User talk:Gadfium/Archive 13

Charles Chauvel

You have left a comment removing the edit on Payday and fringe lender reform citing that Chauvel's speeches are not quoted elsewhere, yet in an earlier section of the article, Chauvel's maiden statement is quoted and referenced. This deletion appears inconsistent with the precedent already set earlier in the article. As there appears to be nothing wrong with the validity of the reference used, and the portion of that speech appears to me to be the only part of that speech that would not be covered by what has already been written in that section of the article, then I would suggest that the quote stand. --Louisejgreaves (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His maiden statement (or at least the bit quoted) is very much about his background and opinions. The bit I removed is about a possible association of another MP with a loan company. It would appear to be intended to tarnish the reputation of that MP rather than to provide biographical information about Chauvel.-gadfium 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that were the case, then perhaps that should have been written in the edit as the reason to delete that portion. I'm not as experienced as you, but I would have thought that the reason for a change has to be accurate (otherwise, the editor can be accused of the same bias they are trying to avoid). Also, can you show me the specific rule about damaging comments regarding third parties on these wikis, i would like to know in future what to avoid. --Louisejgreaves (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you are looking for is Biographies of living people. If the same material was placed on Craig Foss, it would probably also be considered as undue weight, as was a similar item on John Banks recently. However, you seem to be missing the point that any material placed in an article must be relevant to that article topic. My edit summary was quite clear that I didn't see the quote as providing useful information about Chauvel. Do I need to go looking for a policy statement about relevance for you?-gadfium 19:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whanganui

Hmmmmm. You think those vandals are still a problem? 98.82.180.48 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the answer. 98.82.180.48 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Gadfium! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 316 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Bruce Logan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pōtatau Te Wherowhero

I don't know much about NZ history, but I noticed an edit by 125.237.34.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that seemed suspicious to me because of the many typos it introduced, and because it was unsourced POV.[1] So I checked that user's next edit[2], and saw that you reverted to that same version (when you reverted some intermediate obvious vandalism,[3]), so now that user's version has become yours. Is that a version you can indeed endorse? If I can ask you a favour, it would also be great if you could look at that user's third contribution[4] (labelled "Accarate (sic!) details ..."), since you know more about the subject than I do. Thank you! — Sebastian 01:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user I am well aware of, who has been editing with a dynamic IP for many months, mostly on Fairfield College, Bucklands Beach and 19th century New Zealand history. Their edits all show erratic punctuation and frequent typos, and despite repeated requests they have never adequately sourced their material, although they sometimes include their sources in angle brackets. Some of their edits I have reverted, particularly those dealing with living people; some I have cleaned up; and some I have left for those with greater knowledge of the subject matter or more time to clean up. As far as I know, the anon's edits have always been factual but may have POV issues, and they do not necessarily understand the idea of undue weight.

The last half dozen edits to Invasion of Waikato are all from this editor. I have no reason to believe they are not correct. Certainly they need to be edited for spelling and grammar, and the references converted to use Wikipedia <ref> formats, but once this is done the article, which has always lacked adequate sourcing, will be of higher quality than it was originally. That copyediting can be done by anyone; it does not require detailed knowledge of the subject.-gadfium 02:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Well, yes, copyediting can be done by anyone (even by me [5]), but that's not the problem. To the contrary, I regard it a good thing that bad editors make such obvious mistakes - those are a clue that we need to look further in a certain text. The bigger problem is the message of an article. If one editor writes non-factual text, and another just copyedits it without understanding the background, then that clue gets lost, and it will take much longer until the non-factual content gets fixed. — Sebastian 02:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#19th century New Zealand history.-gadfium 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi Gadfium, Thanks for the deletion. So I think I found a suitable place to put PTE, I also include a reference to prove that(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_New_Zealand), please check, if it's not suitable, please let me know. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdenzColleges (talk • contribs) 04:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is a suitable place to list it. I suggest you might like to fill out the list with the many other such establishments, using the MoE site as a reference, but including a few extra details for each one, such as the city of its main campus and the area of education it specialises in. This would help to reduce suspicion that you are not here solely to promote your own institution.-gadfium 04:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, Thanks for that. I just checked the MoE site, I found a few PTE were already closed down (within last few months).So I will ask MoE for a updated one and will put it up on wiki. Thanks~(UTC)

That's good. I was going to warn you not to just copy their website, as they have copyright over the contents, but the present list is just names of institutions and their own tracking number, and I doubt anyone can claim copyright over such a list. Adding extra information, as I suggested above, or ordering the list by region rather than simply alphabetically, would be good. You seem to have a good knowledge of the industry, so you could probably add these details with very little additional effort.-gadfium 00:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest...

...is not commonly known as Chomolangma in English. The article is currently protected. Please visit the article talk page and give us your assurance you won't try to resume the edit war when it gets unprotected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. A single reversal by you of an edit is being counted as edit warring. Seems a little over the top to me. Schwede 66 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More of an edit skirmish. Be that as it may, consensus now is to leave the lead alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu

RE:Demographics Hi, I understand where you are coming from...but clearly mentioning that someone claims something doesn't infringe CIA findings? Thanks Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a marginal case, since the material you added was suitably worded to make it a claim only rather than fact; the figure is not outrageous, and the CIA figures are not necessarily more than an estimate. I'm a bit twitchy over similar incidents where a different church, in other Pacific Island nations (Samoa and Tonga), claimed a much larger proportion of the population than other sources gave. I've restored your edit.-gadfium 19:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color Blindness

In response to your question regarding why the website i have added is worth having, I would appreciate if you take a detailed look at the website relative to the others linked before passing such hasty judgement on it. I made that website as an individual that is color blind and interested in sharing and informing the remainder of 'my' community. I put an exteme amount of time into consolidating all information and research currently available regarding the condition. Directly related to the Ishihara Test page, my test is significantly more detailed than all of the others online, including at least 3 in the existing external links list (infact only one link actually contains information not 100% convered by my work). If you want to remove links, shouldn't you start with the least contributing link, not the most? Should someone take my test and find they are color blind, they can use my website to go on and learn all about their condition, again in contrast to the lack of information on the other websites in the external links section. If you're concerned about the adsense ads on my page, you should know that they are there to pay for my hosting and they DO NOT earn that much anyway. Thankyou for reading this, and i'll leave it to you to decide on undoing your edit - i wasn't aware how best to handle a difference of opinion as i've not contributed before.

