Talk:Mokuʻula

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hawaii High‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cemeteries Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NRHP

Mausoleum

Needs section. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox lake

{{Infobox lake}} Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nāga

The moʻo of the Hawaiians and the Nāga of the Hindus appears to be the same. Has anyone noticed this? Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3+ Revert Rule editing practices

I've noticed that your editing history is rife with multiple reversions and additions of material. This could be seen by some editors as a violation of the three-revert rule. I suggest that when editing an article, try to use the preview button or open up multiple screens if you feel the need to add info after the fact. Or something that that doesn't require you to go back, add a/or remove material. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@293.xx.xxx.xx: I understand my actions and none of them can be considered 3+ revert which is edit warring which is not something I would not do. Reverting once or twice is not subject to the rule if there is just cause. Users are allow to revert other editors content; it's the continual reverting without discussion and edit warring that is a problem and should be avoided. I see the image your are using as a poor one with no value to the article which is why I removed it in the first place. I assumed you were an IP address for a while. Let's discuss that part in the talk page of the article because you have not been anymore forthright than me in the edit summaries when revering my edits either.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any notice except your reversion of my edit on the article. After I saw the reversion, I then saw the messages you gave me, so I don't know why Wikipedia failed to inform me of your messaging given I was waiting for a response for sometime. My images are of when there were archeological surveys in 2012, which gives an idea of how the site is today, and has a clear infomation board that identifies the site as Moku'ula. I think this image or the other one is sufficient enough given the island is buried, than using an image of a ballpark or your image, which is of lower quality than mine. Compare that image to one on the Friends of Moku'ula site.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this discussion from my talk page.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image of site

User:293.xx.xxx.xx why are you insisting on retaining an image of a fence when there is a more recognizable image of the stone platform and even one of the plaque which also parts of the archaeological site in the image. The only reason I can see is the fact that you've upload it to the common which would be a conflict of interest in my opinion. Please state your case for the current image. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One that I am insisting on including
Another better one than the current

Google image result for Mokuula --- The stone platform is the clear iconic landmark.

You said "Image is of poor quality and does not identify a significant landmark on property." --- However, the pohaku platform is a significant landmark on the site. I have spoken with the Friends of Mokuula and they have stated that this platform is of religious importance on the site. Your image is just of a fence in area where they are digging right now. I won't revert anymore. If you still disagree or remain unresponsive except to only return to revert my edits, I think we need to take this for Rfc or Wikipedia:Third opinion because I seriously think you only want this image because your the uploader.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second suggestion. Would comprise on the second image showing the pohaku and the fenced in area?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree to just include both images? I don't mind if the one I am suggesting takes a second place.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mokuʻula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723205039/http://www.mauimagazine.net/Maui-Magazine/January-February-2009/Lahaina-rsquos-Invisible-Island/ to http://www.mauimagazine.net/Maui-Magazine/January-February-2009/Lahaina-rsquos-Invisible-Island/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]