User talk:Gadfium/Archive 5

This paragraph is derived from pages 16 to 21 of the following authoritative history:

Boyd, Mary Beatrice (1984) City of the Plains - A History of Hastings, Victoria University Press for the Hastings City Council

I felt that the pre-existing section on the naming of Hastings needed to be amended because it was historically inaccurate. The idea that Hastings was once called Hicksville makes an entertaining and amusing yarn, which has been widely circulated and accepted by many. It has a superficial credibility beacause Francis Hicks was a genuine historical figure. However, the Hicksville story needs to be relegated to the category of urban myth before it is propogated any further.

Regards

Ross Weenink —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.97.238.61 (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's great. Thanks both for correcting the article, and for coming back and adding the source.-gadfium 00:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I have accidentially created this subpage on my user talk page. How do I delete it, some searching on help did not find anything? Just wanting to be tidy, as I have a pedantic soul! ;-) MadMaxDog 14:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MadMaxDog/archive005

Put {{db-userreq}} on it. In general, for any page you want speedy deleted, you can use {{deletebecause}} (or its shorthand equivalent, {{db}}) and explain why. -gadfium 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. MadMaxDog 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block User:DaJAG as per his edit on Sulawesi and his comment on his own talk user page. MadMaxDog 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else already blocked him. Please use WP:AIV for such reports as many admins watch that page.-gadfium 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this classification at the bottom? The genus Apteryx is the only one in it's family, so the title category has no purpose that I can find. Teak the Kiwi 01:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles should not, in general, be in both a category and its subcategory. The individual articles should be in Category:Apteryx, but a case could be made for scrapping this category entirely and putting the articles into Category:Apterygidae instead, since otherwise Apterygidae would have only one sub category and no articles. If you want to make such a case, a good place to initiate discussion would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds.-gadfium 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiwi"

Do you mean the apteryx category should be deleted or should the apteygidae category be deleted? Thanks, Teak the Kiwi 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest solution is to remove the apterygidae category from each of the articles. You can do this yourself. This leaves the apterygidae category with no articles and only one subcategory.

The rest of what I said was another way of approaching the problem which might be controversial, and can be ignored.-gadfium 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Teak the Kiwi 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, sorry to bother you this (I think I asked you related questions before...) but can we use images created in 1926? Specifically talking about images on this page:

http://www.aucklandcitylibraries.com/heritage/localhistory/aucklandcity/aucklandswaterfront

The images would be quite useful for an article on Commercial bay that I'd like to write... MadMaxDog 10:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in New Zealand is for the life of the author plus 50 years. There's a summary of the Copyright Act 1994 here. An image created by someone whose death date you don't know is not safe to assume to be in the public domain. You could email the Auckland Public Library and ask them. My experience of making a similar request for photos of the 1931 Hawkes Bay earthquake at the Hastings Library was that they were very helpful, but the outcome was that they decided they had no right to display the photos I was interested in either, and they removed them from their website!-gadfium 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhhmmm, what about the Auckland Harbour Plan of 1926 - this obviously wouldn't be an 'artwork', but I can't see the summary treat that case. Any idea where to search or what applies? MadMaxDog 11:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a literary work. Presumably, it wouldn't come under any of the provisions in section 27 of the Copyright Act here. It depends on whether the copyright is held by the multiple people who drew up the plan, or by the organisation which hired those people. If there are multiple people holding copyright, it is unlikely to have expired, since if any one person lived just 31 years after publication, the copyright is still in force. I think under section 21 of the Act, it is more likely to be owned by the organisation, and I am not sure how the provisions for death plus 50 years applies to organisations. I am not a lawyer; you need better advice than I can give you. I suggest you copy this conversation to the NZ Wikipedian's notice board, and perhaps add a pointer to the discussion at WP:HD, making it clear that the point which needs to be clarified is when copyright held by an organisation expires.-gadfium 18:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to move this to Category:LGBT New Zealand please. The latter seems to be the order that every other article in Wikipedia uses (sigh). - SimonLyall 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's a speedy candidate, so I've added it to WP:CFR. I think Category:LGBT in New Zealand might be better.-gadfium 00:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - SimonLyall 00:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. Any idea what a GCV would be? I haven't see it in any of the novels, and I was unsure if my temporary description is correct.

Ship_types_of_the_Culture#General_Contact_Vehicle

MadMaxDog 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this class is used in Excession, as the GCV Steely Glint.

Shrike suggests it might have been a typo for either GSV or GCU. This inconclusive discussion is the most detailed that I'm aware of.-gadfium 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium - I need a favour :)

{{Cyprus-stub}} is supposed to be used for the entire island of Cyprus, both the Greek part and the Turkish part. Because of that, using the flag as an icon was deemed by WikiProject Stub sorting to be too provocative (the Turks on Cyprus use a different flag) and a map of the island was used instead. Unfortunately, a handful of (presumably Greek Cypriot) anons continually replace the map with a flag, leading to complaints to stub-sorters from Turkish Cypriots about our "bias'. The template really needs protecting in its map form. Unfortunately, I've done a bit of reverting to the map, so I technically shouldn't be the person doing the page protection. Any chance you can protect it to admin-only editing? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected it. Semi-protection is usually removed after a few weeks or a month, but that may be long enough for the anons to have lost interest. If you need permanent or full protection, or for such requests in future, WP:RFPP is the best place to make requests.-gadfium 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers:) Grutness...wha? 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm going to have to take it there - I suggested admin-only for a reason - the reversion probleem isn't from anons. Grutness...wha? 05:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I missed the admin-only in your request. However, I think if well-established users are changing the template, then it becomes a content dispute, and negotiation, mediation or (as a last resort) discipline are necessary rather than protection.-gadfium 05:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've takn it to RFPP anyway (all negotiation has failed in the past). Grutness...wha? 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had acidentally reverted your revert on Seed. I also had inadvetantly gave you a vandal warning..... SORRY! I undid both. <blush> Jerry lavoie 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed! I understand that when vandal reverting, it's easy to be a little quick off the mark. In this case, it would have helped if I'd used an edit summary rather than admin rollback, but the anon had placed similar text dumps in several articles so I was reverting in the most efficient way.-gadfium 02:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AnnetteKing.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for you to explain the dispute on the talk page...-gadfium 23:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life, Give it some time. I'm not on wikipedia 24/7 DXRAW 01:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gadfium/Archive 5 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3Clamster 21:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall what contributions I have made to that series - most likely it was vandalism reversion. I have not read the books, and so I must decline your invitation.-gadfium 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I took the discussion to the discussion page of the article in question, [1], hoping to invite people with local knowledge to resolve the open questions--Ratzer 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your html note regarding the following reference for the Moeraki article. <!--Note: the book can be found in the National Library of NZ using this ISBN, and it is also recorded with this ISBN in Auckland City Libraries. The ISBN may be invalid, but it does seem to be the ISBN printed in the book -->

• Anderson, A., Allingham, B., & Smith, I. W. G. (1996). Shag River Mouth: the archaeology of an early southern Maori village, Canberra, Australia: The Australian National University. OCLC 34751263, ISBN 0-7315-0342-1 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
  

How would you feel about eliminating the ISBN entirely from the reference listing? Unfortunately, publishers do publish ISBNs that are valid in that they exist but invalid in that they don't meet their own check digit requirements. So, because of the check digit problem, the article will forever be flagged by SmackBot as being in the category "Articles with invalid ISBNs." I would like to remove the ISBN to also remove this error tag from the page, giving it a better overall look. Please let me know what you think. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having the ISBN is convenient, so I would prefer a solution where SmackBot knows not to tag certain books or certain articles. This could be coded with an exclusion list, on a freely editable Wikipedia page, or by adding a special marker to such ISBNs, i.e. a template added which generates an html comment but no visible text, and SmackBot ignores any ISBN on the same line as such a comment.-gadfium 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I've tried to recommend a solution like this but haven't gotten very far. You have expressed it more eloquently than I have in the past ... so I will forward your request on to those who may be able to implement your suggestion. I'll leave the above mentioned reference as is. Thanks! Keesiewonder ^talk 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Here's where I most recently requested it. Keesiewonder ^talk 00:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is to thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Thanks also for your kind comments that accompanied your !vote, and as for ArbCom, I still think I was too new to see that position last November, but don't worry, there's another election this year. :) Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't sure of the title, I'm sure it's against some WP policy somewhere... but none I could find --Lholden 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you point me to some general wiki editing advice? It takes me a long time to edit an article, and yet I see some users with thousands of edits. How do they do it? Many of those will be reverts, or minor edits. In [collaborating in NZ articles] many of the topics are very advanced. But I see much of the material comes from text books. While everyone has an opinon on Education in NZ, for example, very little of it is represented in the article. How would anyone expect that article to get written without the help of an academic professional? Would collaboration be appropriate? Why? Withit 07:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most people with thousands of edits are making very small edits. Some people here write lots of articles; they are the reason why Wikipedia is a success. Others copyedit articles, or revert vandalism; their work is vital too. The latter people tend to have much higher edit counts than the former. Most really active editors do a bit of both.

