Girls' College. I had put an infobox on the article before it was deleted as promotional, and as an admin I can see deleted material, so I was able to just copy it to the draft.-gadfium 02:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]