User talk:Gadfium/Archive 15

Kia ora, Gadfium. Hope you had a good holiday season. Just a quick request for admin assistance with page moves over redirects, per talk page conversations (however brief) started by User:Te Karere, if possible:

• Tāngata whenua → Tangata whenua (discussion)
• Māori Language Act 1987 → Maori Language Act 1987 (discussion).

Let me know if there are any problems. Cheers for the New Year. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-gadfium 19:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year, Gadfium. I wanted to post an vandalism warning on User talk:207.157.30.200 for this, but they are already on their 'final warning' (again). Is it time for another block? Schwede66 17:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blocked for another year. Thanks.-gadfium 19:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nelson (New Zealand electorate) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nick Smith

Northcote (New Zealand electorate) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jonathan Coleman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Many thanks for completing the Tangata whenua and Maori Language Act 1987 page moves. Much appreciated! Te Karere (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ta muchly.-gadfium 19:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It’s sad to hear an accusation of bad faith when *removing* sock puppet content. Until now this assumption was made when the content is changed but not when it’s undone. Further placing a limitation of removing sock puppet content codifies vandalism when everyone (including me) was too lazy to find and remove the content completely ignores the WP:SOCK policy.

I can only caution you to exercise care with a bad faith accusation when defending a sock puppet account. I’ve left a comment on the Talk:New_Zealand_Flag page, drop me a line on my talk page if you want to review your earlier decision.

Karl Stephens (Auckland, NZ) 06:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinesurfer (talk • contribs)

You initially removed the flag on the grounds that it did not include the Southern Cross, but that was not a criteria for the gallery. This appears to have been a mistake caused by your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia markup.

You then removed the flag because it was not recognised by the New Zealand Government. It was pointed out to you that it was so recognised.

Now you remove the flag because it was added by an editor since blocked as a sock-puppet. My patience wears thin.-gadfium 07:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong to miss the section break between the final paragraph preceding the gallery as being part of the gallery. My Fault, I'll put my hand up to that one. The second time was because the TR flag was not recognised by the New Zealand Government ‘as representing New Zealand’ which is the subject of the page.

The page has a great narrative from historical and proposed flags pior to the 1840's to the treaty then to the evolution of the NZ flag and its derivatives. The TR flag doesn’t fit the narrative and even if you change the story there is still no explanation in the text to account the TR flag appearing in the gallery. I don’t feel it is unfair to expect a connection between images in the gallery with the subject of the page (otherwise that horrible example of the Justin Bieber flag is justifiable – which the JB flag is not justified).

All elements of a story have to be connected to the story line or you remove the non-contiguous object(s) otherwise you lose any continuity in your story. I’ve been pretty consistent with the “it’s not related to the NZ flag” argument.

On the subject of changing reasons, I foolishly applied WP:SOCK thinking this was logical when dealing with vandalism and that consensus on vandalism was not required. I was so very wrong on that point even though clearly the question of account legitimacy was determined when both the Seselas and 23prootie accounts were ‘’blocked indefinitely’’.

The comment that “Who added the flag in the first place is now irrelevant” would be justifiable if WP:SOCK had a time limit however I cannot find a limitation within the policy scope that relates to timely editing. The comment “as it has been reinstated several times by established editors” is relevant when editing included the gallery however there is no proof that editors reviewed the Gallery.

Within Wikipedia community ‘misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust’ (Sock Puppet Policy, para 1) and also forms part of [WP:VANTYPES - Account creation, malicious]. Further both policies do not give editors and administrators the discretion to ignore either policy.

I can only suggest caution is exercised in taking this matter further when there is evidence of inconsistent policy application and assumptions outside of policy scope could question an editor’s sense of judgement and fairness. I will continue to state that the TR flag is not related to the page subject.

-- -- Karl Stephens (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, I saw G11 being used the other for tagging a user name adopting the name of an organisation (apparently, that's against policy). I don't know whether that's the right process, but I've come across the policy before that was violated that way. There's now a new user Foodstuffs South Island that would certainly be in breach of that policy. What's the right way to go about it? Schwede66 23:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually for such cases, either drop {{Uw-coi-username}} on their talk page, or write something similar in your own words. You can find a list of such templates at user template messages.

In this case I find that the very earliest version of the article Four Square supermarkets contained substantial copying of text from the chain's website, and have reported it as a copyright violation. While the user you link to added further text from the website, I don't think we can be too hard on them given the existing state of the article. They'll probably get a bit of a shock when they see what I've replaced the article with!