Wikipedia (and wiki collaborations in general) are an unexpected development which arose out of the internet. If you had suggested to anyone in 2000 that an encyclopedia that anyone could edit, and which had no paid employees (or almost none), could produce a generally reliable and hugely useful resource, you'd have been laughed at. Yet a few people decided to try it, and here we are. There are academic professionals who write articles here, but the majority of content is written by ordinary people who do the research they need to online or with books from the local library.

You seem to have made an excellent start with History of Education in New Zealand. Most articles get written a little piece at a time, with long breaks when no one does much. It certainly helps for one person to plan out the article and produce a reasonably well-fleshed first draft. From your userpage, it seems you are well-read on Wikipedia policies, so you probably don't need to be warned to be careful not to breach the copyright of your sources.

If you want other people to assist with this article, the first step is to place a few sensible links to it. I see there is already a link at History of education. It would be appropriate to also place a link in Education in New Zealand. All new articles about New Zealand topics can also be added to the new New Zealand pages list. This might get a few people looking at the article. If you know of other New Zealand teachers who are Wikipedians, you can ask them to help with the article too. If there's not much interest from those channels, you can add a request for review and collaboration at the talk pages of Wikiproject New Zealand or Wikiproject education. You can also ask for a peer review at Peer review.-gadfium 08:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium, Could you do me a favour please. Could you Move New Zealand greater short-tailed bat to New Zealand Greater Short-tailed Bat, Eastern moa to Eastern Moa, & Giant moa to Giant Moa? They should always have been with caps. I can do the redirects, etc. Thanks. GrahamBould 13:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've fixed the double redirects; it's optional to fix other links.-gadfium 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gadfium GrahamBould 08:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gadfium/Archive 5, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your feedback on this talk page. The issue of worldwide view has met me before. Here under batts of the common choice of residential insulator. The history is that I added a section which was rewritten to make the point described clearer. The tag was then added, but I feel that it is imposible to meet the standard required, and it was not from northern hemisphere. What does a worldwide view look like? Withit 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's very difficult to address worldwide issues, particularly legal issues, in a general article. Usually, there are either separate articles for each country, for example Gay rights in New Zealand, or someone has done a lot of research to make a fairly comprehensive list, such as Domestic AC power plugs and sockets. I suggest you add a "See also" section to Fiscal Welfare with a link to the Working for Families article (marking it as being of relevance to New Zealand), and adding similar links to relevant articles on other countries you may be aware of.-gadfium 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite but I won't be able to make it - work unfortunately! In terms of FA's, I'd suggest attacking a well rounded NZ geo article, perhaps Auckland... Mostlyharmless 07:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the trouble you go to adding catagories to articles I write. I'm still finding my way around wikipedia, and do not find these tasks easy. I just have not managed to see a picture in my mind of how wikipeidia works. if I may, I will continue to hummbly place before you my difficulties in order to make more sense of this difficult task. Fred114 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to ask for help whenever you need it.-gadfium 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye on the Portal for a week, I'm going on a Spirit of Adventure voyage. (articles are queued for this Monday) cheers, Brian | (Talk) 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.-gadfium 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added a warning on the talk page of 4DPuzzle. [2]. I can't understand the result. The user who deleted it said, and the only contributor was Fred114. The article page was also deleted see [3]. I intended to delete the article page. Why did this not happen? Should I add the message to the article page? Fred114 08:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The message saying "and the only contributor was..." is automatically generated for any page deleted which only has a single contributor. You were the only contributor to that talk page. It is more normal to put speedy delete messages on article pages, but you did nothing wrong. Indeed, you helped Wikipedia by drawing attention to a page that didn't meet our standards.

I see that your signature above doesn't link to your user page. Do you know about using ~~~~ to sign on talk pages? It's much easier than doing it by hand.-gadfium 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know why the signature is not linking. I took out the label without unchecking the Raw Signature box. Also I did another deletion, but neither time it was recorded on my contributions page. The other deletion was here. There was no reference to my action that I can find. I was trying out RC Patrol, which takes a bit of effort to be aware not offend. The biggest obstacle was acting fast enough to revert vandalism. Either the dial-up is too slow, or others can action this faster. Introduced a few people also. Is there a bot for doing this repetative process? Fred114 23:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a number of tools available to assist in vandal fighting and RC patrol. See Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools. Which one suits you depends on what operating system and browser you use, and some are restricted to users with a minimum number of edits. I don't use any of these, since I'm not primarily a vandal fighter, and I have access to admin rollback. However, I've heard good things about VandalProof, although it is Windows-only.

Deleted pages don't show up in your edit history.-gadfium 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to make a broader comment on taking part on wikipedia, that may generate discussion, where would be the best place? Village Pump? Fred114 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of the village pump pages would probably be good.-gadfium 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium,

I've asked for some discussion on this new template at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board.

Thanks for informing me; I've just left some context there for the sake of discussion. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently change some photo's of New Zealand political figures which you have removed siting copyright. I believe that these photo's are able to be used for "fair use" reasons. What are your thoughts on this? --Jughead78 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jughead78 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I would like to be able to use such photos under a "fair use" rationale, and many articles on New Zealand politicians once had such photos taken from parliamentary websites on that basis. However, rules have tightened up at Wikipedia, and fair use is not acceptable if there is a chance that someone could take a free photo. As I understand it, the argument is that if we have a professional but non-free photo, then few people would bother going along to a "meet the local MP / candidates" meeting and taking photos which can be genuinely free.-gadfium 04:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if we are given permission to use the photo on this site? How does that effect it's use?

Also I note other official photo's from other international leaders that have not been removed, this appears to be a double standard can you explain this.

Finally I don't know how going to your local candidate meeting has anything to do with have their photo on wikipedia? --Jughead78 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need the photo to be licensed under a free licence - GFDL or Creative Commons. Permission for use on Wikipedia only is not sufficient, because we want others to be able to reuse our content.

Other countries have different copyright laws. In particular, any works of the US government are public domain. It is not generally an acceptable argument to say that other articles break the rules. You are welcome to point to other non-free images used, but you should take it up with people who are more active on image issues than I am. For example, User:Eagle 101 has much more experience with image licensing issues than I have.

