User talk:Gadfium/Archive 10

Hmm

Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant village pumps) -- You didn't seem to mind that that one wasn't a technical candidate for CSD. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:41, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

One is clearly a WP:POINT violation. For the other, I'm assuming good faith.-gadfium 05:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec with below)Regardless, your rationale for declining CSD at the time was that the page didn't fit the CSD criteria. This one didn't either, as POINT is not valid CSD rationale. Just pointing that out. I don't mean to bitch, but consistency in admin action is always at least a plus. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:47, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I consider WP:POINT violations fall under vandalism (CSD G3).-gadfium 05:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd be the only one. I've never heard of point equaling vandalism before. Point violations are normally brought to AfD. If they weren't then I'd think POINT would be mentioned somewhere in WP:CSD. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:58, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. I didn't mean to say above that all POINT violations are vandalism. However, that's the appropriate speedy deletion criteria for this page. Since you object to the speedy, and I don't intend to waste further time nominating it for MFD, could you please delete it yourself once you decide it's no longer funny.-gadfium 06:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just end off by saying that next time, if you delete a page under G3, it might be better to specify G3 in the log rather than WP:POINT. The point being that it's pretty obvious that G3 was an afterthought you came up with to defend your hasty deletion that was really based on POINT. I know the horse is long dead, but half-truths tend to really bother me, so I felt the need to call it out. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:42, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why creating a random orphaned page for humour is considered "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". What point was I trying to prove, and how was my attempt to prove it disruptive? I've restored it and tagged it with {{humor}} so no mistakes can be made that it's a joke. — Werdna • talk 05:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the page existing, Werdna, but c'mon, that was blatant POINT. You were trying to prove something should be deleted by creating a new similar page and linking to it from MfD. That's textbook POINT. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:49, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Your point was apparently something about creating new village pump pages without consensus being disruptive. There was no {{humor}} tag at the time I deleted it.-gadfium 05:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No point, just a joke. Anyway, I think we all know the horse is well-and-truly dead. I'll userfy it or delete it in the next few days. — Werdna • talk 07:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

McEvedy Shield

My editing on the Mcevedy shield page are facts and are not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bringbackwyners (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to cite your sources for those facts, and for the allegations you have made.-gadfium 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For your good work

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For fixing spam related to the Nat Geo Music thingamjig, I thought no one paid attention. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.-gadfium 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed thanks very much for that - I realise in my scattered editing I had alerted the person and not trawled through it all - that was a lot to fix! SatuSuro 08:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hiya.. I'm curious as to why you deleted User talk:PrinceOfCanada-HG as a G3? //roux   17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It contained a single edit, which was vandalism. I did not at the time realise that the user page redirected to yours. The alternative would have been to blank the page, which would have left the "You have new messages" for the user and given them a misleading blue link for their talk page. Deleting talk pages which have never contained anything but vandalism is therefore more appropriate than blanking.-gadfium 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware that the earlier redirect on that user talk page was deleted by PhilKnight in November?-gadfium 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I was not. Ta! //roux   18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Newlands College article

I don't know who else to ask, but I would like a critique on the article's current status. Whether you do it, or you request a peer review, it matters not. Sorry for the large amount of edits, but I had to keep going back and forth to retrieve information from reliable sources such as the school magazine, year book and school website. Ffgamera (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later today. You could also request a peer review at WP:PR, where you will probably get feedback from people who are not familiar with the New Zealand education system. This might be useful to uncover terms you've used which need to be further explained. You also can ask at the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard, but several of the more active denizens of that page also watch my talk page, so they may respond to you anyway. Responses should go at Talk:Newlands College.-gadfium 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on my talk page and the article's talk page. Ffgamera (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixing up the Tay Sachs article

Thanks again for all your help with the Tay Sachs article. I'm having trouble getting one of those reference tags to work right. I must be missing a bracket or quote mark somewhere. You seem to have a better eye for fixing mistakes than I do. Can you figure out what I'm doing wrong? I would also really like to get the article ready for presentation as a featured article. I feel that the material is ready, but we need more images and graphics. I hate to say this, but one thing the article is really missing is some photography of Tay-Sachs patients. I feel terrible about asking some family to provide a poster child. Do you have any idea where to find pictures like that? Metzenberg (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the references was that in one case, quote marks were missing, and in the other, some unicode character which looks like double quotes was used in one place and regular double quotes in another.

I took a look at www.flickr.com for suitable photos, but there was nothing under an appropriate license. I searched for gangliosidosis as well as for Tay-Sachs. I realise you particularly wanted a photo of a patient, but I did find this cerebellum photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26016306@N03/2477641137/, which is under a non-commercial use only licence and thus unable to be used on Wikipedia. However, if you think the photo would be suitable, we could ask the Flickr user to release it under a fully free license. I've found that most people are very happy to relicense such photos. If you like, I can ask them as I have a flickr account. The author is M L Cohen, a professor in Cleveland: http://www.flickr.com/people/26016306@N03/.-gadfium 18:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous Fortune (TV series)

After you removed the sentence-part about TV3 I was bold and removed the rest of the sentence - I figured the start date was the least likely part of the whole (uncited) sentence. I noticed on the talk page you were sceptical of the start date (and, I think, had previously removed it) but figured I should raise this with you in case there was a reason you'd left the start date in. I won't be offended if you revert me ;-)

(I don't care anyway - I'm in the wrong country so I'll be waiting for the DVD release...!)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. The anon had constructed the sentence in two edits, and I removed only one of them, but I had intended to remove both.-gadfium 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for the explanation - I just didn't want to step on your toes in case I was missing something. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Useful library books

... for snails: Pelagic Snails: The Biology of Holoplanktonic Gastropod Mollusks by Carol M. Lalli, Ronald W. Gilmer. --KP Botany (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not in either the Auckland public or university libraries.-gadfium 23:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Too bad, it's loads of fun. However, I think starting with what you have, ie, whatever you can check out is realistic and sufficient. --KP Botany (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for blocking an IP or a seriouse warning

Hi, I think a seriouse warning needs to be given to this IP 206.205.105.34 for his/her edits. You can review his/her edits. A warning has been already given. Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've given them a warning, but this is relatively mild vandalism, especially since they were removing their edits themselves. In effect, they were experimenting with Wikipedia, and we encourage people to do that at the sandbox instead of in articles.-gadfium 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A question, I am just a confirmed user, based on the rules and regulations, is it okay for me to give these IP users a soft messages (warning1), like the one you gave or does one have to be administrator? Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its not just okay, but encouraged that you warn users who are vandalising. Very often, a vandal will stop on receipt of the first message, because they realise that someone else is watching them. If a vandal continues, warn again with a more severe message, and if they don't stop after the third or fourth such warning, report them at WP:AIV. You will find a selection of messages to cover most situations at WP:UTM.-gadfium 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. My last question is about my monobook. On other Wikipedia pages, we have monobooks, which makes these messages easier to use, as easy as a click of the mouse. How can I update my monobook here? Is it possible?Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your question. Each logged-in user has the ability to edit a javascript and a css file, normally called monobook.js and monobook.css. By editing these files, you can customise the Wikipedia user interface, but you need to know what you're doing. There's a little information at Wikipedia:Skin. I don't use the standard (monobook) shell myself, or customise my own js/css files much, so I'm the wrong person to ask about this.