Wikipedia certainly should have an article on this chain, but it will be necessary to create a new one once the copyright status is resolved (unless someone can show that there is no copyright problem here).-gadfium 00:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, long time no see :)

Just noticed a slight problem with the coordinates on the Northland map used for settlements - wondered if you could take a look. Dots for places seem to be too far north (Panguru is supposed to be on the north coast of the Hokianga, Opononi has moved from the south coast to the north, and Kaikohe looks like it's in the middle of Lake Omapere). Presumably the coordinates for the map are set wrong, but I don't know how to deal with that. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried tweaking the coordinates at Template:Location map New Zealand Northland. Panguru is north of the main channel of the harbour, which is what the map shows. Kaikohe is about level with the kink in the harbour main channel, and that's also correct. Opononi now appears to be in the middle of the harbour mouth, which I suppose is an improvement over showing it to be on the north coast.

Unfortunately, I have no way to determine these boundary coordinates other than by eye against Google Earth. This does seem excessively ad hoc and error-prone.-gadfium 03:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I think I was fooled by Panguru being on a side-channel of the harbour which is too small to be marked on the map. Looks a bit better now. Thanks for the tweaking :) Grutness...wha? 10:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See talk pages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Māori_King_Movement *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand/M%C4%81ori_task_force#Article_on_the_Kingitanga_State.3F

I am wondering if there should be a new article created for the state or confederacy ruled over by the Maori monarchs of the Kingitanga and allied chiefs. It seems like from the time the confederacy was formed in around 1858 until 1881, when the Kingitanga Movement began leaving aside isolation and finally made peace with and opened up to the settler government, the Kingitanga functioned as an independent state.

From what I understand, the Kingitanga held power over a substantial portion of North Island, originally centered in the Waikato Region. Then the settler government under Governor Grey interpreted their existence as a threat to British sovereignty and justified attacking them and initiating the Land Wars in the Waikato based on a claim that Ngati Maniapoto warriors helping other tribes fighting settlers in Taranaki Region were Kingitanga agents. After brutal fighting, the Kingitanga government occupied Ngati Maniapoto territory and became a neutral player throughout the rest of the Land Wars although remained independent from and at war with the Colonial Government until they opened what had by then been regarded as "King Country" in 1881. Afterwards, they progressively integrated with the rest of New Zealand over several decades, beginning with rail projects several years after peace was established although the Tainui chiefs and Maori king directly ruled the territory and didn't suffer land confiscations and settlement quite on par with other regions which allowed for a higher-than-average Maori population to exist there even to the present day. Unfortunately, not all of this is in the Kingitanga Movement article, and I'm not sure if it would be best for some parts of this to be applied there or if the Kingitanga should actually have its own state article for the period between 1858 and at least 1881 or 1894 (the year when the second Maori King, Tāwhiao, died) in addition to the existing article on the Maori King Movement.

Based on this background, do you think it is reasonable to create a new article for a state with this information included or that it should be included only here in the Maori King Movement article or both or neither?Nanib (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following are relevant articles on nzhistory.net.nz, a New Zealand government history resource (that you likely already know of) that is a wealth of information for New Zealand and even other Polynesian histories, which I believe would be helpful to consider:

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/maori-king-movement-1860-94/build-up-to-war http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/maori-king-movement-1860-94/response-to-war http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/the-maori-king-movement-1860-94/raupatu-confiscations http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/maori-king-movement-1860-94/maintaining-te-kingitanga http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/the-maori-king-movement-1860-94/tensions-ease

I'll reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Māori task force#Article on the Kingitanga State? so the discussion is not fragmented onto many talk pages.-gadfium 04:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, can you please post a proposal of what you think the best way of merging these articles would be? I'm not sure what your thinking is as you only added those tags without commenting anywhere. I've posted a suggestion to merge the two political ones but leave the mutiny article separate at Talk:2012 Papua New Guinea Defence Force mutiny, and am happy to discuss further. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gadfium. I noticed you reverted 3 edits on the Sonny Bill Williams article in one go. Could you please inform me how you do this, since it is quicker than reverting each edit at a time.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page.-gadfium 03:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks, really appreciated and thanks for the extra revert advice.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I didn't have the stones to do that Roxy the dog (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin. It's my job to be forceful, sometimes. However, you'll see that I referred to the content as "personal testimony", not as "anecdotal scribblings". No need to twist the knife.-gadfium 03:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, Two of the people who have been monitoring/editing contributions I have made on the NZ Department of Corrections page actually work for the Department of Corrections. At one point, Simon Lyall deleted weeks of work I had contributed. I know you expressed a concern about some of my edits but you didn't revert/delete everything I was doing. What is wikipedia policy on contributors editing pages for their employer (the Department of Corrections)? Do you have any comments on this? Offender9000 (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood a question that was asked of you on the article talk page. Why would editors not want to see the article become an attack piece? The answer is not because they are paid by the Department, but because they follow the Wikipedia principle of neutral point of view.

The policy you are actually looking for is conflict of interest, but this applies to you, not to them.