The value of going to meetings is that you get a chance to photograph the candidates. Your photo may not be up to professional standard, but sometimes it will turn out really well, and in any case it is likely to be better than nothing.-gadfium 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, thanks for correcting my edit and finding a source for that... I had imagined some pimply-faced schoolboy inserting that and pointing it out on the screen with laughter to his chums. ;) Happy editing. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did not do this correctly, but there are some copyrighted images which are falsely indentified as being PD in the States. Here's an example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pents13.jpg One can plainly see the the copyright notice "(c) 1971 US Games" on the lower right corner.Smiloid 22:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar (my first one). I appreciate the acknowledgment of my effort to improve, and consider it more meaningful coming from someone who doesn't always agree with me. <<-armon->> 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate yes sorry about moving the page its just all the other lists are basically feature films and New Zealand seemed the odd one out in naming and I wanted it to become part of the series. When I have time I'll give you a hand in filling in the tables -they are good because they also show the direcotrs actors genre release dates and notes of all the films which are list of titles can't do .-cheers. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am wondering if it is about time to archive the new articles. perhaps have the current page from Jan 2007 and the archive being up to end of 2006? As I don't know how to create the archive, decided to ask you if you thought this is a good idea and whether you could do it. Thanks Linnah 07:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was the last editor to archive the list, previously Grutness took care of it. The method he used seems to be that every three months, he archived everything over three months old. At the end of March, any remaining entries from 2006 will be archived. It would be possible to archive more regularly, but there is certainly value in keeping the last few months in the current list, as it is often some time after an article is created that it is added to the list, and few if any editors are likely to watch the archives closely.-gadfium 07:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created the article List of single-camera sitcoms with an entry for Rude Awakenings. This is the title of a new comedy/drama series which has just started in New Zealand, and unless you had some inside knowledge that it was in production, I assume you meant a different program of the same name, or perhaps Rude Awakening (TV series). Can you fix or disambiguate it, since I'm not sure what the correct action is. Thanks.-gadfium 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm not sure where I adapted the list from originally and where I picked up Rude Awakening(s). I think the original reference must have been to the US program, airing on Showtime (a pay cable channel); but I've never seen it and don't know for sure. In any event, I changed it over to Rude Awakening (TV series). If the NZ program is also single-camera, please feel free to add it. Regards --Jeremy Butler 01:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the possiblity of organising students from a university to edit material on a topic of their choice within their domain of expertise. The reply from lecturers was that the do not want material taken from wikipedia to be used by students, and therefore they should not take part. Is there a past discussion on this that shows the pros and cons of teriary insitutions encouraging students to take part? Fred114 01:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:School and university projects may be what you want. If it isn't, try asking at the Help desk.-gadfium 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choice on getting the photo under GDFL :) Would you be able to forward me a copy of the email that was send to the PM's office asking for the licensing? Cheers Brian | (Talk) 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here: User talk:Tazmaniacs#Algerian_Civil_War —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armon (talk • contribs)

I'm not a mediator. You have three options: ignore Mostlyharmless, request mediation, or issue a Request for Comment. You'll need another editor who was involved and who will back you up for the latter.-gadfium 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. <<-armon->> 00:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have requested that this page be restored following the recent deletion. I note that you have previously commented in favour of retaining the page Talk:University_of_Auckland#Proposed_merger. Please see the restore request (under 18 February 2007) on Wikipedia:Deletion_review. Your support would be appreciated. Nicknz 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on this. I've now corrected the article in question. Cheers! --Lholden 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good day,

regarding the editing and new additions to the Tauranga Boys' College page:

i added notable alumini earlier, with a particular emphasis on 'Tu Pounamu IV'. i should actually rephrase my earlier comment from 'national recogniton' to a more specific and syncratic term of recognition, as it was mainly widly known only by maori of Tuhoe and Ngati Awa decent, as it concerned one of the last existing members of their former warlord-style aristocracy. so i think i should re-word it to make it more accurate. it might be a good idea if somone considered investigating an article about the former Ngati Awa Chieftainship and Maori conservatism. also about idiosyncracies within Maori Socioty and the way they communicate amoung individual conservative sociol castes. - Archibald Barclay, PHD, history and political science. Johannesemmanuelle 14:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our policy on Attribution, which says, in a nutshell, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." As a PhD student, you must realise the importance of quoting reliable sources.-gadfium 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Reply also copied to Johannesemmanuelle's talk page)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was actually intending to revert the first edit, but somehow they slipped in a second one. --Lholden 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gadfium, I'm at work and began to create my page by copying the user boxes from another user page, and was going to correct the info, however got called away from my desk. Will not happen again

Okay, no problem.-gadfium 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Helenalex alerted me to this page. This looks like a bit of teenage fun at work - I reckon it should be deleted. Have a look at User:GerradPier and User:Johannesemmanuelle - seem to be similar. As I said to Helenalex, 'I used to live in the Bay of Plenty and knew the family of the Paramount chief of Ngāti Awa, never heard anything of TP4. I even saw their whakapapa going back into the 17th century, not a TP in sight. Title 'chieftain-prince' is dodgy. On Aquinas College, Tauranga he backs up TP4 with a reference to Grey - that is false too - Grey definitely doesnt mention a TP4.' Cheers Kahuroa 04:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you put up TP4 for AFD pointing out what you know about the Grey reference. TP4, although very short, probably doesn't come under the speedy deletion heading. If it's deleted, we can then remove it from Aquinas College. You could just remove the Aquinas College material, but I've removed it at least twice without making that stick. Having other editors get involved would be welcome.-gadfium 05:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I have a strange question. I was wondering where your username comes from, how you came up with it. I didn't know where to add you on the Classification of admins :) Aecis^Brievenbus 00:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name comes from a character in the Iain M Banks novel, Feersum Endjinn. Gadfium is a fictional human in the far distant future.-gadfium 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So my first guess of "metallic" would be out. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of gadolinium, which is one of the more interesting lanthanides, although only a chemist would understand.-gadfium 04:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of gadolinium, and I knew that gadfium was not an actual metal, despite the suffix. Depending on my mood and what you were writing, "gadfium" has always made me think either of something metallic, or of "gadfly." Newyorkbrad 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added myself under "Literary".-gadfium 05:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Radiant! removed my name. C'est la vie.-gadfium 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that this ip This Ip is registered to some schools in Auckland, I relised that by the contributions one person couldn't have vandalised that rapidly, looked on IPINFO, and it notified of a school, the block needs softening. Retiono Virginian 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that there is any policy against blocking a school or similar institution to prevent vandalism. Students at that school can still read Wikipedia as normal. Since the block is anon-only, any student who has an account can still edit if logged in; they just need to create their account from home. Given that the IP address represents Saint Kentigern College, which has the highest possible socio-economic decile, I'm sure every student has access to the internet from home, or at least from a friend's place.

Should a teacher want to have the IP unblocked, there are instructions on the talk page on how to request that. I'm also watching the talk page, so I will see any inquiry there.-gadfium 18:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Marshall Islands. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warning. I am deleting a large quantity of unreferenced and likely copyvio material added by one user under several IP

Hi, I have added inline citations to a source for the statements I made about Herb Green. I did add the source when I first edited the article, but only as an external link. I've commented on the other issues on the talk page. -- Avenue 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who first proposed the project seems to be gone. I took the initiative to activate the project above in his absence, as I personally guess you all have enough members to give it a go. Good luck. John Carter 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message about removing the current primetime scedule from the TV2 for the reason "Wikipedia is not a directory", but why? All the Australian and American TV channels have it, plus I don't think it acts as a directory. Please, either remove them all, or allow New Zealand TV channels to the same thing. Laydan Mortensen 07:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a All or nothing argument. I agree that such listings should be removed from all TV channels, but I have better things to do than fight that battle. The policy I quoted (WP:NOT#DIR) said specifically Wikipedia articles are not: ... TV/radio guides.-gadfium 08:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Current_primetime_television_schedules. Please contribute there.-gadfium 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I recently added the Kohukohu page. I appreciated your recent edit. Is it correct Wiki usage to make this page a stub? Have you any other thoughts about the article - I am researching more content? Ksidnas 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is sufficiently well developed already that a stub tag is not really necessary. I'd like to see a section added on the current status; what's the current population? Nearest major town and the distance/time to that town - I assume Kaitaia. A picture is desirable on every article. Inline references, such as the one you added to Hokianga, would be good too.-gadfium 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was working on a picture. Ksidnas 19:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, an anonymous user or users who take issue with Filipinos not technically being considered/qualifying as "Pacific Islanders" are back, deleting facts and legitimate information in that article and replacing it with weaselly POV statements over the course of several edits in a row. I mention this here since you were the last person to revert such edits, the last time they occurred a few days ago. Adrigon 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, but my previous edit to the Pacific Islander article was to restore it after a very significantly inferior version replaced the previous one. I have no opinion on whether Filipinos are Pacific Islanders. This is a content dispute; if you cannot resolve it on the article talk page, please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.-gadfium 05:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. An article of mine Italian submarine Barbarigo was overnight retitled just Barbarigo without good reason. Are you able to give your opinion about this? - my response is on the talk page, with reasons why I think it wasn't right to change the name. Cheers GrahamBould 11:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little outside my area of expertise. Mostly, an article takes the simplest name which is not ambiguous, although Wikiprojects can set a standard for names in their area. It seems to me to be reasonable that ship articles get a suitable prefix such as USS xxx, even if xxx is unambiguous. I'm not sure that "Italian submarine" is quite the same sort of prefix, unless that's a direct translation of what was on the subs papers.