You may just want to install a tool such as Twinkle which makes posting of anti-vandalism warnings easier. I don't use any such tools, as I'm an old school editor who does everything by directly hex-editing the MediaWiki database.-gadfium 20:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the helpful information. Parvazbato59 (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking with the Powell book on Australian mollusk articles

The possible CopyVio status of another category Category:Molluscs of Australia is unconfirmed and has not been "run by" the authorities yet, so that category is currently untagged. Maybe User:gadfium can check with the Powell book and see if we indeed do have a problem with those too?? I think the majority of the Australian mollusk articles were started by Graham Bould. It is also possible that there might be CopyVio problems with many other of GB's articles, on fish, etc, etc, etc, but as far as I know, no-one has checked any of those thousands of other articles yet. Thanks for your help gadfium. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice sent to userpage

I got your note about your problem with my commentary. I believe everything I said was legal and proper. You got a problem with me? Say it to me directly instead of sneaky tactics of bellyaching to the admin noticeboard. If you notice, I had the support of other editors which to me, nullifies your claims. AdirondackMan (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would put it this way. Your objections were heard and overruled by another editor. So face facts, my position was vindicated. I was perfectly legitimate in all ways. AdirondackMan (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Talk:Citizendium (now Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#Talk:Citizendium) supported your posting of the question at all. There was a useful discussion following from QuackGuru's posting.-gadfium 17:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Message for you, leave me and my messages alone. I'm not eager for a battle, but I will defend my messages by any and all means possible within the realms of legality. AdirondackMan (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If I have Quack Guru's support, I believe that support is enough to vindicate me. So buzz off, leave me alone forever. AdirondackMan (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

If you are going to correct my so-called personal attacks why do you not even bother re edit the page properly. Left the picture caption there.. looks shoddy and makes no sense. 12Delve (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The personal attack was the link you made from the name of the person to baldness. I removed the photo from the article, because there was no indication why he was relevant. Thanks for pointing out the text I missed.-gadfium 03:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You sir, have obviously never met the chap 12Delve (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

NZ Catholic Schools

Hi Gadfium, Thanks for your help. I am sorry for any mistakes, especially for missing SHC hamilton. I intend to go back in the future with better references and more detail. zbut hopefully those associated with the schools will improve them. As far as I know, all 48 existing RC secondary schools in NZ now have pages.Rick570 (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Powell book

Hi Gadfium. I have been asked if I can locate another copy of Powell. The only Powell available for loan in the Auckland library system is currently on loan until 14 April 2009. I assume this is the copy you have. Do you know where else I might get a copy at reasonable expense? --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the copy I have is from the Auckland public library. The Central Library has another copy for library use only, and the Panmure branch of the library has a copy but it's on hold for someone. There is at least one copy available through the University of Auckland library, but I am no longer a student and cannot borrow it (I do go in and browse their books fairly often). Hard to Find bookshop does not appear to have a copy.

If you have a very good friend living out of Auckland, they may be able to borrow a copy from their library and lend it on to you. However of the closest libraries to Auckland, the only copy at North Shore Library which is available to lend is out until 14 April and Waitakere Library and Manukau Library have the book for library use only. Hamilton City Library does have a copy available to loan, but the logistics of you getting the book from a friend in Hamilton and returning it again might be too difficult. Whangarei Library has a copy but its out until 11 April.

It seems your best bet is to get someone to get the Auckland University copy for you.-gadfium 21:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand's Next Top Model

Gad, can you please semi-protect of New Zealand's Next Top Model indefinitely until the finale ends?

IP edits from New Zealand could edit spoilers and speculations from future episodes. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 06:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate if results go up immediately on the episode airing in New Zealand. I doubt that there's a huge market overseas for this program, and anyone watching it after the airing should know that the Wikipedia article is likely to contain spoilers. The experience to date of people posting results before the episode airs is that it is vandalism and not accurate. I'm about to block someone who posted erroneous results earlier today.-gadfium 08:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

bmibaby or BMIBaby?

You have previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Bmibaby. If you care, please weigh in again at Talk:Bmibaby#Closure again. — AjaxSmack 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Warkworth New Zealand

Hi, Please help, how can I add a picture? Can I upload or can I get one from the commons gallery? have tried and tried! Thanks for your time. Brenda (Girlbnz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlbnz (talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying. I've been on holiday. Seems like you've figured it out in the meantime.-gadfium 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Beale Cottage

Hi, when you commented about our page you said: stuff is obviously copied from a brochure! what are you saying? that we copied strait from the brochure/ or have not referenced correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob&beau (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the "Beale Cottage Tour" section appeared to be taken word for word from a brochure or similar, because the language used was promotional. Even if you have permission to copy the brochure text, thus releasing it under the Gnu Free Documentation License, this is not appropriate language for an encyclopedia article.

I don't have an issue with your referencing, although I did tidy it up a little bit.-gadfium 01:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

JP College, Rotorua

Hi Gadfium, your last edit here. Do you think it might be reasonable to assume that the edits were made by the person concerned? And, assuming that, it might be best to accede to their wishes? Rick570 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP address belongs to Air New Zealand, and looks to be shared by many people, some of whom have used it for vandalism. The edits are clearly deliberate, not just random deletion of a couple of lines, but with no edit summary or talk page posting, I have no idea why they wish to remove this information. I would be sympathetic to any reasonable explanation.-gadfium 00:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

your edit of Clayton Cosgrove's article

Hi there, I see you edited the Clayton Cosgrove article and changed a heading from "Criticism" to "Boy Racers". You did not offer any explanation and I would like to offer you the chance to justify this dubious edit.

It falls short of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy to use slang and loaded terms outside of quote or context. I think you are wrong to re-title the criticism section to "Boy racers" because it is actually criticism! You are surely wrong if you think it is merely one group who is critical of Clayton Cosgrove, for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.41.184 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The title of "Boy racers" more accurately reflects the current contents of the section. The section at present is of doubtful value, since it focuses on a single incident which is unlikely to be a major event in his career, and is Undue weight for this matter. I didn't remove it outright, in the hope that the article will expand over time to give a more balanced view of Cosgrove's political life. If you are thinking of expanding the article yourself along these lines, you should be aware of Wikipedia:Criticism sections and articles.