Please see our conflict of interest guidelines. You should not be promoting your own website here. You can make much more effective contributions to Wikipedia by adding information to the articles rather than adding external links.-gadfium 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, i have read the guidelines. My interest is not in promotion for my benefit, but rather the color blind community in general. Looking at the existing external links, i believe my website can offer far more extensive contribution. I have already written all i have to know on the pages in my website, There is no sense repeating it here. Be nice to know how the other people in the EL list survived you wiki-nazis consider they generally offer a lot less than my efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.30.47 (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding content here will reach many more readers than your website is likely to.-gadfium 06:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
		for your great tireless work on all things New Zealand. I've always thought that I've got a watchlist that is way too long, but if I look away for half a day and something not entirely appropriate happens to my watchlisted articles, chances are you've already sorted it. Your watchlist must be huge. And you are always onto it. I especially appreciate your calm and measured way, and the good advice that you give.
		_{this WikiAward was given to Gadfium by Schwede66 on 09:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you. I do have a huge watchlist, but I also rely heavily on "What links here" for various pages and categories, and recently I've started using the wikiproject watchlist as well.-gadfium 10:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Geographic magazine as a quality source

Hi Gadfium. At the moment Huia is going thru its nomination process as a featured article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huia/archive1. One of the reviewers has queried NZ Geographic (or an article in it by Szabo) as a quality source. I think it's okay to use - perhaps with some qualifications like not using it to back up something too far out of the ordinary. Any thoughts? I am getting a bit worried about the FA since I am only a minor contributor to the article and the nominator seems unable to contribute much at the moment to the discussions. If he doesn't show soon I might have to suspend the FA Kahuroa (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Geographic appears to be a quality source, although I have no detailed knowledge of its editorial policies. Michael Szabo also appears to be a professional journalist. I would contrast it with an obviously unsuitable source: New Zealand Truth, and a generally reliable source, The New Zealand Herald, which would not be acceptable as a scientific and particularly medical source per WP:MEDRS. Notornis would be a better ref than NZ Geographic, but I think for Wikipedia NZ Geographic is sufficient.-gadfium 06:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's awesome - would you mind briefly stating something like this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huia/archive1? Not a major if you don't want to, but any input may help. Kahuroa (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor and Maori

Just so as you know. The latest edits [6] by the "helpful" IP editor (Claudia) have broken a referenced sentence on population stats and inserted other information into it. (She) has also added more unsourced and badly formatted stuff - tho I managed to trace some of it to NZETC. I have reverted her twice today and I also found referenced info that contradicted the stuff she was putting on about there being only one documented epidemic. I'm not keen to roll her back this time and I will wait before I fix that broken reference. Kahuroa (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised that there would be only one documented epidemic. I've added a reference following one of her notes, and removed the other edit because it had no ref. When did she give you her name?-gadfium 06:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ip with similar editing style etc calls herself Claudia here Talk:Bucklands Beach Kahuroa (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand official war artists

This subtle usage error was mine. Please review War artist#New Zealander? In the context created by the other national sections, the usage is irregular.

I wonder if your edit reveals a basic flaw in the way these sections were named. If so, there will be similar errors in the way corollary articles are named. I'm quite willing to correct my own errors; but your edit suggests nuances which I hadn't parsed well enough:

noun & adjective -- Australian official war artist

the nationality is either or both a noun and an an adjective

noun -- He is an Australian?
adjective -- He has Australian citizenship

Is this one of those irregular instances in which adjectives and nouns are interchangeable?

Please help me understand any other errors you find in these section headings. With your constructive feedback, it will be more likely that I can avoid making similar mistakes in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most demonyms work as an adjective, but there are quite a number of exceptions. List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names provides a decent list. I notice that in War artist you correctly have the heading "Spanish", although the demonym is "Spaniard". I hardly ever see the word "Spaniard" - people seem to use "Spanish person" instead. I'll change the New Zealand entry at War artist.-gadfium 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi Gadfium, looking through this person's contributions today, some temporary block would be in order. Schwede 66 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You'll get a much faster response in future if you report such edits to WP:AIV.-gadfium 01:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know - thanks (not that there was anything wrong with your turnaround, though!). Schwede 66 01:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV response time is usually within a few minutes.-gadfium 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Reeves

I really don't see any reason to delete it as a blatant hoax; there's nothing unrealistic about what the article says about him. Conversely, I've supported deletion at AFD; thanks for letting me know about it. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible difficult issue at South Island nationalism

Hi Gadfium, I'm wanting some advice, or suggestions, or possibly, if you know how to do it some kind of confirmation or refutation of a sneaking suspicion I have about an editor who is proving a little difficult.

Don't know if you remember it, but a while back you edited the page South Island nationalism and removed an editor's uncited claim that the nationalism was ethnically-driven. Since then, there's been a slow but steady argument on the talk page. LJ Holden, Davosaurus and I all say that it';s not ethnic (I'll admit to being the most vociferous on that count), Son of Zealandia says there are some ethnic elements and some civic ones, and Teroamahai says its ethnic, pure and simple. Teroamahai had earlier caused trouble with unconstructive edits to the page immediately after an article he started on North Island nationalism was deleted.

Teroamahai had been silent of WP for a while when last week an anon added a series of edits to the South Island nationalism article and related articles, which indicated there was a big element of ethnic nationalism involved (and all uncited). Today, after a couple of months away, Teroamahai comes back, using this uncited addition as an indication that S.I. nationalism is ethnically based. While I'd like to AGF, I am suspicious as to whether Teroamahai and the anon are the same editor (BTW, having found no evidence anywhere of the anon-s claim, either online or from people involved in South island independence groups whom I know, I removed them).

