User talk:Gadfium/Archive 8

I seem to have picked up a stalker (after losing my secret admirer, User:Richard002...) An anon, User talk:147.126.95.165, has been going around reverting changes I have made to articles [1] [2] [3] [4]. Can you give them a block or something? Richard001 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours. If the stalking continues after that, I suggest you raise it at WP:AN/I. If you think it may be the same person as Richard002, you could ask for a checkuser, but I think most likely they're separate people. -gadfium 07:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At it again. I think a longer block is called for. Richard001 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raise the matter at WP:AN/I to get more feedback.-gadfium 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed the section of Trivia that I added. I agree that the podcast isn't the most reliable source, however I know that the number of airlines that go entirely around the world are low (i.e. with out partnering passengers to other airline partners). I don't know what the other is, but if you can recommend any good sites to research this, that would be great. cheers ~~sauj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauj (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please not remove irestorer (free backup program) link from disk cloning that is not ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.249.190 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I restored it to the disk cloning article after another editor removed it. You just added it a second time - it doesn't need to be listed twice. Your other edits to the article didn't appear to be an improvement.-gadfium 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Very Much.

Hi. I have prodded List of New Zealand military people on the basis that it is made redundant by Category:New Zealand military personnel. Leithp 12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not plan to contest this prod, but it should remain in place for the usual five days in case anyone else wishes to. The list was one of several split out from List of New Zealanders in the hope that someone might adopt it. If no one is interested in doing so, then there is no point in having a list when the category is much more complete.-gadfium 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Farscape characters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Farscape characters has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Farscape characters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thats totally true about michael kim i dnt see why that had to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac the pirate (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, stop stalking me and deleting my edits. It would be slightly more acceptable if you at least just found a source and wikified it, but at the moment I can tell you are just aiming to annoy me and you've done that, so quit it now. Dude just quit it. Spykeesam (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am only deleting the edits which make highly questionable assertions without reliable sources. Such edits reduce the quality of the articles. I'm not going to go looking for sources, because I strongly suspect suitable sources don't exist, because what you post is, to put it politely, nonsense.-gadfium 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To put it politely, just quit stalking me. Spykeesam (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have split out Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China and Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam from the parent articles. I have have had at least a couple of editors claim it is POV especially based on WP:CFORK. Can you cast you experience eye over what I have done and comment on POVness? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 06:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with POVness in the first article, and have removed the tag. I don't see a problem with the phrasing of the second article, but I am not convinced it need exist as a stand-alone article rather than be remerged with Three Gorges Dam, where the content would be read by many more people, as I pointed out when you asked me last month.-gadfium 06:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had caught all the links. Metsbot said there weren't any links and I foolishly believed it! Never believe a machine. I will double and triple check next time. Woody (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium - I see you've been talking with Peter Entwisle - FWIW, though he has a few problems with the niceties of wiki-work (e.g., the four tildes business), he is an extremely useful person to have contributing, as a noted expert on Otago history, especially as it relates to architecture and art (he's a published author on the subject, as well as being a regular columnist for the Otago Daily Times). definitely worth "cultivating", as it were. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia has a way to go in terms of ease of use for editors.-gadfium 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, I presume that you read what I wrote at User Talk:Sandra coney (after asking about provcedure on WP:VPP) dramatic (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd read that although I hadn't read the VPP discussion until just now. The edits made to her article look fine; the edits made to the Cartwright Inquiry are changing the balance of the article, but I think it now more closely reflects public opinion; I think the defenders of Herb Green, such as Graemealexanderphillips, had their opinions overrepresented there before. Your warning on Coney's talk page was excellent. I think it is almost certainly her and not an imposter - imposters tend not to be subtle - and I think to block the account would be a mistake. We'll see if she keeps editing.-gadfium 18:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the edit for which he was blocked was an isolated accident. Then again, I say this as someone who has blocked and unblocked him before due to his proclamations of innocence and having changed, but in this situation it actually does look accidental. I hesitate to wheel-war, especially in this case, but I do think an unblock would be the best course of action. --Golbez (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look at it. --Golbez (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed you reverted one of my edits on the Trademe article. You said my edit of the messageboards being referred to as "National HQ" was a rumour. This is not really the case and is more of an affectionate name in reference to the number of conservative posters. I would gladly cite this if only you could statically and permanently link to a thread there. Why didn't you just flag it for further citation and let it be discussed on the talk page? Bactoid (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide a source, and said in the edit that it was a joke. You also replaced the contents of one article with another, and had a dubious history including an indefinite block as a troll, lifted on condition that you "fly straight as an arrow". I think such edits breach that condition, and while I have lifted the block on your explanation that the replacement edit was a mistake, your query of the revert seems to indicate that you haven't grasped that this is a serious endeavour.-gadfium 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affectionately would've been a better word but the fact you reverted my edit suggests you have something personal against me to the point where I am on your watch list. I believe that had it been anyone else you would've flagged it for citation and left it to the regular contributors to this article for debate. Bactoid (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I ever interacted with you before yesterday, unless it was under some previous username that you used. The only "thing" I have against you is that you made two edits which clearly lowered the value of the articles, and you have a prior history involving being blocked as a troll. You appear not to be sorry for these edits although you claim one was a mistake. Please abide by the terms of your original unblocking. If you warrant another block from me, it will be indefinite. You have used up your quota of goodwill.

I have edited TradeMe in the past, and I have a watchlist of over 3000 items. It is not acceptable for you to suggest that I avoid editing this article. Please see WP:OWN before making suggestions like this. This is a formal warning about your behaviour, so I am copying to your talk page as well as mine.-gadfium 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you help me clarify what is needed to avoid a speedy deletion for Reo Fortune, a bio of a notable New Zealander that I started recently? —F^red11⁴ 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article at present is prodded which is the simplest method of deletion to avoid. You are welcome to simply remove the prod tag, although improving the article at the same time is recommended. If an editor thinks notability is still not established, the article might then be nominated as a candidate for deletion, which gives editors a chance to discuss whether the article should be deleted, kept, or merged to another article.