I can understand your frustration that you had so much work removed, but taking it a small piece at a time, and discussing it on the talk page, is the way forward. Are you aware that the work you did is not lost but can be accessed in the page history?-gadfium 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, You say the policy applies to me rather than them. This is nonsense. The only change that needed to be made to avoid that was for better footnotes pointing to specific page numbers in my book. I've made those changes.

Here are the relevant passages from the conflict of interest page.

"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups..." In the guise of neutrality, the two people editing my contributions to the Corrections page are clearly promoting the interests of the Corrections department - which is to avoid any negative publicity about the Department.

You don't work for Corrections and you didn't see the need to delete/revert anything. Do you see what I'm saying?

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia…"

The two did not declare their conflict of interest until well after they had deleted/reverted my contributions - and then they did so in an ambiguous way leaving it unclear that they do work for Corrections. They have not declared their conflict of interest on their own talk pages at all. If the media gets hold of the fact that two people who work at Corrections have deleted material that is potentially critical of Corrections, the impression will be created that "they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia."

Given that the Court of Appeal recently recommended that management of Corrections should read Flying Blind, I do not think that the chief executive of Corrections would be pleased to hear that two of their staff are deleting reference to it in a public forum - not a good look.Offender9000 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you seem to have misunderstood. The posting on the talk page by SimonLyall was:

Try an reflect on why we are editing this article vs why you are editing this article (hint: it is not because we are employed by the Dept)

and you seem to take that as an indication that they are Dept employees.

You also are incorrect to call Wikipedia articles "a public forum". This is specifically not a forum.-gadfium 20:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some checking via other sources and I can assure you they both work for Corrections. They have a clear confliict of interest.Offender9000 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello we would like to reactivate the page ACG Senior College using what we feel are acceptable Wikipedia guidelines and also investigate why [[1]] is not listed under its correct name of ACG Strathallan.

Would appreciate the help of Wikipedia authors/editors to get these pages up, which are significant schools in Auckland New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therondp (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to Victor, who asked about these articles in December, and the followup at User talk:The Bushranger/Archive 8#Regarding your deletion of ACG Strathallan. It seems that the article in Victor's user space has still not had significant references from independent sources added.-gadfium 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you we are working on Strathallan now to hopefully get it up to better standard, however what about ACG Senior College Wikipedia is now allowing me to try and recreate this page just showing the deletion log. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.149.172 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can copy the deleted page to Victor997's or Therondp's userspace for you to work on. Let me know which is more appropriate.-gadfium 22:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be good, however please notice a number of edits most notably an even balance of internal ACG links to external references. Are we there yet to make this official? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therondp (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ACG Senior College page is now at User:Therondp/ACG Senior College so you can work on it.

I have asked for Bushranger's advice on the three ACG school articles at User talk:The Bushranger#ACG Strathallan being made live. It does seem that there is little coverage in the mainstream media such as the New Zealand Herald on these schools. Coverage such as [2] can be added to the articles, but it does look as though this is the reprint of a press release rather than independent coverage. Items such as Education Review Office reports can also be added to the article, but these reports are issued for every school in New Zealand and do not indicate that a school is notable. This makes it very difficult for you to establish the notability of the schools, but most secondary and composite schools do not in practice require such proof of notability to have articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedians have debated this at length; the most recent discussion I am aware of is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Draft RfC. I may be able to give you more useful advice once Bushranger replies to me.-gadfium 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A still current discussion on whether secondary schools are automatically considered notable is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Secondary schools should meet WP:GNG or are they exempt?-gadfium 22:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you the way I read the first few lines of the above seems to indicate that simply being able to prove we exist is the current policy on notability. Pasted here "In effect, the current "policy" is to keep all articles about secondary schools/highschools as soon as they can proof that they exist. To prove notability is not necessary."

So with this in mind I am confused as to why these pages were so quickly removed?

One of the issues we face as the ACG Group is the fact that in relation to other "older" schools we are very young but in our time we have achieved some excellent landmarks (not the least of which is exporting the New Zealand school model to South East Asia, which none of our peers have done). The reason for these achievements are due to the leadership of ACG who are people who are pioneers and celebrities in the worlds of sport, education and commerce. So in terms of notability, in many ways it would be the original founders and leaders of the ACG Group and what we have achieved together that provides notability but not sure whether such mentions are warranted on our individual school article pages? Potentially in the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therondp (talk • contribs) 11:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gadfium,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gadfium, I've just come across a duplicate article. Thomas Ball (New Zealand politician) has been around for a while. Thomas Ball (politician) was set up earlier this month. I have copied the additional content from the new article to the old article. Will you simply come along and delete Thomas Ball (politician) in that case, or is there some more difficult process that needs to be followed? Schwede66 06:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just change the duplicate into a redirect. We can't delete it, as the edit history shows the user contributions which have now been merged (with a suitable edit summary) into the older article.-gadfium 07:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Frank Oswald Victor Acheson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taranaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick request: i have changed my sandbox name to User:Scottdelaney1067's sandbox from User;Scottdelaney 1067/sandbox. Could you please register that as my sandbox name? Thanks, Scottdelaney 1067.