Barbarigo is a surname, and we have articles on at least four people with that surname. There's also an article on a school at St. Gregory Barbarigo School, and the Palazzo Barbarigo. Clearly, the name is ambiguous. If someone types only this name into Wikipedia, how sure are we that they are looking for the submarine and not one of the other articles? If the answer is pretty sure, then the submarine could have that article name, but should also link to Barbarigo (disambiguation). I suspect that the submarine is not the principal article being looked for under that name, so the article Barbarigo itself should be the disambiguation page.

I suggest you contact the moving admin on his talk page, and point out your objections. He only followed a move request which appeared to be uncontroversial, since the original Barbarigo article was not a disambiguation page, but a stub on the submarine. He appears to specialise in processing Requested Moves, so I'm sure he can sort out the matter for you promptly. Feel free to refer him to this page if he wants to see my uneducated opinion.-gadfium 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great suggestion for workaround a known bug.

Just currently the bot first accumulates the found articles locally then writes them on wiki. I usually check the 3000 latest articles, while in reality we have ~2000..2500 new articles a day. Thus, there are some intersections. The the bot puts the results onwiki it checks the latest version of its result file and the board itself and if the articles are already there it would not re-add them, but if the results are deleted it is re-adding them.

I intend to fix the bug, by using not the latest version of the bot results but the latest revision by the bot itself. I have not figured out how to do it yet. If you strike an article down but keep its title for awhile the bot would not add it. The solution would work until I will fix the bug Alex Bakharev 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do u get paid to be an administrator? and do u have to check for vandalism alot? ksmith3 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just a volunteer like every one else. I don't have to check for vandalism, either. There aren't set duties for an admin, but when you apply you're expected to indicate what you'll do with the tools. Many admins start out very active and then drop back their activity a bit.

The large majority of what I do on Wikipedia doesn't need admin tools. I do use the admin rollback button when I'm reverting vandalism to articles on my watchlist, but there are other tools available (such as VandalProof) which any editor in good standing and some minimum number of edits can use. I do occasionally block badly-behaving editors or delete inapproprate pages, but other admins do a lot more of those things than I do. People ask me for advice sometimes, but that's because I've been around a long time rather than because I'm an admin.-gadfium 04:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My undo at Tuheitia Paki had mostly to do with the conventions about titles and monarchs in articles - you generally don't pepper the articles or infoboxes with King, Queen etc, and because I was dountful about some of the terms used. As to the edits by that IP at Styles of Address, I have heard Tuheitia being referred to as Te Arikinui as well, on a news report... but doubt whether the protocol is codified anywhere that is verifiable or whether such a source might specify 'oral address' style. Maybe leave for a while and delete as unverified? Kahuroa 08:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave it for a while and see what happens.-gadfium 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking out loud here to you and Grutness here. Other countries use the Infobox template or a variant of it for the info panels on town or city pages. We Kiwis don't - we use tables, ie lots of code on each town page, not standardised, and here's the rub - much harder to cut and paste into other language Wikipedias (like the Māori one). Has anyone ever thought about this in terms of coming up with a standard template? If they did, I'd like it to include the Māori name of the town as one of the items - oh that would make my job so much easier!!! But seriously. The Aussies have Template:Infobox Australian Place with subtypes like town etc... I realise that a deal of consultation would have to take place as to what is important to include, but we could just hijack the aussie one and tweak Kahuroa 08:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very good idea. Probably best to raise it at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard first, to see if anyone else has suggestions. Without looking into it, I'm surprised that each country seems to have its own city template; why is the standard one not enough? Is it that the standard one has too many options, not all of them relevant? For example, we won't want to add timezone info to each city, because apart from Chatham Islands, NZ has only one timezone.-gadfium 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Might have a lot at how various countries do it and then propose at the noticeboard. Kahuroa 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium - silly question, but why remove all redlinks from school articles? I noticed your recent change to Logan Park, and while I agree about Liz Shaw, Chris Donaldson is a big enough name that he is likely to warrant an article at some point. Surely some kind of latitude is possible where a person genuinely should have an article - last time you removed redlinks from this particular school, I put them back and wrote the required articles! Grutness...wha? 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I typed a lengthy reply to you a couple of hours ago, and now it is nowhere to be seen :-(. I must have previewed it and forgotten to save it.

There is an informal policy - but no official policy that I am aware of - that all links to people from the year articles (eg 1970), and the day of the year articles (eg 1 January) must go to appropriate articles. This makes it very easy to remove vanity for people adding their own birthdays to such articles. If someone also creates an article on themselves, it gets dealt with by normal CSD and AfD processes. To allow redlinks on these articles would require the editors who check them to regularly check the notability of the people. This could be made slightly easier if we put external links for people who don't have Wikipedia articles to establish notability, but there is still a requirement to verify that the external link is a reliable source.

Last August, I raised the idea at Talk:Invercargill that we should exclude redlinks from the names of famous Invercargillites, for similar reasons. The one response I got agreed with me. I also raised the more general question relating to New Zealand town articles in a more general forum; but I cannot now find the discussion. Since then I have been removing at least some redlink names from New Zealand town articles. I am not sure if it has ever been discussed, but I have been also applying this policy, with considerable leniency, to New Zealand schools since I started regularly policing them about the same time.

By considerable leniency I mean that I usually only remove redlink names from a school article if the list of alumni makes no assertion of notability, or a google search fails to confirm the assertion made. Very rarely, I have removed redlinks where there is a marginal assertion of notability but the number of redlinks in the section seems to be growing out of control. I'm particularly likely to do this if someone keeps adding more redlink names, because I don't want to get involved in arguments about who is worth having on the list and who isn't.

In this case, Chris Donaldson was described as a 100 m runner. That is not an assertion of notability. As a high school student, I was not athletically inclined, but I was forced to take part in athletics events. I choose the 100 m because it was the shortest such event. I suspect many students do the same. I should have googled to check notability, but on this occasion I did not. I agree this was a mistake on my part. The anon who added the name should also have included more information on why Donaldson was notable.

At the same time as seeing this addition to Logan Park school, I noticed that the article on Liz Shaw had been deleted as a result of a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm very happy that the article was deleted, as I voted for deletion at the last AfD, and have since had to defend it against vandalism and POV pushing. I note that Shaw complained after it was deleted. This side event may have distracted me and prevented me from doing my normal check of the other redlink in the article.-gadfium 04:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - that all makes sense. I suspect it is probably worth doing a google check each time, though I can definitely understand if a deletion slips through in this way. I totally agree with you about Liz Shaw, BTW. Grutness...wha? 11:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the article? I can't find a AFD or anything? - SimonLyall 04:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as a result of a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation. See the deletion log and also see User_talk:Makemi#Liz_Shaw. The contents of email to OTRS are confidential, so we'll never know who complained. There is a little more information at User_talk:Makemi#Deletion_of_Liz_Shaw_(New_Zealand).-gadfium 04:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, It's a pain deletions or moves sometimes don't show on watchlists, Interesting the user who claims to be Liz doesn't appear to be the one who complained. - SimonLyall 05:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me correcting your link to Nelson Airport in the Nelson article (the previous link referred to an airport in Nelson, British Columbia in the Dominion of Canada...)

Are you a Mainlander (or even a Nelsonian) yourself since I often notice you on NZ related pages?

My grandchildren live in Nelson so Tá súil agam cloisint uait... Gaimhreadhan

Not at all; it was careless of me to have failed to check the link.