Have you any suggestions, or would you be willing to have a look as a predominantly-unbiased* admin? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 11:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (*predominantly, since you did make that earlier edit)[reply]

You and other editors seem to have the situation under control.

I don't think I can be considered an uninvolved editor on that subject, as I have been involved in South Island Independence in the past.

Probably Teroamahai is the anon editor. Has any claim been made to the contrary? Teroamahai is not an experienced editor; most likely their login expired after the edits of months ago and they made edits either not realising they were no longer logged in, or not caring. Noticing the lack of login, or wishing to have the edits registered to them, they logged in after making a few edits. The content of the edits may or may not be in good faith, but I don't see the anon editing as a problem unless there was an attempt to deceive.-gadfium 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karamu High School

Hi Gadfium, thank you for starting the page on Karamu HS but a lot of the informaion is now out of date and the Karamu HS BOT will now administer information for the site. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.19.90 (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit the article, but you cannot control it. Please add only information which can be sourced. You also cannot copy information directly from the internet, unless that information is under a suitable open content licence, usually CC-BY-SA. For the section you have copied from the school website to be acceptable, you will have to place such a licence statement on that page. Otherwise, you are violating the school's copyright. There are alternatives, such as proving that you represent the school and have the right to relicence the material, which would have to go to someone higher in Wikipedia than me. It's much simpler to place a licence notice on the school website. You can also rewrite the material in your own words so no copyright violation occurs.

I suggest you always edit using an account, since your IP address may change and that makes it more difficult to establish that the edits are coming from the same person. You should also use an account representing a single person, not the whole BoT. See WP:ORGNAME.

Finally, you have a conflict of interest on the article. This doesn't prevent you from making purely factual edits, but you should not attempt to promote the school by, for example, using peacock phrases. It gets tricky if there is material critical of the school - in that case you should add comments on the talk page rather than edit the material directly. I accepted the removal of the section on the "ERO crisis", which was unsourced and out of date, although quite interesting. That was not critical of your school, but I think it would have been more appropriate for you to have suggested its removal on the talk page rather than doing so yourself.-gadfium 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Not sure where we go to from here or what is your motivation for this Wiki. Are you a past pupil? The BOT are confused why you are seeking to edit the Wiki when the school and the BOT are the legal owners of the school and its information. Quite happy to stick within the guidelines of Wikipedia but who is making the judgement calls on what is relevant content eg "generally regarded by residents as less conservative" where is the evidence i.e. facts to substantiate this claim? Who decides Karamu's Alumni? All information on our website has been written with BOT delegated authority and is the proprty of the BOT so no problems there. Will follow up on other suggestions regarding edit accounts etc when I have more knowledge as still a first time user and know very little apart from the wiki page for KHS is simply not an accurate information page for KHS in 2010 and the BOT are not happy as democratically elected trustees of the school to have this continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.15.181 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a former student at the school. I edit Wikipedia on many subjects, mostly to do with New Zealand. I am concerned that articles be accurate but I also make sure that no copyright is violated when material is added to articles.

You are probably correct that the BoT owns the school. It probably also owns the copyright on the school website. It clearly does not own all information about the school, and it does not own any Wikipedia article. We cannot allow anyone on the internet to copy material from the school's website to Wikipedia simply because they claim to represent the BoT, unless we have proof that they actually do so. To put any material on Wikipedia is to licence it under Wikipedia's Terms of Use, which is under a CC-BY-SA licence. I am not allowing the material to be added to Wikipedia verbatim without such proof, because I am protecting the school's copyright. The simplest method of providing proof that the material on the school website can be copied to Wikipedia - and any other publisher which wishes to redistribute Wikipedia's content - is to add a copyright notice to the page in question saying that the contents are released under a CC-BY-SA licence. Only the representatives of the school can alter such information on the website, so that is sufficient proof. Alternatively, you can contact Wikipedia authorities from a school email address and negotiate your rights with them. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit if you wish to do this. It might simplify matters if you refer to this conversation on my talk page.

Of course, you don't have to copy material near-verbatim from your website to update the article. Just rewrite it in your own words, and add a link to the history page of the website as a reference. Alternatively, point out on the talk page any inaccuracies in the article.

For notable alumni, each line should explain in a few words why they are notable, and link to the Wikipedia article on the person. If they do not have an article, then add an external link to some reliable source which explains why they are notable. Guidelines to what is considered notability on Wikipedia are at WP:BIO.-gadfium 23:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Principal of the school I can advise you that I have the authority and the responsibilty to monitor all information published about the school. I am still concerned that it appears that you make judgements on what content appears on the school even though it appears that you have no strong affiliation with the school. I ask again for you to justify the comment "generally regarded by residents as less conservative", can you please site the evidence that makes this comment true? The school has not had a prospectus since 2000 and has not had or recruited international students since 2001 and yet there is incorrect information posted on these two points which I removed and replace with true information which you then deleted and replaced back with the incorrect information. The ERO crisis needed to be removed as it was wrong, there was never an ERO crisis. At the time an EDI (Educational Development Initiative) was commisioned for the Hastings District from which future strategic planning in secondary schooling occured. The events that were described simply did not happen. As you can appreciate I am extremely frustrated that you seem determined to control what is said about our school even though you state that you have no connection (and could I respectfully suggest) and little accurate information about our school. I on the other hand do. The obvious question is Why Karamu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.7.147 (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My principle concern with your earlier edits was the inclusion of copyrighted material. I suggested that you make edits to the article which did not involve such material, or that you post suggested corrections to the talk page. Alternatively, I suggested methods for you to prove your identity so that we could accept material directly from the school website.