Your sandbox should be within your own user space; this means it should be at User;Scottdelaney 1067/somename, but the "somename" part can be anything you like within reason. Please move it back.-gadfium 20:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i was wondering if i could become an administrator? Thanks Scottdelaney1067 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdelaney1067 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators get elected by the community at a process called Requests for Adminship. They are expected to have a lot of experience in many aspects of editing Wikipedia, contributing to the background processes, and sorting out problems on the site. I would not recommend you try this until you have been here considerably longer. Please read Wikipedia:Not now.-gadfium 00:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, not sure whether you have watchlisted Template:Did you know nominations/Sophia Taylor. If not, do you have time to deal with the issue brought up? I will not be able to get onto this before tomorrow morning. Schwede66 01:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning - I saw that you've answered some questions about dwarfism in animals on the dwarfism talk page - this is just a heads up that I'm intending to work in dwarf animal & plant material into the main dwarfism article, and tweeking dwarfing to cover more the process (both natural & human-directed) of shifting genomes to include smaller sized individual organisms. As dwarfs occur as genetic mutations without the process of dwarfing taking place, and as many of the mechanisms that create little people also produce dwarfs in animals and plants, this seems most appropriate to me. I've got texts & refs, and will be adjusting as I go. Your comments are welcome. Kerani (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sophia Taylor, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sophia Taylor fought for women's suffrage in New Zealand but opposed women standing for Parliament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sophia Taylor.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 23:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Gadfium. With respect, the Draco Foundation is definitely NOT a charitable entity (note the reference to the High Court of New Zealand decision on the page). Would you please remove it from the category of Charities Based In New Zealand. Many thanks. Nzresilience (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed that to Category:Organisations based in New Zealand. It should be in at least one branch of the New Zealand category structure. Perhaps Category:Foundations based in New Zealand would be even more appropriate, but I'll wait until the copyright matter gets cleared up before looking at it further.-gadfium 20:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much by your unselfish cooperation in Article "Biodiversity of New Caledonia". Muchas gracias por tu colaboración desinteresada en el articulo "Biodiversidad de Nueva Caledonia". 85.251.99.49 (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if, at my citation there was a link to a study, that you could use that as the citation instead. Anyway, thankyou for helping :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasppeachberry (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at my edit it looks like that's what happened -- no idea how. My intent was just to change one word on the thumbnail caption. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited History of South America, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Essequibo and Cuffy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You are mentioned in a post that will run on the Wikimedia Foundation blog this week describing some of the editors who signed up for HighBeam accounts and their motivations for doing so. I just wanted to let you know. If you'd rather not be mentioned, please respond below or on my talk page. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora, gadfium.

I don't think I've had someone contact me via a type of messaging on Wikipedia, before your doing so. I don't know what steps to take to reply, so sorry if this is not the correct way to do so. Please let me know how I should do so.

In a couple of your revisions of my editing, you said that macrons are not used in place names. Taupō District Council do use the macron in their name, and Taupō is what is shown on road signs.

The reason I used the macron in the school name is because the debate about whether or not Māori words used in spoken English should still be considered Māori and pronounced as such seems no longer relevant when an organisation goes to the effort of using Taupō's full name. BridgeBuilderKiwi (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page.-gadfium 04:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your six month block of 139.139.35.70. I think that's a bit long for a dynamic IP used by thousands of people. That IP belongs to the US Army and is used by soldiers and civilians with the army in Europe. The set of edits the IP had made just before blocking were questionable due to blanking but I do not think they constituted WP:vandalism as the edits included this edit which corrected a factual error in the article. Likely the user making these edits was not familiar with our policies and removed material they believed was unnecessary or that they held a POV against. A very short block, say 24 or 48 hours would have stopped the problem and it would have been unlikely to recur, in fact, a 3 or 8 hour block would have likely solved the problem as this IP is not an MWR IP but an official IP and progressive blocking is not likely meaningful due to the dynamic nature of the IP. Please consider lifting the block.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity that the US Army cannot control its personnel. Even some high schools trace who is responsible for a piece of vandalism and take disciplinary measures. Certainly many corporations do so. This IP address has a long history of warnings and of escalating blocks. It is clear that a block of a few hours will not suffice. For such IPs, the standard procedure for anyone willing to make productive edits is to create an account first.-gadfium 20:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am only deleting information that people do not need to know, and I am currently not trying to be killed because people are posting things that don't need to be said. P.S. stop endangering americans... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.43.132 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think people don't need to know about this? It appears to be reliably sourced, so if we didn't have an article, they could still find the information. You should be aware that security by obscurity is a flawed strategy. If your safety, or that of other people, depends on this, then you need to find a better strategy.-gadfium 03:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium - I've done a bit of digging on this company, and rewritten the article (it was a terrible bit of self promotion (very poor quality). Anyway, I think the company may cross the notable threshold. Take a look and let me know. In the meantime I will check and see what overseas sources have to say about the various program's they have created. They are mentioned in a number of NZ computer journal's in regards to selling in significant quantity internationally. NealeFamily (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete all of the edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.97.34 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Rapa Nui people#173.66.52.157's edit-gadfium 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Auckland Barcamp has been renamed to Gather and will be on 30 June 2012. 46% booked despite only opening registrations 5 days ago. Nethui 2012 is on 11-13 July 2012 http://nethui.org.nz/ Not sure how many spaces left. 200 registered as at 26 Mar (more than a month ago).