By the way, if you have an interest in the "boy racer" issue, you might like to add to the section Boy racer (subculture)#New Zealand, which needs citations and material on the legal and social debates about the culture. I think there is potential for a new article expanding on these themes Boy racers in New Zealand to be written. I've proposed this expansion at Wikipedia:New Zealand collaboration. If you think it's a good idea, please add a comment at the nomination there.-gadfium 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

While I was typing the message above, I see you've been working on the Boy racer (subculture) article! Good on ya.-gadfium 01:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Whakaari/White Island

Hi, you reinstated "The island is the largest of the four islands in the Olive island chain." I have not heard of this island chain, and there is no reference to what the other islands are that are being referred to in this group. There are no islands nearby to Whakaari, only a few small rocks - the Club Rocks, and the Volkner Rocks. The closest island is 25km away Whale Island - Moutohora. I think this passage needs to be removed until citation or greater references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.209.106 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the line in question for the time being, as it was added by an anon and I can find no online reference that does not appear to be influenced by the Wikipedia article. However, the sentence was modified by a reliable editor in Feb 2008 to say it was the largest island in the group, and I have asked him to supply references.

In future, please use an informative edit summary, or talk page comment, when deleting material you believe to be incorrect from an article.-gadfium 08:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Noted your request for an edit summary. It has been quite some time since I originated much of the material on the page. I see that there is more rigor now in verifying content. I am one of the owners of the island so you might say I have in interest. I hope to be adding a lot of Whakaari historical information and photos from my archives in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.209.106 (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you had better change that to "usually reliable". My recollection isn't crystal clear, but I believe I looked around briefly for confirmation of the "Olive Islands" chain at the time, and didn't find much. I certainly can't find anything now. I'm not sure why I added "largest". In that edit I was mainly trying to get the lead section to read better, but in hindsight I should at least have added a {{fact}} tag to that statement. Sorry. Thanks to you both for fixing it. -- Avenue (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Worth

Heya Gadfium, Worth's editing has been noticed by the media (TVNZ), thus we might need to keep a eye on it Brian | (Talk) 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that there's been a number of incidents recently where NZ Members of Parliament have been impersonated on the net, particularly with Twitter accounts, and this has caused embarrassment all round when someone accuses someone else of making unguarded comments but the comments are actually from an impersonator. I think the editor really is Worth, but I can't be absolutely sure.-gadfium 07:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

irishbreakfast NZ

Kia Ora, thank you for the welcome. I got here after doing tutorials on WikiEducator, which empowered me to work on the Playcentre page. --Irishbreakfast NZ (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: I am dunedin

Looks like XLerate got there first... may be about time to ask him/her again about adminship, BTW - (s)he's been doing a lot of good work on the NZ-related part of this site. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess they'll stick their hand up when they're ready - they did say in late Jan to wait six months.-gadfium 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've prodded another obvious candidate.-gadfium 02:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if and when D decides to run (RFA is on my watchlist, but it's one that I tend to 'gloss over" when checking). BTW, you might be interested to know that I'm slowly trying to get another NZ article up to FA standard - have a look at Caversham, New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 09:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here's the seat of the conspiracy :-) Give me a month or two to sort out real-world stuff then I'll be in touch. dramatic (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology

Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) kilbad (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I watchlist a few genetic disease articles, because I find they are very frequent targets of vandalism from schools, but apart from a few undergrad genetics papers, I have no expertise in the subject.-gadfium 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Paradise Café

Hiya, Someone has done a cut-and-paste move from Paradise Café to Paradise Café (TV series) because of confusion with the unrelated articleParadise Cafe. I've explained to them how cut-and-paste breaks article history, so could you please fix things by deleting then moving? Cheers, dramatic (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. This was an easy case because no one had edited the target article since the cut and paste. History merges are a bit trickier.-gadfium 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kirkcaldie & Staines

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kirkcaldie & Staines, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, although my previous involvement with the article was to fix a spelling mistake in it. Kirks is probably the best known shop in Wellington. Independent sources need to be found, but Wikipedians in Wellington are more likely to be able to find them than I am. I have removed the prod, moved the article to the correct name and removed a copyright violation from it. If you wish to AfD it, that is likely to bring the attention needed from other New Zealand-based Wikipedians to rescue it.-gadfium 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

By my reckoning, Kircaldies is New Zealand's second-oldest department store. Only Ballantaynes in Christchurch (1854) is older, but without a source saying that, it's kinda OR-ish. dramatic (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Put it in, with due qualification. People often do that kind of harmless OR, and it helps to establish notability. Some more sources and links would still be very welcome, but I'm no longer pressing for deletion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Library books

Don't worry, I'm well aware of the due dates, and have already discussed their return with Invertzoo. She still wants access to Powell, but she is going to be offline for a month. I presume I can renew Powell from my local library, since it is kept on the shore. Thanks for all the help. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Heretaunga College

Thanks for your work on Heretaunga College. You seem to know your way around how schools are done here, so maybe you can answer a question: is there a way for a user to associate themselves with a school. To say "User:X is an alumni of this School," bearing in mind that most users aren't notable... Stuartyeates (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You can say whatever you like on your user page (within reason), so you can say what your relationship to the school is. You might like to craft a userbox. User:Djmckee/Userboxes/vgms is an example, and Wikipedia:Userboxes gives lots of information. If you create a userbox specific to the school, I think it would be appropriate to mention it at Talk:Heretaunga College so any other Wikipedians from the college can use it. You could also list it at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/New Zealand.-gadfium 05:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Newlands College

I have a question. The newsletter URL for the school is updated termly, and the article currently has two citations pointing to that URL. What do you propose I can do about this? Because the newsletters are not archived, but replaced. I have a physical copy of the recent newsletter, but obviously, I cant cite that.. I can't find a different source for the new info cited (ethnic composition and school roll). Thanks for your help. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You can cite the hard copy, although it makes it difficult for other people to check the reference. Some past issues might be available through webarchive, eg [1]. For the future, please use WebCite to snapshot instances of the newsletter which are cited in Wikipedia.-gadfium 09:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

An example of a WebCite reference is [2], just created by me. I used [3] to create a bootmark in my web browser, which makes it easy to create such a reference whenever you have a page you wish to cite open in your browser.-gadfium 09:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

admin

Thanks, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I have been wondering again about running for admin, so I'm glad you think I might be ready. I'm heading into a busy period at work, so I won't have time to give the RfA process its due for a few weeks, but I might have a go then.