I am happy to remove the claim that the school is regarded as less conservative than single-sex schools in the area, and the sentence about the prospectus and international students. I accepted your removal of the "ERO crisis" section. I did not add either of these items; it appears your annoyance should be directed to those who did.-gadfium 04:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Bradbury

Hello Gadfium, I see you've protected that page before so wondered if it should be done again, as there seems to be recurrent petty vandalism. NZ forever (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the edits at Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury are vandalism. Unsourced, certainly. Pov, perhaps. It might require an editor more removed from NZ context to decide. You could request protection via the usual channels and see what response you get?-gadfium 07:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silverstream School

Hi there. You just added a source which was supposed to verify Beverly Morrison is alumni, but I couldn't find this information on the source. Am I missing anything? --Muhandes (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't actually say she went to Silverstream, but does say that she was raised in the Hutt Valley (though you need to click through to the full bio). While the Dominion Post article says "Beverly Morrison grew up in the Hutt Valley, one of four children, and went to Silverstream School", it is no longer available online. If you can find an alternative source which specifically mentions Silverstream, feel free to replace it.-gadfium 21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find such a source, except this hacked blog which seems to contain a copy of the original article. As the second source does not specify the school, I feel it is not contributing, so I'm going to remove it if you don't mind. If you feel it is necessary after all, feel free to restore it. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Adding a quote from the Dominion-Post is a good idea.-gadfium 05:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labour reforms

Dear Gadfium,

In response to your message, the reason why I (regrettably)removed those reforms is because of a discovery I made a few days ago. I had a look the other night at the University of Canterbury (in New Zealand) website, which contains the source of those reforms, a thesis by a PhD student called Nathan McCluskey. On the website, I think it stated that you could not draw any information from the theses on the website without the author's permission, which I didn't know about at the time. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find an email address for Nathan McCluskey in order to contact him. However, if I am entitled to use information from theses published on websites for research purposes, please let me know.

Kindest regards,

Zictor23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zictor23 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmacklBot

Hi Gadifium, thanks for stopping the bot earlier. Your message is moved automatically to my talk page, there is no need to re-stop when this happens, the mere fact of the page being edited causes the stop. Hope this makes life easier if you ever need to do it again. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

kiwijet

Hi, You recently deleted one of my user pages saying it was a hoax. It was not a hoax it was for my virtual airline running MSFS i had not completed the page yet and had not added that information. The virtual airline is based upon the failed NZ carrier kiwijet. Is there a way i could get the page back? Please advise.
Joga1234 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added your virtual airline to Template:Airlines of New Zealand as a planned airline. That seems to be a hoax to me. Also, Wikipedia is not web hosting for you.-gadfium 05:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I can recreate the page for 24 hours. That will give you sufficient time to copy the page somewhere else. Would that be helpful?-gadfium 05:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I have created a website somewhere else.
Joga1234 (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Waikato U

Tricky. It does seem to be an independent rating, from this group. But the only information online about the results is from Waikato University's website. I'd suggest leaving it but balancing it up with some other comparisons which don't make it seem (incorrectly) that the university is the top one in NZ. Information from this list might help with that! Grutness...wha? 02:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PBRF information is reliable, but the references given by the anon are to [7], which appears to be written directly by the university, not by any independent body (see for example language such as "We are committed to providing..."). The other reference, [8], while published by the university, appears to be a copy of PBRF information. I think this would be an acceptable source, except that it doesn't make the claims the anon is making (the word "premier" does not appear on that page at all).

I've added a line from the QS World University Rankings, as you suggested. I also removed the claim that having triple accreditation puts the business school into the top 1%, as there was no source for that claim.-gadfium 03:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: a university cannot write any incorrect or misleading info on their website, it is considered to be illegal n hence they can be sued or their university status can be suspended for this. also for the triple accreditation putting in top 1% is true, u can chk the wikipedia, triple accreditation uni list ( if u consider it to be RELIABLE) it clearly says about the top 1% worldwide!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.142.16 (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the points I've made at Talk:University of Waikato. A university can make advertising claims on its website, or in this case on the topuniversities website, within limits. It is not so appropriate to repeat these advertising claims in Wikipedia.-gadfium 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 1% of business schools have triple accreditation, but there is no evidence presented that these are the top business schools. It seems quite possible that many business schools do not apply for it. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for its articles.-gadfium 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(rm personal attack)

Thanks. --ClubOranje^T 11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tinakori Hill

Thanks - you're right. Would you be able to change the Tinakori Hill article itself? Cheers, SHF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.255.81 (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to improve it further. Would it be appropriate to move the article to "Te Ahumairangi Hill" with the existing name as a redirect?-gadfium 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Palmer

Welcome to Wikipedia, note that your unexplained deletion of section of the above article has been reversed. I am happy to help you with Wikipedia and editing articles...Any questions, just ask for help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passfield (talk • contribs) 08:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You can help by providing neutral information about politicians. One-sided rants are decidedly not welcome.-gadfium 08:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to help you navigate Wikipedia. POV should be avoided. This section appears to be same as rest of article in tone, note use of aloof later in article to describe Palmer, which is generally accepted. The other details are facts that have sources-a biography and newspapers. Will check these references and until then leave as is, unless you know otherwise. If you need any tips or advice, let me know and most importantly welcome to and enjoy Wikipedia and editing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passfield (talk • contribs) 09:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Passfield. FYI Gadfium and Passfield, the section I added is from a new book by Raymond Richards, "Palmer: The Parliamentary Years", published November 2010 by Canterbury University Press. The quote and analysis is Raymond Richards, not my personal analysis. I wish it was-a great read. Richards is a history lecturer and authorised biographer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.246.23 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gadfium, can you actually check the IP address through which registered users make their edits? If that is possible, is that available to admins only, or do I have the ability to look this up, too? Schwede 66 17:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Checkusers can identify the IP address a logged in editor is using, and they have strict rules on when it is permissible to run such checks, and cannot reveal such details to others. See WP:CHECKUSER.-gadfium 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium, to give you (and Xlerate) the opportunity to avoid an accusation of bias and political control in editing, please rewrite section of article above, in terms of NPOV-as you see it, so FACTS are not removed... It seems to me, a few self-appointed NZ Wikipedia editors are able to delete/remove items at will citing vandalism. They do not have to substantiate or prove their position with evidence or knowledge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.246.23 (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your adding of biased information does not oblige other editors to work on the article. Two of the editors involved in removing the bias and warning you have no connection to NZ as far as I am aware. You can scream that there is political control all you like, but the reality is that everyone other than yourself understands the concept of the neutral point of view. You may find Conservapedia a more appropriate environment for your edits.-gadfium 20:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what parts of section of article ARE facts and what is not...YOUR problem is YOU have no idea! Wikipedia editors, like you, should be doing this-adding knowledge, researching and providing information. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia-that IS the purpose of the thing. Gadfium, you are NOT a gatekeeper-you can not withhold material because of your personal prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.246.23 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My challenge stands:-alter section of article to NPOV-as you see it...Otherwise you have overstepped your role as a Wikipedia editor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.246.23 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Naming convention changes