Also considering a wikipedia meetup in June (mid june). been over a year since last one. what do you think? Linnah (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I expect to be at Wikimania during July so I won't be able to go to Nethui. I'm thinking about Gather. And I'm always up for a Wikipedia meetup.-gadfium 22:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the words of the School Song? Are you an old boy of the school? Every old boy since 1931 knows that is the school song, and the fact that it does not appear on the school web site is not relevant. Regards, Nepialegs (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Nepialegs[reply]

You will need to establish by reference to a reliable source that this is indeed the school song and that it is out of copyright. Then you may upload it to WikiSource, and link to it from the school article. It is not appropriate in Wikipedia because it is not suitable for editing. Apart from short quotes, all material in Wikipedia articles get improved by editors. You would not want people to improve the words to the song.

Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial to people who fought in wars, and lists of notable people in schools must link to the Wikipedia article for each person, or provide a citation to a source independent of the person which explains why they were notable, and links them to the school.-gadfium 20:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kish Adam's is a published writer and poet - she passed away last year and shes far more notable than some stupid sheep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by M2geek (talk • contribs) 04:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no google hits for "Kish Adams" when results are confined to New Zealand. There is no Wikipedia article. You need to provide a reference to establish notability, and connection to Dannevirke.-gadfium 06:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gadfium, I would prefer to be known as Scott Delaney rather Then Scottdelaney1067 because Scott Delaney Is my real name.

I would much Appreciate it if you could do this.

Thank You.--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the rights on English Wikipedia to change user names. It takes a bureaucrat to do that. You can apply at WP:RENAME.-gadfium 03:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gadfium

Could you please Block User:74.34.118.180

That user is on his last warning for vandalizing my talk page and he continues vandalizing.

Thank You. --Scott Delaney (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked by user:Dennis Brown almost two hours ago, about four minutes after their last edit.-gadfium 02:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you explain why you thought that some of the ranks/honours should be deleted yet retained "Keith Park, GCB, KBE, MC & Bar, DFC, RAF." I personally believe that Honours, Titles and ranks should remain but if they must go, it should be across the board.

Thanks Dionysus (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are talking about King's College, Auckland, but I cannot see any edit I have made there in the last year which is relevant to this. Could you give me more context, please.-gadfium 09:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Keith Park, he has a Wikipedia article which is well referenced, and which establishes that he attended King's College with a ref to a highly reliable source.-gadfium 09:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, Could "Auckland" be dropped from the title of this article?Rick570 (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Hato Petera College.-gadfium 08:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gadfium.Rick570 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Hansard(the record of parliament) confirms the name change, I will be posting more information re Henare's union activity. The PDF link to the demise of the NZ clerical workers Union is academic paper that refers to the lack of democracy in the Union as contributing to its demise.

The opinion of Mr Henare as a carpetbagger is widely held and evidenced by his membership of three parties.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcreser (talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to Hansard. I've converted it in the article to a reference. However, the article should refer to Henare by the name he calls himself and is widely known by, with his birth name a detail.

The union reference is irrelevant to the article, as it does not mention Henare. It would not be sufficient to find a reference saying he was an officer of the union, and a separate one saying the union had problems, as this would constitute original research. It would only be acceptable to find a reference saying that Henare contributed to (or mitigated) such problems.

The carpetbagger slur is entirely unacceptable, unless you can find a neutral source saying so. Even then, we would report "X called Henare a carpetbagger...".

This discussion should be on the talk page of the article. If you have no objection, I will copy it there.-gadfium 04:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name on Mr Henare's birth certificate should in my view be the one on this page. My generation grew up knowing him as Raymond and his grandfather as Tau. THe reference to Mr Henare as a"carpet-bagger is well documented & I'm happy to post links to numerous media sources describing him as such, if you decide to revert again.(Just google Henare & Carpet-bagger)

I have advised wiki, that I have first hand knowlege of Mr Henare's time as a Unionst, and my interaction with him on this level is well documented, including an Appeal Court case(that I won) involving the Union Rules, breached by Mr Henare and his mentor Syd Jackson. These are topics that I intend to cover in the next few weeks, and will be fully documented.