In the meantime, would you still be willing to set the rollbacker bit on my account? -- Avenue (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.-gadfium 03:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Avenue (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

60,000 edits? It might be time to consider there are other POV than your own in this world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.29.1 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your ways have angered me

You have caused enough trouble on Wikipedia already, and now you are to take ten days away from editing as punishment for your actions. Failure to do so, and I will ban you forever with a strike of my mightly lightning-bolt-shaped delete button. As for now, I curse you:

Καλεί τους κεραυνούς βίδες του θεότητα. Διότι εγώ, Zues του Διαδικτύου, ο οποίος έχει την εξουσία.

--Zues The Greek Internet God (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm quite happy editing here.-gadfium 04:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ehh??? Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

External links on Motor neurone disease

Dear Gadfium, with regards to your recent removal of *all* external links on the MND page I was wondering if we could agree what resources *would* qualify for inclusion. My reading of WP:EL is that it is very easy to fall into the "not suitable" bucket, and rather harder to fall in to the "suitable" bucket. As no disease has an "official" homepage, are we to assume that no disease pages should have external links? I realize this is part of a wider debate and I have interacted with editors who have pruned e.g. amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the past. I realize all the things wikipedia is not, such as a directory, but at the same time I think removing all external links is not constructively improving the article. Best regards, --PaulWicks (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Motor neurone disease. Feel free to restore the specific links you believe add sufficient value, but I think you will agree that many of the previous links did not.-gadfium 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Help

I am getting in out of my depth in the most contentious article in Wikipedia. I find that many of the horseracing articles are suffering from shall we say "patriotism". Wallie (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had a previous run-in with the editor in question, and would not be considered a neutral party. Please ask another admin, or see Dispute resolution.-gadfium 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I had a look at the Dispute resolution. I cannot see how this can progress. Many articles have a similar strong slant, as you know. Wallie (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Makybe Diva

Can you have a look at this one. I put a neutrality tag up. It was removed. There was one in a section but not covering the whole article. Can they just remove a neutrality tag? Wallie (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If your tag is solely about the nationality of the racehorse, then a {{fact}} tag might be more appropriate. Tagging the whole article is for cases where much of the article is POV. I think the person who removed the tag might have been confused about what your intention was.-gadfium 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian/New Zealand horses

This area is quite frankly a mess. Nearly all the New Zealand bred horses that have raced in Australia are called "Australian". I have looked at overseas horse articles. They would say, if the horse has raced in Australia, born there, owned there, then it could be called Australian. If the horse was, say born in Australia 1985, raced in New Zealand and owned in New Zealand, the article would say (foaled in Australia, 1985). Zabeel is a good example. It is clearly born in New Zealand and is a sire there. However, the article says it is Australian. Crazy! The Australian Racing Museum is very professional (and Australian). Can we not follow their lead? Can you please help. Wallie (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have much expertise in the field of horse racing. I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing.-gadfium 09:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cust map

Hi G - there's a problem with the map you added to Cust, New Zealand. The red dot's quite clearly in the wrong place (it shows Cust as being on the coast near Kaiapoi - it's about 25km inland from the coast). I suspect that the coordinates are faulty, but i don't know enough to fiddle around with them to get it right. Grutness...wha? 10:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem appears to be not with the coordinates on the Cust article, but with the boundaries on the map at Template:Location map New Zealand South Island. You can use the WikiMiniAtlas on Cust (by clicking on the little globe next to the coordinates) which shows the town in approximately the right place. The boundaries on the map are the latitudes and longitudes of the north, south, east and west edges of the map - not of the coastline, but the edge of the image. I don't know any way to determine this precisely, so I've been estimating it using Google Earth, but I obviously haven't got it quite close enough. Would you like to have a go? An alternative approach might be to upload a new copy of the map with the boundaries set to known latitudes and longitudes. I suppose that there might be some distortion in the map too, and there will be problems if the map is not in equirectangular projection.-gadfium 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

When is a stub a stub?

I notice you are stubbing GB's NZ articles after the clean up. What criteria do you look for before stubbing an article? I'm not contesting what you are doing, but I would like to tighten my own process. Hoplodactylus maculatus I would assess as a stub. But Hochstetter's Frog is an article I would assess as start class. Although it has no body, it has a complete taxa, provides definitive references, and has both a photo and a distribution map. The distribution map alone is worth more than a long paragraph attempting to convey the same information verbally. What are your thoughts? --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was just killing a few idle minutes before a social engagement by assessing a few articles for WPNZ. It just so happens that some of the GB articles were included. The criteria for assessment are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Assessment#Quality_scale. For Hochstetter's Frog, the body consists of just two sentences. It's true that the taxobox, distribution map and photo provide more information, but the taxobox is the absolute minimum information any article on a species should have. I would say it is a stub, but a relatively good one. If you disagree, you are welcome to change the assessment.-gadfium 04:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Tony Veitch

I've added some new details to the broadcaster section. I found these details by trawling through the many hits when searching for his name on stuff. Maybe we just have to hunt down additional sources like this to find more content. Other places to find content are the websites of his old employers (radio and TV) and also news companies that keep archives. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your attempt to add balance to the article.-gadfium 08:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Using Einstein picture

Am I allowed to use the einstein picture on my home page? Can you take a quick look at my userpage to see if I resolved your concerns? not sure if i have. Funauckland (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page.-gadfium 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This barnstar for . . .

		The Minor Barnstar
		an astute solution for a sticky problem. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizendium&curid=7005690&diff=285390928&oldid=285389347

Thank you.-gadfium 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am Dunedin

FYI I am handling this on OTRS under Ticket:2009041710017301. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads-up.-gadfium 09:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Lauren Kim Roche

In answer to your questions, yes his surname is spelled correctly and she does practice medicine in Auckland. She just moved there from Napier. The registration information from the Medical Council of New Zealand should reflect her move to Auckland in the near future. Thanks. 19:55, April 25, 2009 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Lauren Kim Roche ‎Jacob17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob17 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.-gadfium 02:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WPNZ

I am trying to widen the scope of this. If I go too far, someone will object, and then we can discuss. With nuclear proliferation, this may be of interest to all countries. I would dispute this though. New Zealand is very interested in all nuclear issues. I find the sope of these country projects, not just New Zealand, to be very parochial. By indicating an interest beyond our borders, even global matters, shows that each country is concerned or involved, as they should be. If other countries projects do the same, that is great too. Wallie (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Love Patrol

On Love Patrol being "the Pacific’s first locally produced TV series" or not... Good point about IQ Active. It depends how you define a television series, I suppose. When I think "TV series", I think fiction, not game shows... but of course you're right, and by common definition IQ Active is a TV series. How about "first locally-produced fiction television series in a Pacific Island country", with a footnote pointing to IQ Active? Aridd (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IQ Active was only the first one I found, and very likely not the first one produced. It's just an example to indicate that Wan SmolBag's claim probably isn't reliable. It is difficult to establish records across a group of countries like this, so it might be safer to make the claim that it's Vanuatu's first. On the other hand, Wan SmolBag does have extensive experience of touring the Pacific Island nations, so you could email them and ask for a clarification. Unless they update their website, we can't use their claim.-gadfium 08:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Treasure Hunt

Hi,

I'm unsure why my article chronicling the Wiki Treasure Hunt was deleted, especially seeing as I explained why it shouldn't be deleted. I was wondering if you could help me understand what was wrong with it.