Hi Gadfium,

The two proposals at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) have been open for a fortnight now, and discussion has died down. Can this be taken as a sign that consensus has been reached? - And is any formal closing of the discussion required prior to insertion of the new sections into the guideline? As the initiatior I don't feel that I should be going ahead and doing it. dramatic (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, but as far as I am aware there is no problem with you making the changes at this point.-gadfium 08:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Whitty

Hi Gadfium, see my note here Talk:Rose Whitty and read the article. Sister Rose Whitty has no direct connection with NZ and therefore should be removed from wikiproject NZ.Rick570 (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the WPNZ template. In general, you can be bold in removing such things. Just leave an informative edit summary, or as you did, a talk page comment. If someone reverts you, that's the time to discuss the matter in more detail. See WP:BRD for an essay on such matters.-gadfium 08:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Thanks.Rick570 (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move over redirect

Hello Gadfium, can you please move four pages over their respective redirects? Talk:Western Māori has the discussion and there is unanimous support, but it didn't start as a formal multiple move request, hence we need an administrator's helping hand. Schwede 66 17:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-gadfium 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Northern Māori by-election, 1980 needs doing, too. And Southern Māori by-election, 1922 and 1932. Schwede 66 19:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon edits to Treaty of Waitangi

I rollbacked an anon's edits when I probably should have just undone them with an edit note. I wish rollback had a cancel button, it was too late when I realised I shouldn't have done it. By the way I like your revamped user page. Kahuroa (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. The lede sentence added was clearly inappropriate, and since I'd removed it once, Claudia's readding it was disruptive.-gadfium 01:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Could you move Georgina Te Heuheu to Georgina te Heuheu, and Taite te Tomo to Taite Te Tomo for us please. Georgina because the te Heuheu family prefer the lower case te in their surname, and Taite because in all other cases I know of, the Te should be uppercase in surnames. Cheers Kahuroa (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-gadfium 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch climate chart

The semi-protection of Christchurch has expired and guess what happened? Schwede 66 05:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected again.-gadfium 05:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:222.155.11.1

Hi there. Just letting you know that User:222.155.11.1, which was blocked a few days ago, is back and is indulging in low-level vandalism of articles. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a newly-allocated school IP. The edits to Paul Henry (broadcaster) look okay, so I suspect more than one person editing from the IP.-gadfium 17:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox aircrash

Gday, I dont think this part of the article is relevant to an article about the glacier. a skydiving plane crashed in the township, it is less relevant than numerous (12+) aircraft crashes that are not listed that have occurred on the glacier itself in the last 50 years. Now, I could go onto the page and input details of all these accidents, but that is ultimately very bad for a town that relies on tourism. So my question, why should the recent crash be the only one listed when it is possibly one of the least relevant forms of air ops to the glacier? As someone closely connected to the industry I would request this information be removed. There is a seperate article about the accident that people can find if they have an interest in what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.35.209 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Fox Glacier.-gadfium 01:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Manar Group for deletion

The article Manar Group is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jeepday (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reiser4

In this you asked why "https is preferable to http for these links?". My response would be "https is always preferable to http". And since kernel.org is offering https for some time now (March 18, 2010; SSL for its wikis, bugtracker, frontpage and a few more), I thought changing these links to https would promote the https-everywhere idea. -- 194.246.123.103 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea should perhaps be raised at WT:External links. I don't know of any policy or guidelines we have on the matter, but it seems inappropriate for a few links to be changed ad hoc. There may be some older browsers (or maybe browsers on limited devices) which do not support https. A discussion on that page may identify any such problems, or it may endorse the https-everywhere idea.-gadfium 23:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying and for the hint discussing this at WT:External links. Perhaps I'll do so... -- 194.246.123.103 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Morrison dead links on Te Papa's website

I saw your comment about when I removed dead links from Howard Morrison's page. Thanks for pointing out the dead links feature, which I didn't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Morrison_Quartet

I'm not a usual Wikipedia editor, so is it ok to ask you for some advice about this case precisely?

As Te Papa's web administrator, I know that the Howard Morrison page on our website is not coming back any time soon. I have deleted it for good for copyright reasons. I also noticed that eventhough this link is tagged as "dead link", one person still clicked on it and arrived on a 404 on our website. In this specific instance, should I rather delete the links, or still keep them as dead links like they are?

I would rather do the former, both from a user satisfaction point of view (the person who clicked must have been disappointed), and for copyright reasons. This content shouldn't have been online.

Thanks for your help! Florence Liger, web administrator at Te Papa, webmaster@tepapa.govt.nz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.2.162 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise that the IP removing the dead links was the web administrator for Te Papa. Knowing that the links at Te Papa were removed deliberately and at least in part for copyright reasons is very different from the url simply ceasing to work, which might have been caused by a reorganisation of the Te Papa website, and the content might have been retrievable from web archive services. I have restored your edit removing the links at Howard Morrison Quartet.