The criteria for biographies is WP:BIO. A quick google search reveals multiple sources, so I do not think you will have trouble meeting the criteria. Being the discoverer of Fortunate numbers is probably enough, but you can explain more about his work as an anthropologist too. However, you need to expand the article and include several sources. Using online sources make it easier for others to check your facts, but aren't essential. I suggest you try to at least double the amount of text in the article and add a couple more references, preferably inline (after the sentence or paragraph they are supporting).-gadfium 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-New Zealand relations is the new Australian collaboration. You voted for the article, so please help to improve it in any way you can. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may know a lot about the Cook Islands, but apparently not Palau, its history, economy and its relationship with the United States. The Survivor mention for Palau had been present without controversy since the first series, which means countless editors did not feel strange to have this section. If movie, music and other popular media mentions of Area Code XXX (substitute numbers for XXX) and a Europe-specific incident on Saipan are not controversial, mentioning Survivor in Palau definitely isn't. Palau is not the Australia Outback or China (where many Americans go) or Vanuatu (where very few Americans go). HkCaGu (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your thread on the Village pump, and I successfully tested a workaround. Use {{#tag:ref|content|name=foo}} instead of <ref name="foo">content</ref>, and you can bypass the bug. Nihiltres^{t.l} 23:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, and you also have to use <includeonly> on the template. I did that just out of habit from working with the {{pp-meta}} family, but apparently here it makes a big difference. Nihiltres^{t.l} 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring the external link to Bribie RSL club, as it is not a commercial enterprise. I don't know if you have the RSL (Returned and Services League)in NZ but it consists of a large number of local branches, most of which run a community social club. Unlike say a pub or casino the clubs 'profits' are all returned to the community, quite often in the form of low-rent retirement homes for war veterans and the local community in general. Cheers.--MichaelGG (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was a bit too general; I removed a commercial link, and I also removed the RSL link. No offence intended and I'll try to be more careful in the future. However, I don't believe that we should be linking to local organisations because we are not a web directory. Instead, we should link to the appropriate page at Open Directory Project, where local organisations can add themselves. I don't have Bribie Island on my watchlist, and if you disagree with me and readd the link I don't intend to remove it again.-gadfium 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a key on the image description page. (But not to the article itself, since there are thirteen different shades and people are unlikely to be able to distinguish them all without clicking on the image anyway.) -- Vardion (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have gotten 10 DYK's for Portal:New Zealand/Did you know. Are you gunna help . . . Am almost at 26 sets. Can we collectively (NZ Wikipedians) come up with four enrtries every week to keep ahead? I have run out of ideas for good ones. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just edited this as I see my old friend Sessoss had added some dubious stuff. Added some material where the Māori words he said have never been recorded actually appear and have been available to read since the first edition of Grey in 1854 or so. Seems he thinks I am affiliated with canoe manufacturers - LOL. Kahuroa (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium - I'll mape some more maps, but it may be a few days before I get round to it ("it won't happen olvernight, but it will happen"). As to the schools maps, I think the idea of a separate Whangarei map is a good one, though it could also do with a NZ inset map, similar to the one on the Northland map. I'll have a go at that as well. If you don't see anything in a week, remind me :) Grutness...wha? 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thanks for that. The Northland map looks good (and no, I hadn't started working on one yet!). Grutness...wha? 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, I would like some advice before entering into an edit war. I recently justified a deletion of the word "latin" in the definition of liminality here. According to the OED, the word limen was first used in 1884 in a psychological sense from the german word schwelle, which means threshold. Of course the latin meaning of the english word limen also means threshold, but the OED does not say this. I believe to convey the best context of the word liminality, we should delete the word "latin" to point to its existing english origins. This is a small, but worthwhile distinction. It is a difficult point to make without much to back itup. What should I do? —F^red11⁴ 09:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One option is to ask for a third opinion at WP:3O. You might also ask for an opinion at a talk page which is highly relevant to the article, but I am not sure what a suitable talk page might be: perhaps Talk:Latin. If you have previously corresponded with one of the users in Category:User la-N, you could ask them to comment. In any case, you need to be careful with the wording of your request, since you are not asking someone to support your opinion, but to contribute their expertise to the debate.-gadfium 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard and tedious work towards Wikipedia! Im surprised you don't already have one for May, you deserve a hundred more Matt (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.-gadfium 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of town till Wednesday or so, would you mind keeping an eye on mi for us? Well deserved on the Barnstar btw. Kahuroa (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.-gadfium 20:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. A couple of days late, but back. Kahuroa (talk)

How do I create my own userbox?Maolain (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the wrong person to ask. I don't use them.-gadfium 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent an email to a site which has an abundance of information of the Maori King Movement, to see if they know which of the King's children are male and female. I already know that the Maori have Princes and Princesses, but I asked just in case. Rbkl (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked an Advisor for the Ministry of Culture and Heritage for New Zealand, and gave me the correct names and sexes of the current Maori King's children. He also said that as far as the Ministry is concerned, the descendants of the Maori King's still use the title of Prince and Princess. I hope this was helpful. If you need to see the email, please just let me know and give me your email address and I will forward it to you.