I'm just another fabulous Aucklander, although I have lived in Blenheim in the past. I've travelled around quite a lot of the South Island, but the last time I was in Nelson was about eight years ago. I'm Irish, but came to New Zealand to escape the troubles. Was last in Ireland in 2003.-gadfium 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've an aunt in Blenheim but only ever transit through Auckland Airport when I can't get an international connection from CHCH. I wish you a belated happy St Patrick's day! (I still have the misfortune to reside 400 yards from the irish land frontier (with 6 of our neighbours discovered floating face down in the water in recent years). Thank goodness things can be discussed here with a little more light and less heat...Gaimhreadhan 02:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently removed a talk comment by an anonymous user, asking why his information was removed (diff). I think people are entirely justified to ask why their information was removed, your behavior is only aggravating the issue. Do not bite the newcomers. -- intgr 11:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bizarre_vandal_on_Hans_Reiser. This is one of a series of IP addresses and sockpuppets reinserting the same or a similar rant. There is no need to reply to each sockpuppet each time. In this case, Do not feed the trolls trumps WP:BITE.-gadfium 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was not aware of this incident. -- intgr 01:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I need to revert further such material, I'll include a link to AN/I.-gadfium 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gadfium, how do you do? I'm asking if you can please move Aerial platform, incl. talk page, to Platform truck for me (mirror everything I guess). Can't do it myself, as Platform truck is already a redirect.

Reason, as I stated on the talk page of Aerial platform, is that I want aerial platform to point to Aerial work platform instead, a much more generic article than the firefighting vehicle. I will then link to the more specific Platform truck. MadMaxDog 09:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-gadfium 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your removing the inappropriate warnings Rebroad left on my talk page, but if you look at the diff you also deleted a comment of his and my response, and I'm not sure why. If there's no reason for removing those comments (they were some of the tamer ones in my opinion), could you do a partial revert? If there is a reason behind the removal of those specifics comments, I'd really appreciate knowing what it was. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Fixed now.-gadfium 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks. Did you mean to add back one of the warnings? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to remove it in the first place. This doesn't mean I approve of that warning. I am removing a warning ({{uw-vandalism4im}}) which seems clearly inappropriate, without making any comment on the other discussion on your page.

That's what I figured. I think it looks nice with the afg barnstar...the dichotomy is amusing. Kinda like a truck I saw today with a skull and crossbones and a one of those stick figure family drawing bumper stickers. It's an interesting picture at any rate.

Yah, I was just checking to make sure--I didn't want to remove the comments myself (for some reason I'm even hesitant about removing vandalism), and I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

See comma splice.  :) JackofOz 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you please merge these articles 1. Schaum's outline and 2. Schaum's Outlines with the same contents and different names? I'm not sure what to do. Thanks —F^red11⁴ 02:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One is just a redirect to the other. It makes it easier for someone to find the article by providing several different search terms for it. See WP:REDIRECT. Nothing needs to be done.-gadfium 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have raised this on the NZ noticeboard idf you'd like to comment. Cheers Kahuroa 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 2 weeks ago, on 20 March, you placed a 1 week block on an anon IP for repeated vandalism. On 5 April, the same IP added some minor vandalism to the article Sumo (the text "ccc" at the end of a paragraph). I don't know what the regular procedure is for a situation like this, but I figured you would. Xaxafrad 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on them. This particular vandalism looks like a newbie test, it showed no indication that the editor has any previous experience with Wiki markup, and there's no indication of malice either, unlike some of the previous edits, so I'm guessing it isn't the same person. Whois says the IP is assigned to a cable customer in the Wellington area, but it still might be a school or library computer.-gadfium 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, so far i've found most people on wikipedia to be quite nice. At the moment i'm trying to gather information for Auckland Secondary School pages, as it seems like half of them are stubs. But apart from that, if you need a hand with any other projects i'm sure I could help. Lannah 05:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to guide new contributor User:Hayden5650 but I fear it will take lots of time (which I haven't got) so maybe you might be prepared. I think if you see his latest edits at Weston, New Zealand you will get the idea. I truly haven't the time, otherwise I would.219.89.17.189 06:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain your concerns a little bit. The difference I see between your edits and his boils down to whether to use "3" or "three", and I really don't care either way.-gadfium 06:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate knowing what was wrong with my edits to Weston, as while I did indeed change three to 3, that was merely at the beginnig of a long contribution to the article. I would also appreciate messages left to me to be from user names, not IP addresses as this makes me feel that the message was more malicious than an offering of advice. If this is the case, then I apologise to you Gadfium for being brought into it. --Hayden5650 09:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my impertinence for appealing to your sense of fairness and requesting your help.

I am sorry that I am unable to append my signature but I assume that I should not log on because I have been indefinitely banned as puppet.

As an administrator I believe you will be able to e-mail me at the address I registered under my user name W. Frank (which is a truncation of my passport name) and I will be happy to fax you my German Passport, ID Card, Pension Book, etc.

It is hardly surprising that G and I share some interests.

G introduced me to Wikipedia in December 2006.

before that date (when his cancer worsened) he was working for my company. Both g's children were born in Nelson and I naturally visited them when I holidayed in NZ in 2005 and again last year.

When I damaged my leg, G suggested editing Wikipedia in December 2006 but if you examine the articles I have edited and he has edited you will see that, although we have some interests in common, we have edited independently.

All this has blown up in the last few days.

Because he has been having chemotherapy in Glasgow (where I live) I have returned the hospitality offered by his family (both in ireland and NZ) and put him up in between sessions (as a perk, I retain a flat in the same building of my old firm).

A few days ago, before he went in for his latest session, he did show me (on the firm's computers) what had been happening with the IRA articles steadily reducing the prominence given to victims and since I have suffered due to terrorism myself I was also outraged.

In that limited sense he did canvass me but the opinions I expressed have been my own. I would also admit to using cut and paste from time to time from his edit summaries after he left for the hospital but again that is made easier to do because he had been using the same company registered browser (which, for security reasons, keeps the history as an audit trail - both he and I work/worked for a company active in bank security card software).

I would be perfectly happy to operate a self denying ordinance of not editing any irish articles if that were felt appropriate.

As the brief biography on my user page made clear (before someone deleted it yesterday) you will see when you get my passport and birth certificate that the name, date and place of birth all are truthful.

I will not visit G in hospital until later this evening but I assume that he will give me permission to also fax his personal documentation to see that we are not even remotely similar (I am bald, short and German - he is hairy, tall and Irish) and I am also willing to visit anybody you name in Scotland that is on a bus route to establish my bona fides (as a pensioner, I can travel anywhere in Scotland for free on my bus pass).

Please be so kind as to e-mail me (or tell me here that you can not.

I appeal to your sense of fairness in helping me correct this injustice and restore my good name.

I apologise unreservedly for any inappropriate conduct (intentional or in ignorance).

W. Frank (I can not sign because of the editban but you can confirm that this is really me by e-mail, fax, phone, post or personal visit).89.240.90.169 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make future posts only on your talk page. I will see any posts there, and I'm sure Tyrenius will as well. To post elsewhere is an evasion of your block and will only get you into more trouble. I had already commented in your favour at User talk:Tyrenius before you posted this.-gadfium 19:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion on User talk:W. Frank. This is of course an "unusual" situation and merits being examined properly. I will try to resolve this with the user, and, if not, give him proper access to appeal. Tyrenius 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll watch proceedings, but I've made my point so probably will not get involved further.-gadfium 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At your suggestion, I have unblocked User:W. Frank - conditionally for the time being - and will continue the discussion. Tyrenius 22:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However I still can not edit my user page while logged on!?!?!!! Please e-mail me.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for taking the time out of your busy life to give me a chance to prove that I can learn from my ignorant mistakes and make a valuable contribution by continueing to edit English Wikipedia.