I will tag your IP address as being in use by Te Papa, which might reduce such misunderstandings in future.-gadfium 00:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to contact me with any other queries or should you run into any problems while editing Wikipedia. I have watchlisted your talk page so I will see any messages that other editors may post there.-gadfium 00:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palmerston North Boy's High School

Hi Gadfium, thanks for explaining why you removed my edit on this wiki. However, whilst I agree that information should generally be sourced I'm unclear on how this would be applicable on subject-matter such as this where the source is the teachers and students of the school. If there is a way for me to provide this as a source e.g. "former student of school" then of course I shall be more than happy to do so.

As it stands I shall add the first part which is now 100% fact with the removal of any inferences drawn and completely verifiable to anyone who has gone to the school just as the (unsourced) comment directly above that "Many national and international successes are celebrated in the daily assemblies."

Best regards. Potzzz (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, every fact included in Wikipedia must be referenced to a source meeting WP:RS, with the exception of a few very self-evident statements. In practice, older unsourced edits which are not disputed get kept, and new statements which do not appear to be at all controversial may be acceptable. Many articles on high schools would be very bare if we enforced the citation policy strictly (especially as a school is not necessarily a neutral source of information about itself). Your most recent addition is perhaps marginal. I do not intend to remove it, but I would not attempt to defend it if someone else was to remove it.-gadfium 02:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can LEGALLY provide opt-out religious services; I'm not sure where I've stated otherwise? The strict legality of such a provision does not mean it lacks controversy when you consider the fact that it is inconsistent with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and s 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993 which states "For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are (d) Ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions". The BORA and Human Rights legislation are of course subject to the Education Act 1964, despite the fact it was passed much earlier, which allows schools to have this opt-out policy hence it is strictly legal yet controversial considering this inconsistency. I provided this source to show that whilst PNBHS does have Christian-themed religious services (which is impossible to source via the internet) they nonetheless act consistently with this law under the Education Act (sourced) by allowing the potential for parents to opt-out on behalf of the students.

In the end my current statement which you removed despite saying you wouldn't is factually correct even if parts of it (just like much of the PNBHS wiki) are impossible to source from the internet. I would be happy to open up a discussion on whether this information should be added but I'm surprised that there is objection to the content which is clearly besides the fact that there is no internet source which you seemed to have accepted is not required in these circumstances. Potzzz (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2003 is the date the judgment was officially reported. So obviously there was a significant lapse in time between the judgment and the report of the case. However, it is just a technical issue and unfortunately the source I found it on is a legal database which requires subscription. Nonetheless if I do find a source you can view without subscribing i'll link you to it. Potzzz (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Joan Dingley.png

Thanks for uploading File:Joan Dingley.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have not kept the emails from 2004 which establish the permission.-gadfium 19:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is a photo in a RNZIH newletter[9], which would be ok with a fair-use rationale. XLerate (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Gordon Cunningham.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gordon Cunningham.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have not kept the emails from 2004 which establish the permission.-gadfium 19:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manar Group

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Group, Looks ready to close, would you like to visit again? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Gadfium. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New DYKs

Myself, User:Dr.Bloefeld and User:Rosiestep did three DYKs on New Zealand namely, Pureora Forest Park (January 10, 2011), Lake Alexandrina, New Zealand (January 8, 2011) and Te Matua Ngahere (January 11, 2011). How do you include it in the 52 weeks list of DKYs in the New Zealand Portal? I could not decipher the procedure. Can you help?--Nvvchar. 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At P:NZ, click on the "...Selection" under DYK, which brings up a list of weeks and DYK items. Find a week which has less than four entries - some have only two - and click on the edit button appearing on the header for that week (it looks like "Week 37 view - talk - edit - history"). Add your DYKs, copying the existing format. Note that only one item gets a picture for each week, and the caption for that item usually has "(pictured)" in it. There's a footer for each week which should come after the items. If you want to put all three new DYKs in the same week, then perhaps move existing content for that week into other weeks so no week has more than four entries.-gadfium 18:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Invercargill composite picture

Hi there. You might be interested to know that I have yet again removed that poor quality composite picture from the Invercargill article. Quite apart from its quality, at least one of the images in it - that of the umbrella statue - is a well known publicity photograph (well enough known to be shown on NZ Mail stamps! - see [10]). I am not sure who owns the copyright but it is likely to be Venture Southland. I don't want to get into an edit war about this so will leave any future actions up to yourself. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've nominated the composite picture for deletion.-gadfium 00:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. The editor (apparently so, although logged out) has now opened up a discussion on my talk page which you are welcome to add to. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the nonsense continues: [11]. I've tried to explain to User:203.109.208.206 (who appears to be User:Alex0274 while logged out) when they complained on my talk page, about not using copyright images when free images are available, but here: [12] they still claim a montage including that copyrighted photograph of the umbrella as their own work. I would be suspicious of every image of theirs - the Wachner Place one also in the Invercargill article looks familiar, although in that case I haven't found it used in actual publicity like the other one. I don't know what to do from here - the editor seems to want to help but just doesn't have a clue about copyright. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the anon user a warning about npov, and Alex a final warning for repeatedly uploading images with unclear copyright status. I've tagged or deleted all their uploads except File:Southlandsharkslogo.png where they makes the claim that the logo in ineligible for copyright.-gadfium 06:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Unfortunately this editor has been at it again. I've reverted the latest addition (a low resolution aerial photograph of eastern Invercargill, wrongly captioned implying that it's of northern Invercargill) and just beforehand, (?triangle) had tidied up the earlier non-free images, which had just been reinserted. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That photo is also a copyvio. I've deleted it and blocked the uploader.-gadfium 05:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a picture in the article History of Auckland (Twentieth century)

Hi
I put the picture in the article History of Auckland in the section of the Twentieth century, which is also part of Auckland’s history.