Thanks,

--DoodleHammer (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your article was about something that was absolutely non-notable.-gadfium 01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just want you to know that there is something on WP:ANI about this alleged contest. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but your link is wrong. It's actually on WP:AN.-gadfium 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The light in the deep south

Hi Gadfium, as an inhabitant of NZ's deep south, and someone who's more than likely spent time on Stewart Island, do you want to comment on this Featured Picture Candidate? There's some confusion as to whether it actually looks like that, or is chromatic aberration. Perhaps you can throw in your opinion? Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I realised I mistook the Chathams for Stewart Island. Never mind! Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been to Stewart Island, and was all set to recommend people who know or are likely to know the island much better than me in response. Unfortunately I have not been to the Chathams, and don't know of Wikipedians who might have been. You could try asking User:Paul Moss, who is knowledgeable about atmospheric conditions around New Zealand.-gadfium 06:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(butting in) It wouldn't surprise me if User:Alan Liefting had been out there. User:Rekohu is a Chatham Islander IIRC, but I don't know if he still edits WP.. as to the picture, it looks like it fairly represents the sort of lighting you might see in southern coastal NZ to me. Grutness...wha? 07:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Long range acoustic device

Hi Gadfium - could I have a move over a redirect with history - > Long range acoustic device to Long Range Acoustic Device (it is a company's brand name, not a generic term that would be non-capitalised. Thanks muchly, and hope you're doing fine! Ingolfson (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'll leave it to you to fix the capitalisation in the article lede, and there's a couple of double redirects created which should be fixed.-gadfium 04:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NZ Communications

I noticed that you deleted my stub about an hour after I created it, I had not yet got around to adding much content, I have been adding quite a lot of content to the cell phone networks in NZ, although I do not always log in for contributions, but I like the idea that the list of mobile network codes allows the idea that there can be a complete list of mobile networks, I cant see that each provider in NZ cant have its own page for each network, Telecom even has two, one for the company and one for its network which has also has not launched yet although it has launched it advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrylJH (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

XT Mobile Network has a launch date, and the network has received substantial coverage in regular media in New Zealand. See the list of references in the article. If NZ Communications has received similar coverage, the article you created does not reflect that. The stuff reference is a start, but it says that the planned start up date is "late next year" - presumably written in 2008. If you have more such third-party sources and are willing to add them to the article, preferably as inline references, I will undelete it and give you some time to improve it.-gadfium 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that as 2 degrees or 2° it's starting to get some mainstream coverage. My offer to restore the stub if you will add references stands.-gadfium 06:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that will be good, restore it and I will update it and complete it as best I can. DarrylJH (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's restored. The coverage I saw on TV3 News tonight is on their website at New cellphone network set to launch.-gadfium 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the link, I noticed that someone made 2degrees I was wondering if a merge should occur. Can you offer any advice? I am not sure but I get the feeling that the network is called 2degrees mobile, or 2° mobile, but the company that is running the infrastructure of the network might remain to be called NZ Communications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrylJH (talk • contribs) 09:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the company and the network are sufficiently different to warrant separate articles. You could ask for opinions at the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard.-gadfium 10:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Moss and recent edits to Raymond Ching

Can you look into this please as myself and Paul have problems. From what I can tell Paul and the subject are related and he is possibly removing information for personal reasons. See my last edit to User talk:Paul Moss. I'll not post further - SimonLyall (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he has personal reasons for not wanting the information in the article, it is unsourced and not essential to the subject. I think you should restore his edit.-gadfium 20:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Worth

Could I get you as a independent editor who knows the history of this to check out this edit please? [4] I'd revert the reversion myself, but I don't want to start something... Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit, and decided that the incident being removed was sufficiently minor that it wasn't worth keeping in the article. At the time it was added, it might have been part of a chain of events which could have built to something significant, but instead the conflict of interest matter seems to have blown over. Including every critical media report to a biography of a living person is undue weight.

If you feel the matter is more important than I do, then I suggest you copy the deleted text to the talk page with a brief explanation. In that way, it's not part of the article, but is readily visible to anyone wanting to look for a pattern if some further incident comes to light.-gadfium 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I asked for your opinion because I trust you, and I intent to take it. Life's too short to quibble, and it's not as though there aren't other pages that need TLC. cheers Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK

Okay, fine Spongefrog (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding.-gadfium 08:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. It was almost deleted by John Carter, but he didnt, so I assumed it was OK --Spongefrog (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Velvet worms in Caversham

Hi G - fixed the problem with the Caversham valley peripatus. Most references only call it a "peripatus worm", but I found a reference which at least indicates that it's a separate species (and yes, species, not genus). Grutness...wha? 04:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dianne Gleeson (the author of the paper you reference) is a friend of my partner.-gadfium 05:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Small world. I found out while writing the Caversham article that most of the Caversham Project website was written by the husband of an ex-girlfriend of mine. Grutness...wha? 12:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiremu Te Awhitu

Hi Gadfium, I would be very grateful if you could you correct this (Wiremu Te Awhitu) for me. I can't see what I have done wrong.Rick570 (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You had a space at the beginning of the line. This is a markup feature which is one of the more confusing on Wikipedia. See WP:EDIT#No or limited formatting—showing exactly what is being typed for details.-gadfium 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gadfium. Such a little mistake for big consequences!Rick570 (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks - and thanks also for your help for helping get it to Features Article status! Grutness...wha? 06:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Judith Collins

Kia ora, thanks for the spelling correction but I question why you removed the 'Criticism' title from the article in question, and then go on to cite Wikipedia's policy on criticisms. I wonder if you actually read that policy, because you have strayed from conventional practice (re political figures' pages, NPOV & UNDUE) with your April 2009 edit.