Sincerely,

(Rbkl (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

An email isn't a sufficient source. If no one has published this information in a reliable source, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.-gadfium 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, I feel the "Start" assessment for Dunedin differs too much with the assessment guidelines. For "B" the guideline is "most or all Start criteria" but has issues such as "missing references". The article has all the "Start" criteria, and is clearly a "B" according to the guidelines. There are 18 books listed in the references, so it is not so much missing references as inline citations. If this is where the bar is set, most of Category:B-Class_New_Zealand_articles will need to be demoted, 1981 Springbok Tour, Frederick Weld, ACT New Zealand, History of Air New Zealand, all have similar or less references, basically empty the category. Please reconsider? XLerate (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this to Talk:Dunedin and replied there.-gadfium 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Operación Masacre. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. was added to the deletion review log. Neagley (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I stumbled upon the Jousters article and found it in utter ruin. I am very suprised the article got under wiki radar but it did. I did some research, and tryed to clean up the article best I could in what time I had. I would like to request that you take a look at the article, or do anything at all to improve it. I was able to obtain legal non copywritten photographs of Jouster stuff that would be good for the article, but I'm not sure how to put it in. Any help would be great! --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably best asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago where you'll find people with local knowledge. I'm on the other side of the world, and I realise that you're not local either. For help with uploading and placing an image in the article, see Help:Images and other uploaded files.-gadfium 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello . The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. With the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. bibliomaniac15 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium - hope this does the trick! Grutness...wha? 00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Waikawa, Southland, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.wises.co.nz/info/Southland,_New_Zealand/Waikawa. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CorenSearchBot is in error. The article is a legitimate split from Waikawa, which covered two different localities with the same name. The origin was given in the edit summary when the article was created.-gadfium 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium - I like the look of the new Marlborough maps you're doing. One thing - I see that the location map template feeds straight into Category:Location map by country templates. Do you think it's about time for a separate sub category Category:New Zealand location map templates? Grutness...wha? 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've created and populated it.-gadfium 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry about the incomplete edit. It was an oversight I missed as no wrapping happened to occur on the screen I was using at the time. Unfortunately, I'm only human. Have now completed the edit. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS This may be of interest.

		The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
		In my short time as a Wikipedia contributor I have not met a Wikipedian as gallant and professional as you, we may not see eye-to-eye on some issues but I respect the work you have done on the New Zealand, Auckland and Wellington articles, and countless others relating to New Zealand, so it is my pleasure to award you this barnstar. Well done. Taifarious1 06:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's particularly nice to get a barnstar from someone I've had run-ins with in the past. I appreciate the work you've been doing here too.-gadfium 06:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Gadfium. (Nice to see Taifarious1 doing so well btw). Re the placename - I have found a book on Google books here which looks like a verifiable source with 105 letters. Just wanted your input on how to handle the body-part mention - Polynesian languages didn't have the concept of 'rude parts of the body' - but English does. Don't want to provoke vandals or cause offence or anything Kahuroa (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem, so long as you use an appropriate translation with formal English rather than slang. Cf Te Urewera. The article is already frequently vandalised, but is also on a number of people's watchlists. It might be worthwhile adding it to WP:MVP if the vandalism levels increase.-gadfium 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:BillBirch.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth fighting. The image had a fair use rationale.-gadfium 05:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, im sorry about the edit I made to the lead section of the NZ article. I wasnt actually aware there was a 'List of New Zealand's international rankings' art. my mistake, I really should research these things before editing. sorry again Taifarious1 08:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It used to be part of the NZ article, but was split off to keep the main article down to a reasonable size.-gadfium 08:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I figured that, i think its a good idea btw (hence the reason i proposed to merge the geo and climate sections) Taifarious1 08:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's just my computer (but other images seem to be working fine), but the images you created for the Killer yeasts page are showing up as having errors: "The image “http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/K1_preprotoxin.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors." Schu1321 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the image fine on Commons, using Swiftfox 3.0 pre-3 on Linux. I can also see them fine using Konqueror, or using Firefox 3 beta 4. The last of these browsers has never displayed the images before, so it probably isn't simply cached on my side. I just asked someone else to try, and they can't see it using Firefox 2.x on Windows XP. I'm not a graphic expert, and have no idea why images would display on one operating system and not on another. The images were originally drawn using Krita and saved as TIFFs, then converted to JPG by Krita for uploading. I'll ask about this at Commons:Village pump.-gadfium 02:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they just had an error in conversion of some sort. I have them re-exported into new jpeg files if you want them. Just let me know how to get them to you. Schu1321 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reuploaded them after converting them using GIMP instead of Krita, and they now work on the Windows box I have access to. Please let me know whether they now work for you.