I’d appreciate it if you put it back. It is a nice picture.
thanks Entropy1963 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a picture of modern Auckland there. What's the building in the picture (not the reflection) - it's familiar to me but I can't quite think what it is. Please update the picture caption with this information. If we have an article on the building, or the street its on, then the photo could illustrate that. If there's no article, perhaps add it to List of tallest buildings in Auckland or Auckland CBD.-gadfium 23:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
I have no idea which building it is. If you live there and do not know which building it is, how can I know that I live half earth away. I was a tourist walking by, saw the reflection and took the picture. This reflection of the tower is the reason I added it to the article. Gives a different view to something shown many times already. Obviously we do not share the same opinion.
I work on project to upload in commons pictures that I’ve taken from around the world. It is not much of a motivation if you (and others) remove the pictures without any obvious reason. Entropy1963 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the National Bank Tower. Maybe List of tallest buildings in Auckland is a better home for it. Or you might even set up a stub article; that would be the best place for it, of course. Schwede 66 18:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures must, among other things, be relevant to the article they are in, and not substantially duplicate other pictures. There is also a limit to how many pictures can go in each article. This picture is not suitable for the "History of Auckland" because it isn't of a particularly historic building. At most, it says "Auckland has skycrapers", but a picture of the overall CBD says that much more clearly.

The purpose of adding photos to Wikipedia is to improve the articles, not to display your photography. I've added many pictures, but most of them are not my own. I find pictures with a suitable license on Flickr or old pictures in out-of-copyright works. This photo is more of an arty shot than a simple portrayal of what the National Bank Tower looks like, and while that makes it a nice picture, it does not enhance its value to Wikipedia. If Schwede had not been able to identify it, it would have little encyclopedic value. As the National Bank building is only the 25th tallest building in Auckland, it probably isn't suitable to add to the list of tallest buildings after all.-gadfium 18:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Māori task force assessment criteria

I would value your input on a discussion on Māori task force assessment criteria and scope. cheers Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

Hi Gadfium. In case you haven't realised I was hoping to push NZ into Featured Class. You are by far and away the major contributor to the article so I thought I would give you a personal heads up. I have basically just added references, although I got bolder towards the end of the article and made some non-minor changes. Still needs some copy editing work, but I was hoping to get some feedback on content (what to remove, what needs adding). Also any other help would be awesome. I left some ideas on the talk page. I will drop a short note to Kahura, Grutness and Avenue as well. Cheers, AIRcorn (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually written very little of the content of the page. Most of my edits there are vandalism reverts. I have been watching your edits, and good luck getting it to featured status. When it's nominated, we'll all chip in to address any problems identified.-gadfium 21:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Keith Park

Please help a poor puzzled American who doesn't quite grasp the subtleties of the British Empire and Commonwealth.

I read Park's bio and noted your change of allegiance for him. I followed the links, and note that New Zealand did not seem to achieve independence until 1947. To me, it seems that Park's allegiance was actually the British Empire because New Zealand was not yet independent. (A pause here to dodge brickbats, if I am mistaken in any of this.)

I make the above surmise not to be contentious, but because it bears on an ongoing problem I have while writing biographies on World War I flying aces. A large proportion of RFC/RNAS/RAF aces are from New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and other Commonwealth countries. I have been stating their allegiance as being to the British Empire because their home countries were under the control of the United Kingdom. I admit, I may be mistaken in this approach–hence this note. Any enlightenment you can share will be welcome.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When someone joins the armed forces, they swear allegiance, explicitly or implicitly, to the country those forces represent. Some people may also declare their allegiance to a wider grouping of bodies, such as the British Empire, but this requires some evidence that they did so beyond joining the armed services of one or more constituent countries.

New Zealand's date of independence is not straightforward, because NZ made many small steps towards independence. See Independence of New Zealand. The people who joined its armed forces certainly showed allegiance to New Zealand; they may also have considered themselves as showing allegiance to Britain. The independence of New Zealand article points out that that "With Dominion status, New Zealand did not have any control over its foreign affairs or military; these issues remained the responsibility of Britain". New Zealand declared war on Germany in 1914, following the British lead, but the decision was made in NZ, not in Britain. New Zealand funded its own armed forces over this period, although they reported to British commanders. NZ also signed the Treaty of Versailles in its own right.

I'm not so familiar with Australian, Canadian and South African history, but none of these countries were "under the control of the United Kingdom" at the time of the first world war, although their foreign policies were closely aligned with that of the UK.-gadfium 19:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Canadians implicitly swore allegiance to [King George V]] as part of their enlistment process, re: www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/attestation/index.php. I have also read that Canada lacked a statutory definition of Canadian citizenship until 1947. I naturally wondered if New Zealanders shared the same situation.

The link you supplied is interesting and informative. However, it's all still rather confusing to a Yank who has always been taught, "We Americans became free on July 4th, 1776".

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC) ----[reply]

Dysfunctional Wikipedia servers?

Hi Gadfium. For the last 10 hours I have been unable to anything useful on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia site, and only that site, loads date at 100 bps or less, without explicitly acknowledge that it is not performing. It is of course impractical to contribute anything while things are operating as though they are stuck in treacle. Are things also not happening from where you are or does my vintage computer need trashing? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any particular slowdown here. My ISP is vodafone/ihug. If you find other sites are also slow, it's something to do with your system or ISP. If it's just Wikipedia, I don't know what the problem might be.-gadfium 08:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

slip of the mouse?

Hi, I reverted your recent edit at Transport in New Zealand because it removed a chunk from a reference tag as well as changing the Māori People link. Richard. dramatic (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive edits.