Your edit made the page ugly to put it frankly, you made the article have no delimitation of subject when there clearly deserved to be a criticism section. I have reinserted the Criticism section and you need to justify removal of legible headings, other than the unintelligent fob-off of pointing finger at policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.41.184 (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Criticism sections and articles. If you want to divide the article into more sections, then a section entitled "Cabinet Minister" or "Minister of Police, Corrections and Veterans' Affairs" might be more suitable.-gadfium 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AD/CE alterations

Thanks for the link - I looked it over, and I see that some of my edits were improper based on the guideline to retain the existing convention absent material reason to do otherwise. However, the same link also says that conventions should be consistent throughout an article, and given that a number of the articles I edited were in violation of this prior to (but not following) my edits, I'm not sure what the justification was for your reversions in those cases specifically. Please elucidate. --McSnath (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you find a case where both styles are used, please determine what the earliest editors of the article used, and use that style. For example, see Mesoamerica. The very earliest versions of the article had no specific dates which required either convention to be used, but in August 2004 the CE style was introduced. Accordingly, CE should be used throughout the article. You might also like to consult the most relevant wikiproject for any given article. You can usually find such a project linked to on the talk page of an article.-gadfium 04:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --McSnath (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilmot Pass

Hiya, Could you please check your Reed dictionary of NZ place names for the etymology of Wilmot Pass - the DYK folk aren't happy with the genealogy site I used to reference it. dramatic (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have (just acquired) the Wises Guide to New Zealand, 1994 edition, mainly because I know Grutness makes heavy use of an earlier edition. I've added information from that to Wilmot Pass for you. I don't have Reed's Place Names of New Zealand, but it is on Google books. There doesn't appear to be any mention of Wilmot Pass in it, although there are several hits for just Wilmot.-gadfium 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. dramatic (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar

The article is only at Burma because some editors are bullheaded. I know some governments (including my own) don't want to recognize the legitimate and legal government of the country, but that doesn't matter. The countries name legally is Myanmar and has been for over 20 years, this is also the name recognized by international organizations. The list of countries page should go by what the names of the countries actually are. Besides, if you want to be consistent then you HAVE to have North Korea and and South Korea listed as North Korea and South Korea (not "Republic of Korea" and "People's Republic of Korea"). You can't have some countries listed by their correct names and others not. TJ Spyke 01:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Then do you agree that North Korea and South Korea should be listed as "North Korea" and "South Korea" in the article? Not only are those by far the most common names (the only time I have ever seen anyone use anything else is in official documentation by governments when they are using formalities). TJ Spyke 01:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Aoraki/Mount Cook

Actually, I did a double take as well when IP 203.79.114.108 made his edit to Aoraki/Mount Cook and I almost reverted. But on reflection it seemed reasonable that m is more likely than cm so maybe your rv is not justified. So I have reverted you. The IP's larger m figure may well be overstated, but not so exponentially as the cm. Have I missed something? Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The units were changed as a result of a typo, presumably, on 3 May. I've apologised to the anon.-gadfium 06:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again!

Thanks so much for your help. I find that following the directions they give on Wikipedia on how to do things is incredibly unintuitive. Metzenberg (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rangitoto College

Hello,

You edited the Rangitoto College page and removed the name Liam McEwan (my friend) from notable students because being a presenter on a low power radio station isn't enough. This is untrue because Liam does not only present on The Flea 88.2 but also on Classic Gold which broadcasts all over New Zealand. I will be adding his name back on. Please do not remove.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.174.191 (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This person only gets 8 google hits from New Zealand websites, and some of those are from 1863. You need to create a better case for notability.-gadfium 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

my wiki-vacation

Gadfium,

I'm going to take a wiki-vacation for a few months. Please review the Featured article candidate process on Tay-Sachs disease. I have requested that the article be withdrawn. Look at my last couple of edits, including my comments to SandyGeorgia. I thank you again for your help in maintaining the article. Perhaps I'll be back in a few months. Metzenberg (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

user:208.125.139.103 is vandalising again. Could you have it/him blocked? Without wishing to be presumptuous, I think an indefinite block is merited.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked them for another month. We almost never block IP addresses indefinitely, since the address may be re-assigned to a new user at some point in the future. However, if they vandalise again once the month is up, and there is no evidence of collateral damage, the following block will be for three months, and subsequent blocks will be for longer periods.-gadfium 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand general election, 2005

I don't see any reason to keep New Zealand general election, 2005: in depth results either, not sure why we had that in the first place when it doesn't really go in depth. BTW I'm working on the party lists for 2005 like 2008, 2002 et al. so should be added in a few daysMattlore (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Cheers. What with finishing my PhD, moving cities, starting a new job, finding somewhere to live and going up to Auckland every other weekend I've been pretty busy. But I'm in a new place and have an internet connection now (even if I can't get the damn wireless to work) so I'll probably be back now. --Helenalex (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Worth

Hi, Gadfium. I'm currently monitoring the Richard Worth scandal and will amend the article accordingly as new information comes to hand. Thanks for your constructive comments, and I will include media references when I re-edit the article should any further concrete details come to light Calibanu (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu Calibanu (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

David Bain

Hey Gadfium. The paragraph you restored to David Bain bothers me a bit. The very first sentence of our not guilty article says "In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned" (my bolding). How can we justify that paragraph in the Bain article which says "A not guilty verdict does not mean that the accused person did not commit the crimes for which he or she is charged." The reference was to a Massachusets Bar Assn website. Unless we can come up with a NZ or England source, shouldn't that be left out? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that we should be elaborating on these concepts in the David Bain article, but the concept of "not guilty" in New Zealand means "not proven beyond reasonable doubt" and falls short of "innocent" by a wide margin. The paragraph is there in part as a lead in to the following section on "possible compensation", for which innocence must be established.

I didn't write the paragraph, and I would be more comfortable with it if it gave a New Zealand source. If you still believe it is not appropriate, feel free to remove it with an explanation in your edit summary.-gadfium 05:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainly needs to be expanded upon if it is to stay. The truth versus the courts findings are exactly the same as a statistical hypothesis test. The issue arises around the truth versus the jury decision in any trial. We will never know the truth in this case as valuable forensic evidence was destroyed, only David Bain knows the truth. In the long run the courts findings are correct most of the time (if not the whole judicial process would be a joke). --Zven (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gadfium for your reply to my edit to the Bain article, about repeated vandalism. I think it's not only appropriate, but necessary, to point out that a not guilty verdict is distinct from a declaration of innocence, because (a) it's simply true, in terms of both common sense and the law, and (b) it seems that the coroner is going to have a new look at this matter, and his determination will be based on a balance of probabilities, and he could reach a decision (using that lower threshold) that is contrary to the jury's in the retrial. For what it's worth, I think the jury in the retrial probably got it right, because the defense had in fact raised a "reasonable doubt," and that was the jury's test to be applied. But as in the OJ Simpson case, a finding of not guilty based on the evidence presented in a courtroom is not at all the same as a declaration of innocence. That doesn't mean that David Bain is guilty, or innocent. It simply means that the jury found that guilt had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. It is very very important to make that distinction, but many people seem to be confusing the two concepts. Anyway, thanks again for your balanced consideration. You know 50 times more about Wikipedia than I ever will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.70.15 (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets not forget that ideally the coronor will provide an objective (and not subjective) viewpoint, just like the three QC's who are likely to decide if compensation applies. --Zven (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

BCE/BC

Hi Gadfium, I notice you are actively reverting my attempts to bring consistency to that Germanic article. BCE, or Before Common Era, is simply Atheists trying to cover the fact that our calendar is based on the birth of Jesus. There all it does is add ambiguity to dates, as how are these 2000 years any more or less 'Common' than the previous 2000? --Hayden4258 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would direct you to WP:ERA, but you are already well aware of that and have just been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Hayden5650.-gadfium 05:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but . . .