I'd appreciate more detail on the copy editing needed for the Killer yeasts article. I know it's fairly technical. Does it also need grammar, spelling, style etc fixes?-gadfium 05:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly grammar and style, I can work on it in a bit as well. Schu1321 (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - could you take a look at this please? Previous version was speedied as spam, but would probably also fail criteria A7 (no refs and one of 1100 missions of a possibly notable organisation). Do you want to re-speedy or put it to AFD? (Sometimes I think users get the message better if lots of people are saying their article isn't worthy). Cheers, dramatic (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly fails A7, so I've deleted it and warned the creator. If it's recreated again, I'll salt it.-gadfium 22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me how I can rewrite the article in such a way it won't be removed all the time? YWAM Oak Ridge is a non-profit organization that does a lot of good for the local community. The place has got a lot of history and is well known in the area. Dvandekamp (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and if you think it can meet the standards, then go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and argue your case.-gadfium 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for all the work you've been doing on mi:. The articles might be small, but they're well formed and a nice addition to the site. I'm not really one for doling out barnstars, but your work is appreciated, as is your practical and low-key approach to stuff. Cheers and kia ora. Kahuroa (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.-gadfium 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Would you be able to delete Image:Bjørn Lomborg small.JPG for me? It's just a lower res version of a copy of a file on Commons, but the bot doesn't seem to understand this. Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask an admin with more experience of resolving image issues. What you ask seems reasonable to me but it isn't my area of expertise.-gadfium 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any recommendations? Nobody comes to mind, and I don't know of any index of such admins. Maybe it will still get deleted anyway despite the bot? Richard001 (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would be the place to ask, or just nominate it for WP:IFD.-gadfium 05:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to reply. Thanks for sending me the code. It certainly looks interesting although I don't know any computer languages so I think it's going to be hard for me to figure out. I do have one list in my sandbox that it would be good to use on. At the moment the table is very "busy", so if I wanted to remove the former affiliations and callsigns columns, how would I do this? And also in 2009 when the US switches off its analog signal, the analog columns will need to be removed, so how would this be achieved? Best regards, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The script doesn't work with tables where each cell is on a separate line, so it isn't going to work with what's in your sandbox. Probably, someone has a more generic table editing tool, so you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Tools. I don't know if User:Cacycle/wikEd can delete table columns; the tool is available as a gadget through Special:Preferences. However, your table is fairly small, so changing it by hand is relatively easy.-gadfium 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well thanks anyway. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when the 'Football' argument rose and basically destroid the 'soccer' argument I started getting ignmored. I have full right to change it. Why should 3 or 4 people get the final say when there argument has lost? CipherPixel (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the only editor who believes you won that argument. I suggest you move on.-gadfium 06:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also not true and also you guys just ignore the points which kills yours? CipherPixel (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium I have posted on WP:ANI about the above article. I thought I'd let you know as you are the admin who deleted it. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My explanations: Redlinks on categories are useful because they establish a pre-creation parent/daughter relationship between categories that editors who create categories don't always create — I know this, because I patrol new categories and set up scores of category relationships that should exist but don't. But whatever, if they make you uncomfortable for some reason, have it your way. Ditto on the {catmore}; I don't see it's use in the way I used it as a big deal and it's generally easier than writing a sentence, especially when it's obvious it's a category for people from somewhere, the only question being where the somewhere is, where a quick link can provide the answer, rather than writing out the pedantic "This category is for people from ...". But again, whatever can displace your discomfort ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if i can relate to the above at all - however thanks for your tip re the way to go with cat tagging - cheers SatuSuro 04:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no code in {{WPNZ}} to handle cat-class articles, nor does there appear to be a category for them.-gadfium 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, I tend not to go into those dark mysterious places - they might jump out at me :) SatuSuro 05:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Grutness...wha? 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. — ERcheck (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci !!             Carka Bruni 09:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
		For patrolling and adminship of New Zealand articles, creation of many small town articles, and addition of the history of NZ newspaper publishing to the NZ chronology series.
		this WikiAward was given to Gadfium by dramatic (talk) on 09:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dramatic (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The history of NZ newspapers is just something I do when I only have a few minutes of spare time to add something; the small towns usually require a larger block of time. When I finish the newspapers I'll do something else to fill out the chronology series.-gadfium 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora. I have managed to have a good look at your article and noted that you have asked it to be reviewed as a Feature article. I didnt feel comfortable leaving my comments there. I would like to make the following suggestions. The Bold is from the article with my commentary following.

numerous small rural primary schools, some small town primary and secondary schools, and a small number of city schools I think the words numerous small rural, small town primary, small number are to vague. I was reading how to make an article a feature article earlier today and an article mentioned similar words you are using to avoid. I cant recall the article. I am still trying to think about how you could re-word it. I appreciate the difficulty you have when trying to summarise them geographically. I think you could organise the schools size based on ERO reserach that has been done. Small school anything under 50 students etc

A state integrated school is a state school with a special character based on a religious or philosophical belief. I think that this is ambigous, your definition of a state integrated school implies that Kura Kaupapa Maori are intergrated which they are not. A school becomes intergrated when it is designated as a state school xxxxxx. Over the years I have worked in education, I have often herd Kura Kaupapa Maori being cited as an integrated school. I think but cant be sure, integrated schools are established in accordance with Education Act 1964 No 135 (as at 03 September 2007), Public Act section 98 (1)(b). Here is the web link

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1964/0135/latest/DLM358141.html?search=ts_act_Private+Schools+Conditional

In New Zealand schools, Year 1 is the first year of formal education. Students normally enter the education system at 5 years old. Year 13 is the final year of secondary education. Years 14 and 15 refer to adult education facilities. The word normally is too ambigous. Does it mean that some can start when they are 4? Or when they rurn 7 when a parent thinks that there child is ready. The law clearly states, all children can only be enrolled once they turn 5 years old and can must be enrolled on their 6 birthday. I think. I am sure you can citate this somewhere.

Te Kete Ipurangi website page for each school; it can also be viewed using the "ERO report" link for each school on that website. website page implies that each school has a website page on TKI, when in fact what is on TKI is merely a profile summary of that school. I dont understand viewed using the "ERO report link" Do you mean? ERO reports of schools can be accessed by their TKI school profile?

Decile ratings are reassessed each year. I do not believe this to be true. Decile ratings are based on data collected by the MOE when census data is availble. The last census completed in NZ was in 2006. here is a citation for your consideration.
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=7697&indexid=11565&indexparentid=3963

The rolls given here are those provided by the Ministry of Education Te Kete Ipurangi website in January each year.
When I looked more closely at the TKI site I noticed that they referenced school roll numbers to 1 July 2007. There are two schools roll dates used to calcuate funding and staffing numbers. 1 March and 1 July. Here is the citation for you reference. see data box 5

http://www.tki.org.nz/e/schools/index.php

Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Te Tonga o Hokianga" means "The Kaupapa Maori School of South Hokianga
I find it interesting that you only translate part of the school name. i am about to embark on a journey of discovery of non english terms on wikipedia so that I may understand it. I guess I am going to have the same problem with the kura kaupapa maori article.

I will think about your list over the next dew days. and give you feedback if anything comes to mind. btw. i rearely use TKI as a citation, because i find that their information can be misleading, based on wrong assumption etc. Nothing there is cited and editor opinions are bias and sometimes get in the way with facts and fiction. Maybe that was a little too harsh.

I hope that you find my feedback of use. Regards Funauckland (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's useful feedback. I'll sleep on it and consider what changes I should make in the morning.-gadfium 08:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented many of the changes you suggest. I didn't change the very first paragraph much, because that's supposed to provide an overall summary of the topic and I think a little vagueness is acceptable. Would it be better if I said "There are x rural primary schools with a roll under 100; and y with a roll over 100", and then made similar statements for urban primary schools, and secondary schools? I don't think so, because I'd then have to explain the difference between rural and urban, and justify why I chose 100 as my cut off figure. I have dropped the word "small" as not all rural primary schools are small (by New Zealand standards).