_{Please forgive me for posting again on your user page but
1) I am still blocked on my own user page and
2) I assume that your injunction "Please make future posts only on your talk page. I will see any posts there, and I'm sure Tyrenius will as well. To post elsewhere is an evasion of your block and will only get you into more trouble. I had already commented in your favour at User talk:Tyrenius before you posted this." has now (temporarily?) lapsed after the subsequent temporary (if unsuccessful?) unblocking comment by T.}

I continue to believe that, in our case, it should be very easy for me to prove that I am a different person from G, the person I have been accused of being a puppet of (or vice versa).

I would much prefer that this allegation is proved wrong rather than that administrators and others have just to "assume good faith" or "innocent until proved guilty".

In our case we have the physical evidence due to our corporeal existence (passports, birth certificates and, in G's case, marriage certificates and children's birth certificates; fingerprint and retinal recognition logon audit trails on work computers, etc) to establish indubitably that we are two separate real persons

(and, if you did but know it, people with very different Weltanschauungen and political views. After having been friends and colleagues for more than 20 years it is hardly surprising that we share a hatred of terrorism and a mistrust of those apologists who would seek to water down or bowdlerise the historical record of atrocities carried out in the belief that any means justify a sufficiently important end. If Wikipedians will look at the differing cases of how Germany and Japan have written their domestic histories after the Second World War (- sorry, incident) it will not be necessary for me to labour this point. My whole life was ruined by British terrorism and G's whole family have been scarred by Republican violence and sectarian hatred of mixed denominational marriages so it is hardly surprising that we both wish WP to be an honest and balanced record of attributed points of view rather than censored by terrorist spin doctors or their apologists).

However, I do not want to live under a cloud for the rest of my life as if I had only been acquitted with the peculiarly Scots third verdict of Not proven.

I wish my good name to be cleared and the Sockpuppet verdict (or allegation or whatever) to be removed and expunged and then my user page restored to what it looked like before that ugly and defamatory template was placed there without warning.

I will then trust that a note (perhaps scans of the forensic report?) can be placed in whatever forum administrators use before they place these sockpuppet templates so that the same allegation does never re-surface again without sober and considered ( - ie more than a day's pause between allegation and conviction -) deliberation.

Since no administrator has had the decency or sense of natural justice to e-mail me so that I can prove my corporeal existence with documentation, medical records, etc, would you be kind enough to ask an administrator (perhaps someone with a police, forensic or investigative background) to e-mail me using the address that I registered when I first signed up to Wikipedia in December 2006?

I do understand that you are very busy and may have an understandable wish to stay out of any crossfire and may therefore not wish to reply either by e-mail or publicly. If this is the case, I will simply have to close by thanking you again for having the decency to ask Tyrenius to assume good faith and not ban people indefinitely without even a warning and without giving them a chance to clear their characters.

Note for onlookers: The last paragraph is my summation of my gratitude to Gadfium and my summation of his actions and I wish to make very clear that, at this point and with the sole exception of G [ - and "G" does not mean gadfium], I have not knowingly either received or sent any e-mails to or from Wikipedians.

And now those fateful four tildes (UNLIKE g I HAVE DOUBLE CHECKED MY wp LOGIN AND CLEARED THE CACHE ON THIS WORKSTATION):W. Frank 10:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I can see no reason why you should not be able to edit your user page. It is not protected, and you are not blocked. Perhaps you saw one of the transient errors which happen from time to time when editing Wikipedia. I see such an error message at least once a day, and retrying after a minute almost always works. If you are consistently getting problems on your user page but not elsewhere, report it to the Village pump (technical), saying what exactly is the error message you get, and do you get it when you press the edit tab, or when you try to save your changes?

My advice to post only on your talk page was intended only while you were blocked. Now that you are unblocked, you can post as normal, except that you have volunteered not to post on articles relating to Irish issues and Tyrenius has taken you up on that offer. You should make it a priority to continue the dialog with Tyrenius on your talk page.

I don't want a faxed copy of your identification. I'm not just assuming good faith here; I genuinely believe that you and G are different people. I doubt that Wikipedia has ever asked anyone to prove their identity in a case like this (they do have to when getting certain very trusted positions within Wikipedia such as checkuser rights or employment; and if you claimed to be a famous person we might want proof of that too). You can email me at any time through Wikipedia, but it is probably better to keep all discussion out in the open here.

Don't regard yourself as having been found "not proven"; rather consider that the charges of sockpuppetry are being investigated by interviewing you, and will probably be dropped. However, the suspicion that you have edited at G's request (or vice versa) continues. You need to discuss this with Tyrenius. If you cannot reach a resolution with him, then there are mediation and appeal processes, but I doubt that they will be necessary. If you've made a mistake in the past, or you've broken policies you weren't aware of, say so. At Wikipedia, we don't punish people for past mistakes, but we do protect ourselves from continuing problems.

In your dialog with Tyrenius, you can ask him to remove the sockpuppet templates from your user and talk pages.-gadfium 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that a dialogue will be able to clear this matter up. I will remove banners. Tyrenius 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what would be a more appropriate way to prevent students modifying the school's page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BArtManInNZ (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The {{anonblock}} template is intended to be put on the talk page of an IP address which is shared by many users, some of which are vandals. {{schoolblock}} is a customised version for school IP addresses. In both cases, the templates should only be used on IP addresses which are blocked from editing, and this can only be done by administrators, not by ordinary users.

You placed the template on an article, not on an IP talk page, and I removed it because it was inappropriate there.

The Wanganui Collegiate School article gets occasional vandalism, as do many secondary school articles in New Zealand. There are also constructive edits from IP addresses. The vandalism is nowhere near the level at which we would normally disable anonymous editing. See the semi-protection policy for when we would consider disabling such editing. Vandalism is normally removed fairly quickly.

We can block the school's IP address from editing on request, allowing those students or staff who create accounts at home to edit using those accounts at school. This would prevent editing of any article on the English wikipedia from any computer using that IP address which isn't logged into an account. Such a request would need to come from the school's principal or IT administrator. I'm not sure of the exact procedure for this, but email me through the wiki interface if you want me to find out. I assume 203.97.89.94 (talk · contribs) is one of the school's IP addresses. It has only been blocked once for a short period, although it has received many warnings. With Without a request from the school, we would not normally block this address long-term unless the level of vandalism from it increased considerably.

It would also be possible for the school to prevent its computers from editing Wikipedia by blocking any url with "&action=edit" or "&action=submit" in the title. This should be simple to implement with almost any filtering software, will affect all wikis using the same software as Wikipedia, and will affect logged in and anonymous editors, but will not stop anyone from reading the encyclopedia.-gadfium 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you gadfium, we will monitor the situation for now and see what happens. Bart 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please remove the speedy tag somebody placed within a MINUTE of my creating this article? I have well-referenced notability now, but if you can add anything... MadMaxDog 02:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, somebody else did. Not the original tagger, though, he must have gone on a long coffee break directly after tagging mine. Oh well, maybe I am just getting a bit frsutrated with these people ATM. MadMaxDog 03:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the original tagger was doing new pages patrol. At that stage the article was a single paragraph, and the single reference was to the company website, which are indications that an article may not be worth keeping. There was no assertion of notability at that point.

If I'd come across it as part of new pages patrol (and assuming it was on a store in a country I knew little about), I would have checked to see who the creator was, and on finding someone with a long track record of contributions to Wikipedia, I'd probably have shrugged and moved on. Had it been created by a newbie, I'd probably have prodded it.

It's difficult to make a note to oneself to come back in five minutes or half an hour when you're processing several articles a minute. Feel free to try new pages patrol yourself sometime. In effect, a speedy delete tag is saying: "this is not currently acceptable and meets this criterion for speedy deletion, could an admin take a look with a view to deleting it", and most of the time it will be much more than five minutes before an admin does come to take a look. In the meantime, you correctly put a hangon tag onto it and improved the article, so when someone else did arrive the article was clearly worthwhile.-gadfium 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, just in case you didn't see this edit.[4] Tyrenius 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gadfium, can you have a look at her and at the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kilaécŭs and then see if a block is warranted? She asked for it herself, and her behaviour certainly merits it, though I may have been a little guilty of feeding the troll myself. Cheers, MadMaxDog 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the afd (which should have been speedied by now, I guess), when does that conclude? Don't know the process too well, as I rarely nominate articles for deletion. MadMaxDog 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afds take five days (plus whatever backlog may exist in closing them).