Hey, I want to see vandals blocked as quickly as possible, and sometimes I get frustrated when there's apparently no one at AIV monitoring our block requests. But I nonetheless am puzzled by this block of yours. The vandal had only one warning in the last four days, had never gotten a warning higher than Level 2, and had not made an edit for nearly two hours before your block—and none since my warning. I guess admins, like vandal fighters, sometimes make mistakes when they pull the trigger, eh? Well, we're all human. Just thought I'd point it out and let you decide what to do, if anything, about it. Cheers. Unschool 07:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned that they had not received a block3 message or above, but they had received five separate warnings, and their last three edits were clearly vandalism. My block was only for 31 hours. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh, but not hugely so.-gadfium 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of articles?

Some of the assessments of Wikiproject New Zealand seem eccentric to me. For example, the History of the Royal New Zealand Navy is assessed as low importance. Wikiproject Australia assesses their parallel article as high importance. Fishing industry in New Zealand is also assessed as low importance. Low importance, according to Wikiproject New Zealand's own criteria, is for an article that is "of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia". Anyway, I no longer contribute articles in these areas to the New Zealand project, since there is little point in wasting energy on articles that have such little value. Still, I find the project's stance a bit strange. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

I agree that many articles have assessments that do not reflect their true value. This is mostly because about 11,000 articles were automatically assessed by a bot towards the end of last year, based on the number of hits each article was getting. Both the articles you mention were assessed by this bot. We prefer human assessments. Both those articles should be rated more highly, using other similar articles as a guide. For example, Agriculture in New Zealand is rated as top importance; fishing is probably one step down from that, so should be rated as high importance. Royal New Zealand Navy is high importance, so its history should be mid-importance, and individual vessels are probably low importance. You can find discussions on how to assess New Zealand-related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment.

We have no restrictions on someone assessing the importance of an article they have worked on, so feel free to reassess any articles you wish. There might be some push-back if you rate too many articles as top importance, as we want to keep that rating for no more than 100 articles. You can also assess article quality yourself up to B-class. WPNZ has no process for giving an A-class rating, and there are Wikipedia-wide processes for determining GA and FA class articles. The more articles you assess, the better a feel you get for the process.-gadfium 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arr... a bot which assesses value according to the number of page views! That explains all these NZ articles about ephemeral populist fluff with such high ratings, while substantial background articles are dismissed as "obscure pieces of trivia". That might be a good marketing approach if Wikipedia were designed for promoting spam links. But for an encyclopaedia...? --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Great work on the cats

Kudos to all your tireless work in organising categories for new articles. You apply a great deal of knowledge to this activity and certainly clean up a lot of new articles i have started. Keep it up. Best regards. Kiwikibble (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks-gadfium 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the Primary school list for Palmerston North - it's a work in process

We're (PNCC) trying to get the code right and the only way to see if it works is to leave it on. Until yesterday there was only one Primary school even listed (a Non-state one at that). Question: Are you an Officially appointed Wikipedia Administrator?

Surely it would be better to improve the comprehensive list rather than duplicate it at the PN article. It might be appropriate to split out the PN city schools from the list for the region, as I have done for some of the schools so far at List of schools in Auckland. I can do this if you think that would be an improvement. The list would still seem to be too long to be included in the city article, although eventually I think each suburb article should have a short list or section on the schools in it. See the articles on North Shore City suburbs for an example of this, eg Devonport, New Zealand.

I am an administrator, but that gives me no more say in article content than any other editor. As an administrator I have to deal with misbehaving users, but you and I have a collegial difference of opinion/approach to the Palmerston North article which does not involve bad behaviour.

FYI: I started the primary schools list in the article in order to redirect the article of a newly-created non-notable school. While these are usually redirected to articles on the suburb the school is in, I had difficulty identifying the suburb, and I'm not sure if there are suburb articles for Palmy yet. dramatic (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I will make a post to Talk:Palmerston North shortly about the gangs issue.-gadfium 02:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The comprehensive list is at List of schools in Manawatu-Wanganui, New Zealand#Palmerston North City.-gadfium 03:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great: We were just blindly following the example of how the page had already been setout. Trying to add Primary, as all the other levels were covered, it seemed a blinding ommission not to include Primary schools. We had hoped to make the names of each school link to that schools actual website and were in the process of doing so. In any case I think we'll just point users to the one version of the truth we're acutally paid to maintain. - http://www.palmerstonnorth.com/Learning/SchoolsInPalmerstonNorth/

Crime information for Palmerston North

To explain further: Our attempt to add some more recent information to the "Crime" section came from a serious concern raised by our District Health Board who contacted us about the information (Crime and Gangs); they have had a significant number of overseas high level medical job candidates ultimately turn down opportunities to work here simply because of what they read in that section. One candidate from Israel was so concerned about "the crime situation in Palmerston North", he opted to stay put... This unbalanced representation has thus had a direct effect on the recruitment efforts of our district health board, which in turn could exacerbate surgical waiting lists and place patients at increased risk. It's fair to say the DHB is quite rightly disappointed. As are the authorities and associated community organisations that have put in a tremendous amount of work, particularly in the past 8-9 years to address the issue of crime in our community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish-r (talk • contribs) 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for some guidance at the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board.-gadfium 03:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Crime section for Auckland City?

Like there isn't one...

Palmerston has one drive by shooting way back in 2001 and we get a Section on Crime in wikipedia; Auckland on the other hand has had how many gang related killings since 2001? and they don't have a section on "Crime"... yeah, right oh! LOL

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You are most welcome to add a section on crime to Auckland or Auckland City with references. However, this does not help your case.-gadfium 03:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd contend that as for the most part the pages for other cities in New Zealand don't contain a section on "Crime", the inclusion of one for Palmerston North in this context is somewhat unbalanced; and serves to make out that Palmerston North is by comparison the crime hotspot of New Zealand, particularly to anyone living outside of NZ who is trying to make and assessment of risk in relation to selecting a suitable city to move to in relation to a job offer.

As far as adding sections to Auckland or Auckland City, I'm already going to have to put in extra hours out of my own time for our rate payers to cover the time I've spent pursuing this matter, but thanks all the same for the invitation.