I'm posting here on this page because its easier for wiki people to observe whether or not your edits are symtomatic of censorship.

Cheers

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcreser (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you do realise that blogs are not suitable sources for Wikipedia? Also, your own first hand knowledge is not suitable as a source. See WP:RS. I request you remove the slur until you can find a reliable source. Opinion pieces by newspaper columnists are also not reliable sources, although if the commentator is fairly well-known you may be able to say "X said Y was a Z".-gadfium 20:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are determined to make your edits regardless of the advice I give you, or the lack of reliable sources to back them. Since discussion is not helping, this becomes a matter of enforcing Wikipedia policy.-gadfium 20:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, the carpetbagging reference re Mr Henare can be found in numerous blogs and articles, not just the one from Karl Dufrense that I submitted, and is a view widely held by the NZ Public. But I have removed the "well deserved" comment that preceded my descriptive of him as a carpetbagger. The man has been in political parties that span the entire political spectrum. His membership of the union was not due to any related employment, you will note that he lists none for that period, therefore his association is clearly that of an organiser. I will put together a "hard copy" file of the Court of Appeal case I won against Mr Henare & the union and post it in if you like. Your approach smacks of censorship & it seems your personal views affect your position. If you have concerns, please refer this matter on to another editor, because I believe you are biased, evidenced by the fact that there was no reference in your edit to his union activities at all, even though its on the Parliamentary record. I've left the title of the page as "Tau Henare" because he is known by that name now, but He was born "Raymond Tau Henare", according to his birth certificate, and the Wiki article should begin with that name. He was NOT born Tau Henare.

John Creser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcreser (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your claim that Gadfium's "approach smacks of censorship & it seems [his] personal views affect['s his] position", and that you believe he is "biased", you might find that his reputation within the New Zealand Wikipedia community is of the highest standing. Have you considered that possibly, it is you yourself who is out of line? Schwede66 03:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the phrase about injuries making clients deterioriate on the article on dementia. Who ever put that in did not even know how to spell "deterioriate"! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gadfium, I'm working my way through NZ general elections and have got as far as 1890 now. Along the way, I move pages of MPs that are disambiguated as '(New Zealand)' to something that contains that aspect that makes them notable, so mostly either just '(politician)' or '(New Zealand politician)'. Could you please help with Robert Thompson (New Zealand)? It should go to Robert Thompson (New Zealand politician), but the latter page has quite a bit of history. Schwede66 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the page has non-trivial history, I don't think move over redirect is appropriate. The pages need to be merged so the history is preserved. This could be done manually, with edit comments pointing to the old page which becomes a redirect, or by an admin with history merge (but I don't specialise in this), or you could ask the only substantial contributor to the page, Hugo999, if he would mind if his contributions to the page got wiped by a move over redirect.-gadfium 20:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I did choose the wrong heading for this request. I was aware that a history merge is required and I thought that this is part of the normal process of moving an article over a redirect. Didn't know that it's a specialised discipline. I've had a read and have now put something on the article's talk page; hope that'll get some traction. Schwede66 08:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't work either, because they were actually two independent articles (I hadn't spotted that) and somebody merged them, so their edit histories apparently can't be merged. So I've now moved one article out of the way, but it won't let me do the move over that new redirect. Can you please:

• move Robert Thompson (New Zealand) to Robert Thompson (New Zealand politician) (over the new redirect)
• move Robert Thompson (New Zealand MP) to Robert Thompson (New Zealand)

That way, we keep the histories and have the correctly named article in the right spot. Schwede66 20:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-gadfium 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Schwede66 20:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sonja Davies.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've seen [3]. Strictly a storm in a teacup as far as I am concerned. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I corresponded with Kate Shuttleworth over the story and I'm happy that the reporting is correct.-gadfium 20:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Offender9000 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000. -- Stuartyeates (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TomNeale.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started from scratch, just using 1 paragraph that was extracted from a recognized institution: The Auckland University.I was about adding more information, always with the proper reference.. but you deleted everything without a warning. Any comment about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACG English school. That discussion took into account that the University of Auckland listed them under "Other English language courses in Auckland".

I note that other articles deleted in the same AfD have also been recreated. However, there is general consensus on Wikipedia that secondary schools are notable, even though these school articles are lacking in independent sources. There is no such view that English language schools are notable, and if you wish to contest the AfD, you can open a Deletion review.-gadfium 23:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG said: "Not just spam, but spam intended to mislead without actually lying". This is a false presumption, the University of Auckland would never endorse such a thing of a dubious school. The English School, all along with the The University of Auckland Certificate in Foundation Studies, are programmes from the UoA. Many of the current UoA students comes from this programmes because this is the way for the Uni to prepare them for their education levels.

