User talk:Ruanua

welcome!

Hello, Ruanua, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Aaron Bowen 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Here's another link where you can go to get any kind of question you might have answered: WP:Village Pump. Aaron Bowen 13:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Gse multipart34817.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Gse multipart34817.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created, Climaction, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Coren 00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Coren may be offensive or unwelcome. In case you are the user, please login under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Coren 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the proper way to leave a comment to another user is via his/her Talk page; Like User_talk:Coren. Coren 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Climaction

Please understand that the request for deletion isn't a threat -- That page just didn't fit what Wikipedia is all about. While I can understand your sentiment about global warming, this encyclopedia isn't the proper place to do search engine modification or push an agenda. You might want to read the simplified rules about what is and is not proper for Wikipedia. Coren 01:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your sentiment, but Wikipedia isn't the place to publicize newly-formed grouped, no matter how well intended. You might consider contributing to Global Warming instead, where your contribution will be welcome. Coren 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not remove the article. An administrator did, after reviewing it an (obviously) agreeing that it was not proper material for Wikipedia. I will request that you refrain from calling me names, even if I had deleted your article. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for voicing your opinions or concerns. My only agenda here is maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. Coren 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your request for information on my talk page;

Since I wasn't involved I can't tell you exactly why the article was deleted but from the commets above I would suggest the following;

I can understand why you might feel like you have been a victim of Climate Change denial censorship, but I expect that the truth is more mundane. Hundreds of new articles are added to Wikipedia every day, in order to make sure that we do not become just an information dumping ground there are rules about what articles are worth having in the encyclopaedia. The one that it probally most relavant to this case is Notability "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia ... A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable" (It is worth reading the whole article @ Wikipedia:Notability and the more spesific Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Of course this can lead to bias as independent sources are generally controlled by the powerfull - nonetheless there does have to be some way to filter articles or we would end up with articles about every bodies back garden.

So the question is 'how notable is Climaction?'; Greenpeace, Earth First, Campaign against Cliamte Change have all been written about by mainstreem sources. Has it gained coverage in national press? Has it been written about in any mainstream political journals? Was it set up by/does it involve an activist/activists who are notable (and might have wikipedia pages allready)? Is it linked to/the sister organisation of any notable international group? etc.

If you think that you can demonstrate this level of notability then you can get a Deletion review, please read more info on that page.

Hope that this helps. If it turns out that Climaction is not yet notable enough then it may become more notable as it grows and gets more attention.--JK the unwise 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You little quip about my tagetting Greenpeace and such in some imaginary vendetta on my talk page forgets to take into account that Greenpeace, for instance, is notable. That is what I meant by name calling. Coren 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope you didn't take my reply to indicate that I thought that Climate action was non-notable, not living in New Zealand I wasn't making an assumption about it either way, rather I was just saying that the reason it was deleted was probably because it was thought to be non-notable by the editor that deleted it. The coverage that you site does seem to me to be enough to justify an article but its not me you have to convince. Start by leaving a message on the talk page of the admin who deleted it User talk:Natalie Erin explaining the notability of the group and providing links to articles and news stories about it (link directly to them rather then to the groups web page). If this doesn't get you any where read the info' at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?#What you can do about it and consider making a deletion review. Remember you stand a better chance of getting the article back if you have done your research and you assume that the intentions of other editors are good. I'm v' busy at mo' but if I get any free time anytime soon I'll try to help you get this page back. --JK the unwise 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (p.s. try to remember to sign your messages, click on the sig' button at top of box or with ~~~~)[reply]

Rather then giving putting all the links that show Climateaction's notability on my talk page you need to make the case on Natalie Erin's page. I'm not an admin so I can't undelete the page.--JK the unwise 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CLIMACTION entry deletion appealed on Notabilty

Ruanua 04:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Natalie Erin

One of my pages was deleted on contested grounds, documenting the Climaction coalition against climate change in New Zealand. www.climaction.org.nz

How do we go about restoring it? There are entries for other eco groups too- Greenpeace, Earth First, Campaign against Climate Change. Other NZ eco groups that are just as young and numerically smaller than Climaction, such as Save Happy Valley Campaign Coalition have Wiki pages. Who can I appeal this deletion to?

According to JK-

'how notable is Climaction?'; Has it gained coverage in national press? Has it been written about in any mainstream political journals? Was it set up by/does it involve an activist/activists who are notable (and might have wikipedia pages allready)? Is it linked to/the sister organisation of any notable international group? etc.

If you think that you can demonstrate this level of notability then you can get a Deletion review, please read more info on that page.