Correction. Palmerston North had its last drive by shooting at 7:20pm, 8 June 2009 at the Mill liquor store on Grey Street. Here is the link for verification purposes: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/witnesses-sought-after-shooting-2773850

Thanks, but this might be more useful posted at Talk:Palmerston North.-gadfium 03:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Crime sections for Wanganui, Wairoa, Whakatane, Westport, Whangarei, Wellington

And they're just some of the places, starting with "W" that have been more of a hotbed for recent and longstanding gang related crime and violence in New Zealand, far more than Palmerston North.

Anyone remember the 2007 drive-by shooting in Wanganui which took the life of a small child asleep in her bedroom - http://www.police.govt.nz/district/central/release/3035.html

Rugby tour of New Zealand

Could you help me or could you find someone to help me on some tours of NZL Mr Hall of England (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The best place to ask is the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. I'm not particularly interested in rugby myself.-gadfium 23:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't date links be removed?

Check guidelines at wp:mosnum

There has recently been a case at WP:ARBCOM about date delinking, which resulted in an injunction against mass date delinking for the next six months. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Mass date delinking. You could well argue that you are not doing mass delinking, since you are only editing occasionally, but delinking does seem to be a major focus of your editing. I reverted your edit not simply because you were delinking dates but also because you were reformatting dates into American style, which is not appropriate for a Commonwealth country.-gadfium 08:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You reverted also those dates which I didn't change the format. As a result the article looks clumsier. Having Wikipedia users in mind, you edit is far less appeal. There are clear guidelines on date links and on date formats as well. Please revert your edit back and if you wish to change the date format, do it manually, not in mass.

You are most welcome to improve the quality of the article by formatting dates according to the manual of style. Formatting them to a an inappropriate style is not an improvement, even though it made the article more consistent. You have asked me to check the guidelines at wp:mosnum, which state clearly:

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month.

Please take your own advice.-gadfium 23:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007

Hey, I would appreciate you having a look at the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 article if you have time. I went through the edits made by User:ChrisTParkin but may have been overly generous in the information I left in the article. Both this article and the one on the referendum are going to get a bollocking in the next month. I'm already finding it hard to tell if I'm being too hard or too soft with my edits. Mattlore (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to start a discussion at WP:NZWNB about how to handle these articles, with a pointer to that discussion from both article talk pages.

If there is a high level of vandalism or POV pushing from anon or new editors, we can semi-protect the articles. There is no reason to do so as yet.

Another possible approach would be a zero-tolerance to unsourced statements. If a statement doesn't contain a ref to an online source which backs it up, it gets removed promptly. The ref doesn't have to be well-formatted, as any experienced editor can fix up a bare link for a newcomer. However, this would discourage new editors from participating, and its common on Wikipedia for one editor to add a statement, another to tag it with {{fact}}, and a third to do some research and find a reference for it.

The most effective strategy in the short term is to suggest that as many reliable New Zealand editors as possible watchlist the articles. A posting at the New Zealand noticeboard will achieve that. I've added them to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Vandalism patrol which I use as a public watchlist, but I don't know how many other editors use that list.-gadfium 01:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gadfium, The dates on the web bage are quite clear... "Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill Sue Bradford MP 06 Oct 2003 " What was your reason for removing it? Thanks --ChrisTParkin (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

PS I have a couple of things to remove my self as they fit the definition of speculation

Bradford wrote the article, but there is no indication that she chose the headline. Headlines are usually chosen by editors who are looking for something punchy. All the website shows is that some unidentified person in the Green Party (or at least connected with it) once called it an anti-smacking bill. That's not appropriate for our article.-gadfium 05:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Timeline

I object to your removal of the 1835 event refereing to expansion of the Wesleyn missionary effort southwards from Hokiangs and ref to the page James and Mary Wallis page from the timeline for seeming (in your view) as an event too minor to record in the timeline... There are many seemingly "minor" events in the timeline eg.. First session of Southland provincial council in 1861.... and in my view, for the timeline to have value (and the whole point of Wikipedia) beyond a normal grade 1 history book, it needs more detail to it.... Its not like there are many other events in 1835 and the event I added simply clouded out other more important issues... it adds vlaue in explaining what sort of activity was occuring at this time... thanks for the other minor amendments you made to my page....

Wikipedia is not attempting to compete with grade 1 history books in any one article. We don't want any single article to become too large, because some of our readers are on dial-up internet, and longer articles are more difficult to read. See Wikipedia:Article size. Timeline of New Zealand history and History of New Zealand should therefore only include the principal events. Wikibooks may be more appropriate for your purpose. I'm not a regular editor there, but they do have b:New Zealand History.

Wikipedia does encourage more detailed articles, so long as they can be reliably sourced. The expansion of the Wesleyan missionaries in New Zealand could be dealt with in an article on Missionary activity in New Zealand or Christian missionaries in New Zealand or Wesleyan missionaries in New Zealand, should you be willing to put the effort into writing one of these articles. I happened to find the book Maori and Missionary: Early Christian Missions in the South Island of New Zealand while researching an article today, which could be a useful resource to you if you wish to follow up this suggestion. There are numerous similar resources available online.-gadfium 10:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Gadfium, you puzzle me. How can you restore this unsourced info to an article but then remove something from a different article and say "rv, no source given."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwhakahaere (talk • contribs)

I'm sure I puzzle lots of people :-)

I'm tougher on requiring sources for new information being added than I am on existing unsourced material. Also, your edit summary indicated that you removed the paragraph on the Jean Batten musical because it didn't fit in the section, rather than because you doubted its accuracy. I did try to find what the colours of the Nomads might be, and couldn't, otherwise I would have added a source (or tagged it as needing a source if I could find something which convinced me it was correct, but wasn't itself a reliable source). Another factor is a consideration of how damaging is it if something is wrong. Getting their colours wrong might be rather annoying to the Nomads. If the information about the musical is wrong, I don't see how anyone gets hurt. Finally, I'm human, and therefore I'm not very consistent, particularly on different articles.

I haven't been able to find any reliable online source for the musical, but I have some indication, from a source which is not adequate to quote in Wikipedia, which leads me to believe that the paragraph is probably correct. See the minutes of a Zone 3 meeting of the Musical Theatre of New Zealand for 12 July 2008, available as a Microsoft Word document [5]. The third item under general business shows that there is a person of that name in Opunake who has written a musical. Another indication that the information is correct is that the editor who added it also added information to Opunake almost two years earlier, and that information has survived and been updated since.

Feel free to tag the paragraph as needing a source, or remove it as a non-notable musical.-gadfium 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Contact?

Hi gadfium. Would you be able to email me at russb@dubwise.co.nz? There's something I want to ask you about (no, nothing dramatic) -- Cheers, Russell Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russb10 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)