So you request notability, the UoA confirmed that by endorsing this School. It's curious how an article from a newspaper could represent notability but a formal mention from a University isn't. If that is the case, I wonder what is left for being notable for Wikipedia then? Shall I present a written letter from the Uni directors to speak in behalf the ACG English School? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 02:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my advice above.-gadfium 03:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for finding and adding this. I searched for RSs before removing the DOB and all I turned up was Wikipedia mirrors. It looks as if I didn't filter for .nz sources, which I guess is what you did! -- Trevj (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think my google searches automatically promote .nz sites. There were a lot of sites I ignored as mirrors or unreliable sources.-gadfium 09:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! Schwede66 05:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.64.105.101.218 (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at [email protected]. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author/Gadfium

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Age-related muscular degeneration. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on [email protected]. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium,

You are compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by wrongly tagging my posts as vandalism. Consider this a warning. The NASA Apollo program was perhaps the most successful propaganda campaign in U.S. history. The time has come for the truth to be known.

Do you really believe this photo was taken on the surface of the moon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_17_Cernan_on_moon.jpg

I see you describe yourself as a bureaucrat and also claim to be educated as a scientist. It may be that you need to chose one or the other.

-- ApoGnosis

Your fringe beliefs are covered by Moon landing conspiracy theories. Posting them to mainstream articles as fact are going to get you blocked.-gadfium 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gadfium The fact that you use the following techniques shows that you are not a critical thinker, but a conduit for state propaganda:

Appeal to authority

Appeal to fear

Labeling

Oversimplification

Milieu control

ApoGnosis (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing yourself to my attention.-gadfium 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gadfium

Ok maybe my last comment was a little overwrought. I am on a crusade for truth, but perhaps it can be conducted without the help of Wikipedia.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(Not a real notice actually, an obvious sock of one of the above users reported you and was blocked by me. But procedure dictates you should be notified so here it is. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. They're obviously a sock of someone, but I don't see any reason to believe that this is ApoGnosis.-gadfium 20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was the timing behind it that draws the connection. I made an CU request to verify. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, it was ApoGnosis, among others. [4] ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a plot of climate, remarking we don't need a climate chart and a weather box. I added the plot because there is a specific message not communicated to the reader by a table. A table is useful for presenting precise values and comparing individual pairs of numbers. A plot is the better method for communicating pattern and shape. I expect people are primarily interested in the broad climate pattern, hence why I added a plot. Occasionally people will be interested in specific values. So there is a need for both. The plot also enables people to visually contrast Napier climate with other location pages that present this same plot. This is very tedious with a table. See this web page more more discussion ^[1]. I think both the chart and table should be standard across major towns of New Zealand, and just the chart for minor locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilding (talk • contribs) 00:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I like the plot more than the table, but the table does show more data. I accept your point that the two could co-exist, although the addition of the plot to Napier left a lot of ugly white space. This could probably be avoided by re-arranging the text and graphics.

It seems awkward to have the same data repeated twice. The long-term solution might be for the plot to be included as a display option for the table. There was a discussion about that at Template talk:Weather box/Archive 2#This template or template:Climate_chart but it seems to have petered out without resolution. An editor did produce a combined template, but it is not visible any more because the sandbox it relied on has since been edited for other purposes.

Are you aware of any non-New Zealand articles which currently contain both the plot and the table?-gadfium 01:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I see a lot of climate tables for cities. I was struggling to decipher the pattern from these, so was relieved to find several climate pages with the nice neat chart. I agree the white space is awkward. My attempts to remove this before posting was fruitless. The table is something I would normally leave to an appendix. Does wikipedia have such an option? Twilding970 (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiMedia software allows footnotes sections separate from references, so it would be technically possible to move the weather box to an appendix section with a superscripted link, but I am not aware of any article which has such a substantial table in a footnote. It is also possible to collapse a section of text, e.g.

but this is used in articles to hide collections of links to related articles, and not data.

I think the best place to get insightful discussion about this would be at Template talk:Weather box.-gadfium 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for clearing up the article on Dementia, by removing the nonsense that you referred to as spam and which seemed to me as some one trying to insert advertising into the article. Not only was the insertion a plain violation of Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, it was misleading - it referred to Alzheimer's disease and dementia as if they were different conditions. Again, many thanks for removing the nonsense some tried to put into this article. It is good to see that misleading inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles do get removed quickly! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message re: Martyn 'Bomber' Bradbury. I am well aware of Wikipedia's "neutral" POV and am well versed in wiki protocol. Bomber Bradbury is a noted dick in this fair country and I feel the article should reflect this. I cannot provide much in the way of support for this, outside my own feelings toward the man, however if I ever meet him in real life^TM I plan to smack him in the face in a manner which may make the local news in which case I'll link to it as "Bomber Bradbury is a noted dick, a dick to such an extant that random people smack him in the face when he leaves the house". Cheers. Ace McWicked (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium, can you give some advice? There is a question on my talk page which furthers a discussion where you originally participated. An editor is claiming they have a "mandate to enhance FAO presence in Wikipedia", though they do not corroborate that. The editor has also claimed that the person "responsible for FAO external media communication ... has agreed to start making contacts with Wikipedia responsible/editors". If that were to be the case, do you know what procedures such a communicator should follow. Jimmy Wales recently took some interest in issues like this on his talk page. Are you aware of any outcomes to that issue and whether there are clear guidelines that such a person could be referred to? Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the mandate that they refer to means they have permission from their superiors at FAO to spend some time on establishing a presence on Wikipedia, and not a mandate from Wikipedia to do anything.