I didn't translate "Kaupapa Maori" because I don't think there is a simple English translation of the phrase. The translations were supplied to me by Kahuroa.-gadfium 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last two sections of the article Kia ora. Can you have a little look at the last two sections of the aritcle. I am thinking to start windining up the article here. I will write more fuller explanations shortly for the Curriculum section, then we can pull out the sissors to tidy up da englis.

Can you think of other subheading you would like me to comment on that could be usefeul?

I am wondering if it is too bias, or policital. What do you think?

Once all the article has finished, I am hoping within the week, i can go hard out citing everything. I really would like the article to become a feature one. Do you think we have a shot? Funauckland (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any direct experience of the featured article process. I believe it is quite different from the featured list process, and the list I have currently on that process is my first attempt there. I've heard that articles are mostly more difficult to get through the process than lists, not because the standards are higher, but that text is more difficult to write well than list material.

A pass through the Peer review process will be invaluable before going to Featured article candidates.

As you know, the school organisation and curriculum sections of the article are still entirely unwikified and unreferenced, and many of the later subsections still need to be written. There's a problem with the use of terms that aren't defined, for example "Children at the start and end of the day will undertake karakia with their kaiako. No one outside New Zealand or Polynesia will know what a kaiako is, and most New Zealanders won't either. I had to look it up. You need to write about the topic from a distance, not from the perspective of someone involved with it. Yu can say that tutors are called kaiako, but if you keep calling them kaiako after that definition, some readers are going to get lost. If there isn't a simple English word or phrase which means the same thing, you may have to use the Maori word, but each time you do this you increase the reading difficulty of the article.

I've found with the featured list process that I have to explain everything, even things I think are common English words.

What do you think is biased in the article, and which bits do you consider highly political?

Any article can become a featured article if there is sufficient resource material available to document it. I think (and again, I am not particularly qualified to comment in this area) that this will be a hard article to get through the process because of the cultural differences between Maori and the general English speaking world. The attempt will be worthwhile though, and the article will improve in quality regardless of whether it gains the featured article status.-gadfium 00:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, can you give me some help, over at my talk page if you like, on how you created the Taranaki map for the Patea article? I want to add some maps to the Second Taranaki War and Titokowaru's War articles, including placenames, but don't know where to start with this. What you've done at Patea woiuld probably be a good way forward. Thanks. Grimhim (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.-gadfium 02:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on having earned your first WP:FL during the last month. You may be interested in nominating your list for consideration as August LOTM and LOTD. It would also be great if you would consider voting on the current set of candidates for consideration as July LOTM and LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't wrong, or right about Urdu being a dialect of Hindi. Urdu is a different language. But Hindi and Urdu are registers of Hindustani. The CIA World Factbook says that the Official Language of Fiji includes Hindustani Specifically. That includes Urdu and Hindi. --Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 00:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Would you like to pop over to Ngati Kuri Te Hiku o Te Ika and do an official adminly review of the csd which I contested? (Even as a pakeha I'm offended at seeing a Whakapapa classed as nonsense, although the editor who nominated it probably had no idea what it was). I might start a discussion over at WPNZ over the role of Whakapapa in iwi articles - I've seen one or two now. Cheers, dramatic (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have it sorted with the redirect.-gadfium 05:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i think I am getting the hang or this navi key woohoo sorry is one allowed to show emotions by usung slang/colluquisms??

Thank you for your time and consideration. I was starting to wonder what I can post here about Ngati Kuri the most northern tribe well mixed with Tatara (Yugoslavs), Polish/German, Portiki (Portugese), British stock, even our famous marriage of the Jewish Sam Yates & Ngawini who at one time leased most of the 66,000 hectares absorbed by the Anglican Church as Rev Taylor's Grant before the Treaty of Waitangi as well as those that believe in the Patipaiehre, Turehu (the fairy folk) etc. Ka pai to ra (Thanks for supporting my good day!) Rozita

Ngati Kuri (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use slang on talk pages, but not in articles.

Wikipedia needs articles to be referenced, with each paragraph or so attributed to books or reliable websites. These books don't have to be in English; using sources in Māori is quite acceptable, although it does make it more difficult for those of us with no knowledge of the language to copyedit and check facts. On the Maori Wikipedia, it's the other way around; we'd rather have sources in Māori, but English-language sources are quite acceptable.

You'll see a lot of articles with very few references, but we're getting stricter as the years go by. It used to be that we were happy to have the content even without references, so long as it appeared to be correct. Now, we're in an intermediate state where sometimes material without references is summarily removed, and sometimes it gets left but a reference is asked for.

You obviously know a lot about the history of Northland, but it isn't enough to just let that knowledge flow from your brain through your keyboard and into Wikipedia. You need to hit the books and find references. You still need to write about it in your own words though, since the books are mostly under copyright.-gadfium 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a stub for Dannevirke on mi: (mi:Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua) - just wondered whether we have a pushpin map I can use - not a major if we haven't as of yet. Cheers Kāhuroa (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the North Island one; there's nothing for Manawatu-Wanganui as yet. I've been asking Grutness for them as I need them, but I'll be working on Taranaki for a little bit longer and then probably do another South Island region.-gadfium 04:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I thought you'd like to know (if you haven't seen it already) that I have revived and keptthe Portal:Argentina going since February 2008. I thank you for being the maintainer in the past. Unfortunately, as you found out during your "tenure", not many people volunteer to help. I have added greatly to the DYK and News sections plus make sure that there is always a Picture and Article of the Month (have in fact prepared some until the end of the year, lest I forget). As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina it bugged me that the site was neglected after you stopped. I added it to Portal Peer Review. If you can add your comments/recommendations/criticisms it would be appreciated. Thanks and happy wiking. -- Alexf⁴² 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed you taking over the Argentina portal. You're doing a great job, in a much neglected area of Wikipedia. The portal was getting more than 30 hits a day in June. All the best.-gadfium 06:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and for the stats site info. -- Alexf⁴² 11:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm curious why you felt the link to the timeline map is not needed on the James Cook and First Voyage page. The Concharto map is unlike any of the other maps:

• user can quickly zoom in and out using modern day satellite data
• contains more data. For instance, the exact reef where Endeavour ran aground is not on any of the other maps.
• the map is accompanied by short narrative sequentially ordered
• users can relate the voyage in to nearby events in time and space

I agree that the South Sea map is a tremendous resource, but it doesn't connect the user to today's geography nearly as well as a good satellite map. Thank you - FrankSanMiguel (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the map isn't needed on both articles. It's most appropriate on the article First voyage of James Cook.-gadfium 19:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! My mistake - I misunderstood the comment "not needed both here and in the article on his first voyage". I thought the link had been removed from both articles. I should have checked first. I agree with your edit. FrankSanMiguel (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora G. Would you mind checking your flickr mailbox - I have had an approach from a source that could be beneficial to NZ Wikipedia articles. Would like your input. Cheers Kāhuroa (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there.-gadfium 05:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Thanks for that. Kāhuroa (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium. I haven't logged into Wikipedia in some time. I have worked a great deal on the page Tay-Sachs disease. Although it is a rare disease, it is one of the "model" autosomal recessive genetic diseases, the textbook case for students in the field of Public Health. Thus, the page is one that gets thousands of page hits. Tay-Sachs disease must be the subject of hundreds of high school and college term papers every year. I appreciate your constant efforts to stop vandalism. In addition to outright vandalism, there is so much tagging of pages by people making pointless changes that over time degrade the quality of pages that are already complete and well verified. Often these changes are well meaning, but they detract from the value or neutrality of the page. It is nice to know that somebody is editing regularly. I don't know how to give awards on Wikipedia, but if I did, I would give you one. Metzenberg (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this message, but even more for your work on the article in the first place.-gadfium 03:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) I should really do the lot in one go now, but time is, as always, against me. I'll keep doing them one at a time. Let me know when you need the next one. Grutness...wha? 13:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Vandalism patrol, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Vandalism patrol and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Vandalism patrol during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Becky Sayles (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you protected a page just before I was going to protect it. If you're looking at a list I made, be sure to check them by hand, since it has a few errors I am correcting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of your list. I semi-protected several templates which had just been hit by a vandal. On all but one of these templates, I had rolled back the vandalism; on the other, someone else beat me to it. One of the templates has since been increased to full protection by another admin.-gadfium 05:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of inactivity? Hmm, well there is a small wikgnome from west oz slowy trying to tag the cats :( - at oz wp we have some very very quiet bits and in other arts we have noisy bits and it seems to balance out very well in a strange sort of way SatuSuro 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, Noticed the category split of Molluscs of NZ to Gastropods/Bivalves. Great, matches Australia. I wonder if this could be automated, as all the info is available in the taxobox. It would be quite a bit of work manually. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably could be automated, but sometimes it's fun to do something more or less mindless. I've done about 1/7 of the articles last night, will continue over the next few days.-gadfium 20:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been reverting quite a few pesky edits, verging on continous vandalism of the New Zealand-United States relations article mainly from these users [5] and User:Hereticonwiki, I was wondering if i could get the article semi-protected for a short period of time to try and stop this frankly irritating activity on the article. Cheers. Taifarious1 05:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call those edits vandalism. They appear to be in good faith, but by someone who doesn't understand that Wikipedia is not the place to publicise such an upcoming event. I've added the article to my watchlist, and if they continue I'll try to explain to the editor why the edits are not appropriate.-gadfium 05:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comprimise, thanks very much. Taifarious1 06:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks heaps for reviewing Auckland Regional Transport Authority and for your helpful comments. I've actioned them, and would appreciate a further review if that's not too much trouble. Travelplanner (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was history merging Auckland with Auckland, New Zealand, Christchurch with Christchurch, New Zealand, , and Dunedin with Dunedin, New Zealand, so all the history is at the main article names. To be honest I was just history merging the major cities in New Zealand I could think of (Wellington is okay), but I later checked List of cities in New Zealand to check if there were any I'd missed. I was, er, inspired to work on New Zealand articles while remembering this message I sent to Grutness ... ironically I did make Auckland disappear for a moment. Graham87 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it looked like, but I can't see any deleted edits for the merged articles. I suppose that's because they've been merged...-gadfium 03:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, I notice you have had some discussion some time back with a Taranaki history enthusiast at the Talk:Helen Clark#Further reading section on long lists of library resources. I knocked out a huge list of such resources at the Omata page some months ago, on the grounds that the list, including diaries of colonial soldiers held at the Puke Ariki Museum, was about 10 times longer than the article itself. I've since noticed such lists appearing at articles including Opunake, Waitara, New Zealand, Urenui and Normanby, Taranaki which, again, go into some rather absurd detail -- I dunno, school jubilees, family trees? -- that may not be entirely appropriate here. What's your view? I'm wondering whether it should be raised for discussion at Wikipedia:Citing sources to alter the guideline on the "Further reading" section. My view is that "Further reading" should be relatively short -- certainly in proportion to the length of the article -- rather than exhaustive. The editor adding this is clearly very enthusiastic and thorough, but these are threatening to become directories rather than encycopedic entries. Any thoughts? Oh, and I finally added maps at the Second Taranaki War and Titokowaru's War pages using the techniques you suggested. Many thanks for your help; the maps are very helpful, I think. Cheers. Grimhim (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the resource lists on these articles are too detailed, but haven't chosen to pursue the issue because these articles are low-traffic, and apart from increasing loading times and inflating the table of contents, the resource lists do no harm. They are below the normal content of the article. As you saw on Helen Clark, I did get involved when the article was high-traffic.

You are welcome to raise the issue with the editor on his talk page. It probably isn't necessary to suggest an amendment to "Citing sources" unless that discussion goes nowhere, and he should be involved in discussion on such an amendment in any case.