I suggest you just ignore Eapos; if she wants to leave, then she might just be making sure she gets the last word in. See also meatball:Goodbye.-gadfium 04:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link you gave doen't work, but I get the message. Her ranting just had me itching to return a little bit myself. I'll try to refrain now ;-) MadMaxDog 05:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, try meatball:GoodBye with a capital B.-gadfium 05:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. NZ is almost as far from UK as it is possible to be (though we shall be there in December!) How do I find out if there is an Administrator in London, to whom I could pay a visit, or send a copy of my passport, or something? 85.210.255.81 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Jimbo Wales.-gadfium 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have put a note on the London notice board and will see what happens. I really don't want to change my name! Jeffrey Newman85.210.255.81

Please look at what is happening. I really need help85.210.255.81 02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you - I remember your great photos. It does seem a pity that a country by comparison with Europe and America fairly poor in 19th century architecture can demolish a building like this Image:Sunny Side Asylum.jpg by one of its most eminent architects. One has to though evaluate its possible further use - in London it would be converted into luxury apartments or offices. I agree with you I don't think 19th century mental hospitals were known for their comfort and therapy - more places to tidy these people away off the streets - but that is part of a cultural heritage too - one would knot demolish the Tower of London because some pretty horrible things repeatedly happened in it's basement - or the Alhambra of Caserta because they were built by forced slave labour - all equally horrible if not worse. It seems though most of Mountfort's work is already demolished and what remains in an administrative wing by John Campbell. Here is the official assessment of its architectural worth - if there were ever an appeal a decent planning lawyer could nuke that assessment in five minutes - The Council here saving the admin building "Ensure effective ongoing protection of the Administration Building through the Council purchasing the building," and interestingly "There are a number of potential options for future use of the building, ranging from craft studios to a cafeteria, to accommodation. Certainly, its potential role as an important community facility can be promoted." [5] and yet suddenly here [6] they have given permission for its demolition - if that were my country's heritage I would want to know why - Designed by Mountfort or Campbell, it is immaterial, it is a rare piece of 19th century Gothic and part of NZs very sparse architectural heritage - as I said a decent planning lawyer could save it on those reports alone. Regards Giano 08:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot understand why my entry about Puffies was erased. No desire to dislodge NZers with puffy coats but many seem curious about puffy areolas. Maybe it should be moved and maybe I hadn't figured out how to make links right but I want my story restored and will continue to work on it. Memphis Dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memphisdan (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wait for the existing article, which is unrelated to yours, to be deleted. If you think you can write an encyclopaedic article on puffy nipples, then do so. Wikipedia is not censored. However, I'm not sure if you can say more than a dictionary definition, and you might be better adding that to the existing articles nipple or areola, with a redirect from puffies.-gadfium 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks for that. Will consider those points. Memphisdan

Your recent edit to Podocarpus totara (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was to remove numerous duplications of the article text within the infobox. The bot only sees a significant reduction in the article size, and cannot tell this from vandalism.-gadfium 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of hospital now. I'm going to visit my children in Nelson before I die. I shall be passing through Auckland en-route. May I briefly visit?...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know the details of when you're in Auckland (by email if you prefer), and I'll meet with you if I can. I live in the central suburbs of Auckland, but I might be able to come out to the airport if necessary.-gadfium 05:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sir. I will e-mail you my itinerary and NZ mobile number. I could also visit at a time and place of your convenience. Would a Saturday be more convenient? ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 09:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't received your email yet. Saturday would probably be more convenient, but I don't know if we're talking about next week or a few months away as yet. I'm mostly free in the mornings on weekdays.-gadfium 06:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing the Holden WM Caprice article.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-has continued to vandalise Māori culture - I have undone it Kahuroa 05:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a final warning (and you could have done that yourself). It's on the low end of the vandalism scale, but if he continues, I'll block as a vandalism-only account.-gadfium 05:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. You can not delete comments on people's talk pages, no matter what the content, and especially if it is not yours. I'm not saying I approve of the message, but it is not your decision. -- SilvaStorm

Yeah, you're right. I wonder why he is abusing him. -- SilvaStorm

Hey, someone moved the article List of All Blacks to List of players on the All Blacks rugby team a while ago and I am unable to move it back. I need an administrator to do it and was hoping you could. The new name is so redundant it isn't funny, and I have no idea why the original move happened. The person who moved it did not discuss it at the talk page, and actually moved the page twice in total. Nearly all the wiki-links currently link to the old name as well so was hoping would could do this for me. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-gadfium 01:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have some technical difficulty in Nambassa Winter Show with Mahana. While I have added caregories and the list appears on "edit this page" they do not appear on the main body of the article itself. Any ideas? cheers Mombas 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a problem is almost always caused by unbalanced tags - in this case, the gallery wasn't closed. Similar problems can be caused by unterminated tables, references or div tags.-gadfium 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the penny dropped as soon as I realised what you had done. Thanks kindly. Mombas 04:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has had a hack at Split Enz again and the technology to repair is over my head. I've noticed Split Enz is regularly vandalised. Can you help.Mombas 09:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it, and added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Vandalism patrol which might result in a little more attention being paid to the article.

To fix such things yourself, see WP:REVERT. Vandalism is very easy to fix - it takes much less time to fix it than the vandals spend trying to mess things up.-gadfium 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gadfium, IF you have some extra time, have a look at this user: user:Ghost of starman in this context. He changed the assassin in the list to suit his theory, and then wrote an 'article' to prove it at the name of the suposed assassin Marrell McCollough. I added POV and unreferenced tags to the latter, and reverted the change at Assassination. I wanted to afd the McCollough article too, but maybe I am taking this too personal. Have a look if you have the time. MadMaxDog 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has removed the references and POV tags, yet provided nothing. He will add references "when he has the time". Can you please mediate this? Or ask some other administrator to do it if you feel you'd be the wrong person? MadMaxDog 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had to stop reverting because of WP:3RR... Placed a NPOV tag with explanation on Assassination instead. MadMaxDog 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a mediator, nor do I have any particular interest or expertise on the Kennedy assassination. If you want to get more people involved, posting on the talk page of John F. Kennedy assassination might be appropriate.-gadfium 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. The overwhelming support that I received made up for the negative and disrespectful attitude displayed by User: Tony Sideway. It never occurred to me that a hacker would waste their time hacking passwords in Wkipedia. I fixed my password and gained my admin powers back. Thank you once more. Tony the Marine 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Gadfium for your great support, its really good to hear positive feedback, I was wondering how would I change an articles name so I can make a different article under the (old) name. I want to change the current article of Papakura to Papakura District so I can make the Papakura article about the actual suburb "Papakura" and not about the district as a whole. Thanks again. Cheers, HannahSamuels 07:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Papakura District, so you can make the move yourself.-gadfium 08:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notification of discussion. I'm been off for a couple of days with RL stuff. Tyrenius 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as an administrator I wonder if you can help fix the David Bain article up as it is in the spotlight at the moment, the sections David Bain#Prosecution Theory and David Bain#Alternative Theory looks to be breaches and in their current state and need to be deleted. Scoop has the entire 48 page Privy Council report, a summary of some contents could go into the article --Zven 08:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the copyvios (the timeline was also from crime.co.nz), and added a request for the material to be rewritten on the talk page.-gadfium 09:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I will add more material when I can --Zven 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I note that you proposed that the list of writers at Latin America be merged into List of Latin American writers. I very much agree. I also note that you've crossed swords with User:AlexCovarrubias on this, who seems to take a rather proprietorial interest in that list. I have run into similar problems myself. Meanwhile, I have made a number of suggestions at Talk:Latin America and would be interested if you had any input. Thanks. --Jbmurray 13:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and talking about User:AlexCovarrubias, you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AlexCovarrubias. I'd be willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but looking a little into his history, I'm not too optimistic right now.) --Jbmurray 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching your edits to rationalise articles on Latin American writers, literature and film, and considering whether to get involved. I think you're doing very well. I've added a comment to Talk:Latin America, but I probably can't play a substantial role in the matter because I don't reside in Latin America or speak either Spanish or Portuguese beyond a beginner level.