According to Wiki guidelines on Notablity-

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

   * "Non-trivial" means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content.2 It does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source.
   * "Multiple" sources should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.3 In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
   * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
   * "Secondary sources" draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. The type of source material that can be used encompasses published works in all forms and media.4
   * "Independent" excludes works produced by those affilliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.5

It involves many notable NZ activists and individuals from groups such as Socialist Worker, Radical Youth and the Greens and has been supported by notable people such as Sue Bradford, Laila Harré, John Minto, Simon Oosterman, Matt McCarten, Councillor Christine Caughey, Councillor Robyn Hughes [1], Grant Morgan and the Residents Action Movement who polled over 89,000 votes in the last city elections. It is connected nationally with the Climate Defence Network and works alongside Greenpeace Aotearoa, and has sisterly contacts with international groups such as Rising Tide and the UK based Campaign against Climate Change.

Climaction was subject of a TVNZ 15 minute documentary when Al Gore came to New Zealand [2], (the main and state broadcaster of television in New Zealand) and have had extensive coverage in the mainstream press and radio networks here, most notably for our work in organising the protest for the International Day of Action on Climate Change on Nov 4th 2006, and the Carmaggedon protest for Free and Frequent Public Transport on March 3rd 2007. Over a thousand people participated throughout the day at both events, which would be akin to 10,000 people particiapteing in a city the size of London or New York, relatively speaking.

Climaction article in the NZ Herald (Aotearoa's paper of record) [3]

Climaction article in the Aucklander newspaper (distribution in tens of thousands) [4]

Review of Climate Change UNITY in widely respected Green Left Weekly with history of CLimaction [5]

Prominent trade unionists and leftists support Climaction- quotes [6]

CLimaction reported on the Global Peace and Justice Auckland Newsletter (mail out 20,000 strong thru NZ) [7]

CLimaction civil disobedience supported by Auckland Regional Councillor [8]

American TV station in Manhattan covers Climaction protest for International Day of Action [9]

Biggest national Animal welfare group reports on CLimaction carnival [10]

Climaction protest covered by Global Climate Campaign website [11]

Critical Times review of "System Change not Climate Change" handbook sold by Climaction [12]

Climate Defence Network- list of supporting organisations in New Zealand (Climaction included) [13]

It has been written about in political journals with mass publication such as the Workers' Charter newspaper, the Unity journal (NZ's premier Marxist publication) etc.

Ruanua 05:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC) A lot of my work is political journalism, and in politics there are always differing points of view. The dominant scientific consensus is now that CLimate Change is occuring, and that it is man made. Two decades ago, this would have been considered pushing a radical left agenda. Now it is becoming established common sense.[reply]

Encycolpedias have a duty to record social movements as part of history, with as much of a NPOV as possible. Otherwise, huge segments of human history would go unrecorded. The Climate Change movement may be in its infancy, but I believe it must be documented just as much as other historical social movements such as the Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage or Anti War movements. Climaction is a small group in New Zealand taking its first steps to build a force necessary to safeguard the future for our children and environment- its existence should be recorded just as much as the Save Happy Valley Campaign already is.

The act of recording a political groups existence is necessary in something as fast moving as politics. The denial of Climaction's existence as a historical and political fact until some predetermined point in the future pre supposes that Wikipedia is (a) trans-historical, existing outside of a rapdily changing political world and (b) may be construed as an act of unscientific Climate Denial. That's my say on it, and I will appeal any deletion of this article all the way to Wiki's higher echelons.

If Bill Clinton formed a new political group in the morning, would you not report that on grounds that it publicised itself?

Thanks RuaNua

Supersizemypay.com

A tag has been placed on Supersizemypay.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Supersizemypay.com. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Mhking 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruanua. I added a few bits to this article - it was on my watchlist from before, and I didn't realise it had been deleted! I don't recall the debate, but it seems like a reasonable piece. Would you consider adding at least part of the detail to the Unite Union page as well? Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 02:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climaction

Actually, the article was deleted because it appeared to have been copied from other websites which asserted copyright. A rewritten article, that is shorter and less promotional sounding and has footnotes, should be fine. Natalie 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:CA logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CA logo.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ram.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ram.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deanparker.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Deanparker.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[14][15]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. // Pilot guy radar contact 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:RAMRacism.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RAMRacism.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Heat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Heat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==

Image permission problem with Image:RAMRates.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:RAMRates.jpg. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media 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 GFDL 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-en@wikimedia.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 did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.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:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Images 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. ==

Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Climaction

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Climaction. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climaction. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ruanua! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. 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 these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 87 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Chris Trotter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Grant Morgan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Dean Parker - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Socialist Aotearoa

A tag has been placed on Socialist Aotearoa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Solidarity Union

The article Solidarity Union has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- haminoon (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Parker article question

Kia ora, I have been editing the article on Dean Parker as he sadly passed away over the weekend. There are several sections with no citations - I wonder if you can look into this or lead me to your sources so I can improve his article. The information about his socialist interests, work and connections which I believe you added seem valid and are relevant if they are valid but I am not able to verify them from the brief research I have done. Feel free to contact me through this section or on my talk page. Many thanks Pakoire (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]