The maps you've added look good, and certainly are helpful to the articles. You could consider using the "mark" parameter to Template:Location map~ to use different markers for battles and for military bases. Because the content of the maps is not likely to change, you could go further to customise the map by loading the blank template into any paint program, and adding text or icons to it to represent specific battles and locations. This would give you greater flexibility. I didn't use this approach for my map of school locations because over the years, some schools will be closed and others opened, and I wanted other editors to be able to readily change the map. This is less likely to be an issue for your maps.-gadfium 19:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, ill go about changing them. I always assumed that the unreferenced tag would be fine. Once again, sorry! I'm learning all this pretty fast but its easy to make mistakes. MattWT (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it appears you've already done it for me. Thanks! I'll use the appropriate tags next time. MattWT (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, since the failure of WP:SCHOOL to achieve any sort of consensus, there are going to be a lot of articles of this nature - so it looks like we have at least one area on WP where notability (per WP:ORG or any of its derivatives) doesn't apply, and schools may or may not have articles depending not on whether the article is any good or satisfies the notability rules we impose on every other type of article, but simply on whether an editor can be bothered to go through the AfD process (and the outcome of that will vary depending on which editors happen to comment).... something of a pity in an otherwise reasonable set of guidelines :-\ Sorry, this wasn't a rant against you personally, just me letting off steam a bit :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I've got some Year 8 students who've looked at other stubs and are trying to put together some ideas for our school stub. We hadn't realised that there was so much to it eg AfD?? Rendomorph (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's disagreement between editors on Wikipedia on whether schools should have their own articles. If an article is about a non-notable subject then there are several possible mechanisms on Wikipedia for having it deleted. The most appropriate mechanism to delete an article on a school such as Maniototo Area School would be the Articles for deletion process, where editors get to discuss the merits of the article for five days before anything happens. The precedent on Wikipedia is for high school articles to be kept, and primary school articles to be deleted unless there is something particularly notable about it. I'm not aware of any precedent for an area school, but I think it would be considered as a high school. Since Maniototo Area School is over 100 years old, I think it is in no danger of actually being deleted - the redirect by another editor was clearly not in the mainstream of opinion and was quickly reverted.

My advice is to try and include references to local newspaper articles and history books for each statement or paragraph you add to the article. The sources don't have to be available on the internet, but there needs to be enough information about where the facts come from that someone could go down to the local library or newspaper office and verify everything. Don't worry too much about formatting - I'll fix that up for you. Just be careful to say things in your own words so you don't infringe on anyone's copyright.

A photo of the school would be nice - perhaps the front entrance. You upload a photo using the "Upload file" link on any Wikipedia page, and you need to make sure you select an appropriate option from the licensing pull-down - usually, one of those starting with "own photo". If it isn't a photo you took yourself, it gets much more complicated to ensure that you have the right to add it to Wikipedia. You add the photo to the article using the syntax [[image:Maniototo Area School.jpg|thumb|Image caption]]

Feel free to ask me for any further help you might need.-gadfium 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further advice: if you want to create further articles for your students to work on, you can start them off in your own user space, e.g. User:Rendomorph/test article, where the article can be built up gradually without having to conform to a quality standard from the very first edit. When it's ready, it can then be moved into the main article space of Wikipedia.-gadfium 03:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we've researched a big chunk and copied it across- feedback and suggestions please.Rendomorph (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good so far. Better than most of our school articles!

I've formatted the references in our usual style - the advantage of this is that you can insert additional material and the numbers will change automatically. If you need to links to a single reference, then use the name parameter - see what I've done with ref 1 for an example. If you insert another ref and find some of the article seems to be missing, that will be because you haven't closed the ref tag.

The second ref, to OtagoNet, doesn't seem to support the text it follows. The OtagoNet website is a listing of basic information about the school, similar to that at TKI - it doesn't mention the sporting tradition or academic programme unless there's a sub page I'm not seeing. You might like to move the reference back one sentence so it applies only to the number of students.

The photo is nice. For the logo, do you own the copyright? If you just scanned it, that doesn't give you the legal right to release it as public domain. If this is the case, you'll have to provide a rationale for its use. I can point you to example rationales, so it shouldn't be too difficult.-gadfium 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the 'philosophy' part. I wasn't sure whether it was appropriate or not either. It's my first article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generaldreedle (talk • contribs) 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Woops. Sorry. General Dreedle (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gadfium. When I get time, I will check about the alleged 1931 "disappearance" and get a reference. But such an incident does seem to be far too specific for the article as it is at the moment. We will see. Rick570 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page today (one of two vandalous edits to it today - I've protected it in the hope it'll discourage any more). Grutness...wha? 04:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium,

Back in March, I added demographics navboxes to all of the "Demographics of x" articles where x is the name of a country. The navboxes also linked to several country articles (such as Norfolk Island) whose demographics sections had not yet developped into separate articles, therefore I added the navboxes to those sections instead. You questioned this practice and reverted my edits. I asked why you did so, and you simply stated that you did not believe that such navboxes were appropriate on articles other than those dedicated entirely to demographics. At the time, accepted what you said and I did not look any further into it. Since then, however, I have been in discussion with other users, I have not found any guidelines which state that navboxes do not belong at the end of applicable sections, and I believe that each location where a link on a navbox is directed is a location at which that navbox should be located. I can understand adding the navboxes to the end of the articles instead, but they should be added to all the articles to which they link. For this reason, I plan on adding the applicable navboxes to the country articles in Oceania in the near future. I wanted to let you know before I did so because I didn't want the navboxes to be removed as soon as they were added. If you have objections, please discuss them with me before I make the changes.

Thank you,

Neelix (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the value of such an infobox to someone who is reading, for example, the Norfolk Island article. Why would they want to move to Demographics of Vanuatu from this article? However, since you obviously see the matter differently to me, if you want to place the infoboxes again, I won't remove them. I wouldn't defend them against someone else removing them though. If you want a clearer guideline on the matter, you might like to start a discussion on one of the village pump pages.-gadfium 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium,

Thank you for your understanding of my intended edits despite differing views. A clearer guideline about the placing of navboxes would be very helpful. What were you referring to when you mentioned the "village pump pages"?