I probably won't comment at the RfC because my interaction with AlexCovarrubias was a long time ago. If someone adds an outside view that I agree with, I may endorse it.-gadfium 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, grand. --Jbmurray 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Portal:Papua New Guinea is fully maintained now. Aliasd 11:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The other day I offered to Avenue access for Wiki to a .pdf of the report of Royal commission into A.A. Thomas/Crewe murders. It's the only copy currently on the web, I've hosted it for a year or two. It is now linked to the Thomas article. However, I may have acted precipitiously as I have recently changed to broadband and I suspect that on my subscribed plan I may be charged IF the wiki link leads to excess traffic/bandwidth uptake from my website. Nevertheless I would like Wiki to maintain some sort of access to this historic document. I have read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Images_and_other_uploaded_files#Uploading which seems to imply that .pdf may be uploaded. Would this be possible with this .pdf (its reasonably large)?RichardJ Christie 07:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the copyright status of the report. If it is public domain, which I think is unlikely, then the best place for it is Wikisource. If it is New Zealand Crown Copyright, then see Crown_copyright#New_Zealand. It looks as though under section 27, such reports carry no copyright if published after 2001, but this was before then. I am not a lawyer and I don't understand such matters. I think it may be perfectly acceptable for you as a private individual to host the document on your website, but Wikisource may not be willing to accept it. See s:Help:Licensing compatibility. You could ask at s:Wikisource:Scriptorium. I don't think Wikipedia would want to host such a document in any case.-gadfium 08:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out http://www.coralcdn.org/ who allow you to simply add a .nyud.net:8080 to the end of your hostname in your url to access a free distributed caching service, to prevent you getting overwhelmed by data requests Aliasd 09:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both;

"Section 27(1) defines a further exception to Crown copyright and copyright -- Bills, Acts of Parliament, regulations, bylaws, Hansard, tabled select committee reports, court judgments, tribunal judgments, Royal commission reports, commission of inquiry reports, ministerial inquiry reports and statutory inquiry reports do not carry any copyright, regardless of age. Section 27(1) came into effect on 1 April 2001. There is, in New Zealand, under s 27 of the Copyright Act 1994, no copyright in regulations."

Seems quite clear to me that "regardless of age" means this report is copyright free. RichardJ Christie 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any official Wikipedia policy on representatives of fledgeling political parties in relatively fluid political situations? If so, is it accurate to describe Taito Philip Field or Gordon Copeland as "Independents?" While I think the former's party is probably dependent on his personal mana and local status, that's my supposition, not substantiated by any opinion poll or evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, I've amended the Gordon Copeland and United Future's entries to reflect the return of Future New Zealand as an independent entity, and according to TVNZ, he may have taken large chunks of that party organisation with him- so, would it be more plausible to describe him as a "Future New Zealand" MP rather than an Independent?

User Calibanu 14.18, 20 May 2007.

I'm not aware of any policy on the matter. It is unlikely to be possible to form policy on fluid political situations. Just use common sense in editing the article, and quote a published source rather than including your own analysis. I understand that Copeland has announced he intends to reform FNZ; until there is evidence that the party is functioning with him acting as its MP (eg a national conference is held), I think the description of him as an independent is probably the way to go.-gadfium 05:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will post only on the NZ Wiki discussion, and will respect my block for its duration.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 (talk • contribs)

{I have posted this same message on Tyrenius's talk page but there is a template posted there that states: "This user is very busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries."}

Please would you ask Vintagekits why he has recently created a page Hannah Harrison Lowe with a #REDIRECT to George VI of the United Kingdom when I can find no mention of that lady within the article itself. (This is the differential and I do not wish to provoke him by addressing him directly): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hannah_Harrison_Lowe&diff=prev&oldid=132532715 —Preceding unsigned comment added by W. Frank (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure you knew who Lowe was when you posted the question. I had to google for it. I do not appreciate your attempt to play me for a fool.

Anyone else watching my talk page, see User_talk:Tyrenius#Vintagekits for VintageKit's reply to the question.-gadfium 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Please assume good faith. I still do not know why Vintagekits created this page or the re-direct and had to wait for his somewhat cryptic links before I discovered who this may be (and if you look at the article's talk page you will see that Vintagekits both refused to answer directly my question or delete the article.)

Let me say quite categorically: I neither consider you a fool nor should you read anything into my very plain words. Why the heck would I know all the Georgian royal bastards?!? I specifically asked Vintagekits "Is this the Hannah Harrison Lowe, born in the British Isles, in 1795?" because if it is (and your Google link above seems to imply so), then why the link to a Kiing born more than a 100 years later? What purpose does it possibly serve (other than the obvious one of improving WP) to draw your attention to a (still puzzling to me) page creation by Vintagekits? Please apologise and strike through your allegations of bad faith.

Normally I would not react in this way to a single off-colour remark like this, but you need to be reminded that you blocked me for 24 hours as punishment for asking this user and another to withdraw their unfounded allegations and not post on my User page again [7]. It wasn't me playing silly buggers by creating nonsense pages with re-directs so please don't shoot the messenger! W. Frank ✉ 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you knew very well what the alleged connection between Lowe and George VI is. Please play your games somewhere other than Wikipedia. I have assumed good faith of you for a long time, but my patience is becoming exhausted.-gadfium 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Gadfium: If you're not man enough to apologise then that's the end of it. Other than a typo I still don't know of any connection whatever between Lowe and George VI so why the heck would you assume that I did/do and was playing games. Just say one little word and stop pouring petrol! Goodnight! W. Frank ✉ 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to apologise for posting on two admins' pages about a completely trivial matter that does not in any way need admin attention. If you choose to follow Vintagekits' edits that closely, then please deal with such matters yourself in future, and follow WP:DR if necessary. Tyrenius 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry to trouble either of you two gentlemen.

(It was precisely to avoid a row that I refrained from addressing Vintagekits to begin with - but no matter - I can admit to and learn from my mistakes.)

Can you point me to information on how I can delete misleading/mistaken/sloppy re-directed articles myself in future, without troubling an admin first? W. Frank ✉ 01:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have recently had some small interaction with Vintagekits on other matters, and I hope he will forgive me pointing this out but like me (this is why I noticed it) he does tend to muddle letters sometimes, which is why I believe in all good faith he probably meant to type "George IV" not "George VI" to some people in black and white print they do look identical - spell-checker picks most things up but not that - so please be a little tolerant on this one. I do believe that is all there is to the matter. Giano 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, thank you for clearing the matter up. It seems that W. Frank is complaining about a typo. I have no problem with Vintagekits.-gadfium 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gadfium, can you please effect an article swap between North Shore, New Zealand and North Shore City? Its North Shore City, officially, and should be that way on here. Even the article lead shows this. Cheers MadMaxDog 09:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did this, without realising MadMaxDog had asked you. So you can ignore this. -- Avenue 11:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I needed an admin to move because the target already had a page. Still a bit confused that apparently (how?) I could have done it myself. Well, sorry to trouble you. MadMaxDog 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can move a page over a redirect so long as the redirect points to the page being moved, and the redirect has no history. This is designed to allow a page to be moved back to its previous name over the redirect automatically created, but works fine for a situation like this.-gadfium 19:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your input regarding my usurpation request on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. I really appreciate it when anyone offers suggestions and solutions. Eleos^Prime 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hai, you were right that the image on Tiniroto was to large. But I think a thumb was a bit to small. So I choose something in between. And Tiniroto belongs to the district of Gisborne, although is it close to Hawkes Bay. So I changed the cat too. WeeJeeVee

Sorry about the wrong cat. I've left the picture at the size you chose, but made it a thumb again because that displays the caption.-gadfium 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gadfium for tidying up and editing my page on missionary William Puckey, I appreciate it. --Soulrevolution 08:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedessa (talk • contribs)

No problem.-gadfium 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]