Your edits to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) might be considered disruptive. I suspect that you've been around WP long enough to understand that personal messages belong only on talk pages. Certainly to restore such an edit after being reverted is the kind of behaviour that can get you blocked. Please stop. In case it's not clear, the place to post comments about improving an article or other page is on the corresponding talk page, not in the article itself. — kwami (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page. Threatening to block an editor for disagreeing with you is not a good look.-gadfium 08:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And trying to recast your position as simple disagreement rather than disruption won't look good to anyone who checks your edit history.

Good bye. — kwami (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the isuues. Oh wait...-gadfium 08:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, {{Under discussion-inline}} might be useful in this situation. It gets across what you want to get across while promoting discussion at the same time and without putting comments in content space or eliciting a revert war. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Newnham

@ Gadfium Page about Tom Newnham The 3 photos are from the daughter of Tom Newnham for use in wikipedia. Please let give you a permission from the daughter Anne Newnham <anewnham@orcon.net.nz>, for you it is a shorter way and my English is very bad. Kind Regards

Gerd Hartmann, M.D., Germany

For answer please write me an E-Mail. I haven`t found a E-Mail from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gerd Hartmann (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to email the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I have no special rights at commons, so I cannot sort this out for you.-gadfium 08:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I write an E-Mail to Anne and hope that she can give fast the permission to the address. I have again done the third photo in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gerd Hartmann (talk • contribs) 08:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Newnham has sent about 20 hours ago an E-Mail with permission for the 3 photos to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Kind Regards Gerd Hartmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gerd Hartmann (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone at commons should soon change the tags on the images, or get back to you or her if there's still something wrong.-gadfium 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good person for you to talk to would be commons:User_talk:Quedel, who is a German-speaker and has posted to your talk page on Commons. He may not have realised that you would prefer to communicate in German.-gadfium 00:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ein anderer deutschsprachiger Administrator ist commons:User talk:Martin H.. Schwede 66 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic topic

Hi Gadfium,

Thank you for contacting me on my talk page. I edit a wide range of articles, so I don't monitor article or template talk pages unless a conversation is ongoing. I responded to your question on the template talk page; I would be grateful if you would again leave a note on my talk page if you have further concerns.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Europeans

Hi There,

Thanks for clearing up my confusion about including the Maori in the 'related ethnic' section for white New Zealanders. Your correct, I included them as I assumed due to the fact that there are New Zealanders of mixed ethnic ancestry the groups are related in this way, hence I originally included them. Also, I would like to ask your opinion as to whether the 'Anglo-Celtic Australian' group should remain in the related section as this group is, I estimate, more of a socio-cultural rather than an ethnic group. There is is also the fact that they are ultimately descended from the British Isles as well therefore the link is unnecessary. Interested to hear your opinion.

TerritorialWaters (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opinion on whether Anglo-Celtic Australians should be listed as being related to New Zealand Europeans. However, they share ancestors in common only a few generations back, so it seems like a reasonable link.-gadfium 03:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New block evasion of DavidYork71

Daffydavid (talk · contribs) may be another block evasion of DavidYork71. See this edit. I tried to resolve the issue here, but to no avail. I think that New Age should be semi-protected indefinitely to avoid these problems; they go back to Wednesday Next. Sock puppetry research is not my forte. All is One (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As was said at AIV, this is more appropriate for WP:AN/I or perhaps WP:SSP. Sock puppet research is not my forte either, and I have no involvement with the New Age article. However, my experience with DavidYork71 is that he makes reasonable edits at first, but pretty quickly goes off the deep end. He also goes back to the same few articles and reverts them to his preferred version. I don't see this behaviour in DaffyDavid, at least on New Age.-gadfium 23:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Islands

As you're the major contributor to Cook Islands, I was wondering if you could take a look at Netball in the Cook Islands and leave some feedback on the talk page on how to improve the article? Thanks! --LauraHale (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Mount Eden"

The anecdote is on a piece of paper amongst the effects of my mother, Betty Clay. It was annotated to the effect that the facts had been checked. She subsequently accompanied them one year in the 1980s. I used the story in my response to the unveiling of a Blue Plaque to O.B-P in Chesterfield on Thinking Day 2011. I tried to verify it beforehand by writing to the NZ Guides, but have still not had a reply. RobinClay (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need some published source covering the celebration of Thinking Day on Mount Eden. A newspaper report would be fine, but self-published material such as a blog or forum post will not usually be appropriate. See our guideline on reliable sources.-gadfium 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sign of the Kiwi

Hi there Gadfium, I hope you are enjoying your holidays. I see that Sign of the Kiwi got deleted in 2008 under A7 (No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion). It's listed as a Category I heritage building by the NZHPT and that alone makes it notable. Could you please have a look whether it's worth restoring what used to be there? Schwede 66 07:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article. Please add a source for the Category I heritage listing, and make any other improvements you see fit. If you decide not to make any changes to the article, let me know and I'll delete it again.-gadfium 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have done some quick additions to establish notability. Thanks! Schwede 66 01:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm finished with it. Does it look notable enough? :) Schwede 66 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks notable enough to me. It should include a link to Sign of the Takahe. I don't know if Sign of the Bellbird and Sign of the Packhorse are as notable, but an article on the Summit Road would probably be appropriate.-gadfium 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, had overlooked that the Takahe wasn't linked. Have done this now, but there should be some prose added, too. Yes, Summit Road is a redlink; that one is definitely notable. I can't see the Bellbird (ruins) or the Packhorse (a tramping hut) as being notable. Schwede 66 01:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mt ALbert Grammar School Alumni

Hi Gadfium, heres a reference for football players. I can guarantee the validity, even though I haven't heard of a few of them.

http://www.mags.school.nz/Section?Action=View&Section_id=500

Can you revert? Cheers, Gmoney484

Thanks. I've reverted, but I'm confused about Dave Mulligan. His article says he joined NZ under-17 in 1997, but played for English teams the following year and for some time after, before playing for NZ again. Could there be some confusion between two players of the same name?-gadfium 05:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into that - See what I can hunt out. I don't believe they're really notable and the section is getting excessively long and cumbersome, but.... Gmoney484 (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]