Neelix (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Village pump is the place to discuss issues potentially affecting very many articles. There are several sub-pages, the most appropriate for this might be WP:Village pump (policy). If there's an existing guideline, someone there will quickly find it for you.-gadfium 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: YULIA profile:

FROM YULIA's MANAGEMENT www.oikos.co.nz

I must apologise in advance for my hard line on this but too much time is being wasted by Yulia's management team moderating Wikipedia to ensure accuracy. It is in the best interests of Wikipedia to ensure accuracy. We can not see how allowing people with criminal intent to propagate misinformation and then rejecting the accurate information provided by Yulia's management is conducive to Wikipedia's goals for accuracy.

We know the guidelines relating to Wikipedia. However, under NZ law, if defamatory statements which are incorrect are placed by persons on about her anywhere in writing in any public forum then Yulia is within her rights to (a) take action against persons that put information in public view that could serve to lower her reputation or (b) address the entity or persons that allow that defamatory information to come into public view. Now we've made it clear to WIKIPEDIA staff/vounteers that Yulia's profile here on WIKIPEDIA was being maliciously updated either by Jake Edwards and Aidan Harrison or by persons closely associated with these characters. For a very brief time the profile was locked and protected. However, some of the information posted by these persons was willfully and intentionally posted to defame Yulia and to lower her reputation. Aidan Harrison was warned by NZ Police for criminal harassment but then set about a campaign through multiple mediums to promote his punk band by targeting Yulia. He, and cohorts have broken a number of laws including identity theft and misuse of a telephone etc.

If you allow incorrect and potentially defamatory statements that we have deleted to remain on Wikipedia and to appear worldwide that serve to lower Yulia's reputation, then Yulia's legal respresentatives will have no option other than to address this defamation directly with you. This is very unfortuntate as clearly the information was not posted by you. However, by allowing these comments to remain you serve to willfully damage Yulia's career. All it takes is a quick check through the listed authentic web sites to assess where information is contrived for malicious purposes. .

We have wasted far too much time protecting Yulia's reputation from these clearly malicious people that I now have to take a hard line. If defamatory information remains on Wikipedia then those responsible will be addressed by legal means and we will also seek compensation for lost time and legal fees. Wikipedia volunteers are also accountable to uphold the law and I am frankly sick of wasting my time to appease the intellectual interests of Wikipedia if these interests serve to further compromise Yulia's reputation and therefore her career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glynmaclean (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I have blocked this person for the legal threat above, with my reasoning, on his talk page. If he retracts the threat, either I will unblock or someone else may. It's an obvious conflict of interest, but it appears that the part he removed is the only thing in the article reliably sourced. Does it belong? Not sure. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Antandrus. I'm happy to take Glyn's word for it that the duo is not defunct, which makes it even more important that their existence and the major TV coverage resulting should be part of the article. This paragraph is a neutral account of the coverage of Yulia's performance. If our account is incorrect in any detail, we are willing to change it, but removing it because it may not be flattering towards the subject is not appropriate.-gadfium 06:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Mind you, even though I've been heavily involved in science fiction in Dunedin, I'd say the fanzine is borderline notability at best, so perhaps the prodder was right. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was an article about the Humair septuplets deleted? --Jonund (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because at the time of deletion (in January 2005), it contained solely the words "humair septuplets" and a deletion tag. You can see this in the deletion log.-gadfium 21:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I've just removed your proposed deletion of the WDANZ page. WDANZ created a real controversy when it was first established and unquestionably is noteworthy. Whether you or I agree with their business model or checkered history is beside the point, in my opinion. For the record I am a WDANZ member and helped to verify accuracy of the initial post. I think that maybe further editing work should be done to address the exclusive use of their own materials and would be open to editing suggestions but total deletion of the page is probably inapropriate. A quick search on Google, for example returns some articles from reputable primary sources such as: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/9977B9942B318DA0CC2571A00015525A, (2006) http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/143421AF584EC7F3CC2571A300770FAF (2006), http://www.canterburysoftware.org.nz/News%20Item (2008), http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0806/S00040.htm (2008), and more. Methinks they should be included by editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteroid12 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It seems you understand my criticism of the article and have ideas to improve it. Would you have any objection to my copying this section from my talk page to the article talk page, so any future editors can use the resources you link to?-gadfium 08:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered how long it would be before the next one :) I'll get onto it, but it may take a few days (busy week/weekend). If there's no sign of it by about Tuesday give me a reminder. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite major computer problems (including the death of my older, trusty laptop) I've managed to get it done :) Grutness...wha? 08:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks great.-gadfium 08:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gadfium, there are so many dos and don'ts in Wiki that it is difficult to sort policy from the chaff. Especially regarding images, and I wonder if you can help (being one of the old hands around here and all). I am about to do a little bit about Jane Winstone, the Wanganui girl who was killed in her Spitfire in WW2. There is a photo of her on this website. HOW do we determine the status of such an image when it is 70-ish years old, no-one knows who the photographer was, no-one knows who possesses the original print or neg (if they still exist) and no-one knows who supplied the image to a particular website. The website manager says that although their site is copyrighted, they don't claim copyright of the image and we are free to use it. Is that enough? I guess there are others like Grutness who watch this page, so any input from them would be appreciated too. Cheers Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. My understanding is that images are copyright under New Zealand law for the life of the photographer plus 50 years. A 70 year-old image from an unknown photographer can not be assumed to be free of copyright. You could make a fair use claim on the photo, since the subject is dead. I'm no expert on how to write a fair use rationale, however.-gadfium 22:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well the interviewer (not DF, since he's in Auckland) said that David Farrier had written his own article and had also vandalised it himself to show what typical WP vandalism might look like. We actually had quite a long conversation about people writing their own articles and why it's a bad thing, and also whether someone like David would pass WP's notability guidelines (of course, they chopped it down to a few seconds, but that was to be expected). I don't really see it as having been "had" (though I was with the gratuitous science fiction reference, which you learn to deal with if you've been involved in s.f. organisation for any length of time). Grutness...wha? 09:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]