The appropriate route for someone wanting to do some direct editing in support of FAO would be for them to post at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations asking for advice. It would certainly be appropriate for them to work with this wikiproject, and it might be appropriate to set up a subproject to deal with FAO, and perhaps a subportal. Conflict of interest guidelines will be relevant.

To propose a collaboration between Wikipedia and FAO, the best place to start I can think of is the GLAM Contact page.

There is certain to be someone in the WikiMedia Foundation who has the job of coordinating with major organisations such as FAO. Unfortunately, I don't know who this is (it has been Sue Gardner in the past, but now she's the Executive Director). I suggest you ask at the help desk for further information.-gadfium 20:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that :) --Epipelagic (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The grammer you support is by lower public school education. I think maybe the edits might be better for the public, who wish to have a full view of Samoan Culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.133.210 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may indeed not be qualified to write the Samoa article. I haven't in fact written most of the article. However, I do insist on proper sources for material on Wikipedia. I am also unimpressed by the creation of numerous accounts used to edit the article over the last day.-gadfium 01:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content is generally the same, most edits fix the decapitalization of Samoan customs, titles, political systems, and events, that are greatly written about in a eurocentric perpective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.133.210 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits add at least as many grammar errors as they fix, and they add many items which are unreferenced.

Let's look at the edits to the first paragraph of the article:

(previous text) It became independent from New Zealand in 1962. The two main islands of Samoa are Upolu and one of the biggest islands in Polynesia, Savai'i.

(your text)Samoa announced their independence to Aotearoa - New Zealand in 1962. The main island of Samoa is Upolu, and is one of the largest islands in the Polynesian Triangle, next to Savai'i.

How is that an improvement? Aotearoa is not a name most readers will be familiar with, and it isn't the name of New Zealand in English. Your wording suggests that Samoa just decided one day to tell NZ that it was now independent, but actually independence was a process worked through over many years by both countries under the supervision of the United Nations.

Your wording does not make clear that Upolu and Savai'i are the two main islands of Samoa. It says Upolu is the main island, but about Savai'i it says only that it is larger than Upolu, and not that it is even a part of Samoa.

To enumerate all the problems with your changes to the article would take far longer than I have the patience to do.-gadfium 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a rather inexperienced contributor, I would appreciate your advice on some NZ articles. I have added an external link to List of New Zealand architects, and wonder whether the article title should be changed to "Notable New Zealand architects", and if so, I'd better find out how to do this without affecting other articles that link to it.

Also, I am not sure of the merit of the other external link. At first glance this appears to be a site that promotes a small number of architects. Is this appropriate as a link?

In the article Architecture of New Zealand I have added a link to the Registered Architects Board. I think this statutory board warrants an article, but would appreciate another's opinion on this before creating anything new. Thanks, OnHawkspur (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "List of New Zealand xxxxs" are intended to be for notable people only, because it would be ridiculous (and out of scope) for us to attempt to list every architect who ever practiced in New Zealand, and difficult to detect school students adding themselves because they designed a doghouse. I would expect every name added to the list to provide relevant hits high on a Google search for the name (for contemporary architects) or to appear in places like the New Zealand Dictionary of National Biography (for historical architects), and any exceptions to have a reference to a site meeting our reliable sources criteria to establish notability. Your adding the word "notable" into the lead is a useful clarification of the article's purpose. I do not think it necessary to rename the article.

The link to the NZ Architects Register looks like a valuable addition to me. The SelectArchitect site looks less useful. I notice it was added two years ago as a "growing list of ... architect profiles", but it does not appear to have grown very fast. It looks to me that the Architects Register provides a much more comprehensive list than the SelectArchitect site does, and I will remove the latter link.

I agree that the link to the Registered Architects Board is valuable. I see you also added a redlink to their name, which is also fine, but perhaps you would like to start that article at some point.-gadfium 23:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I have now created that page, which led to another redlink. I suspect this is going to continue...I will come back at some point to create that one.OnHawkspur (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!-gadfium 07:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium,

The links below is evidence of the changes I made to the Waipukurau site: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1109443/ http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/news/golf-radonich-would-love-to-swing-lotto-win/966660/ As for the Jim Saunders change I have newspaper articles that can be scanned and sent to you.

Many thanks

Gymjim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymjim (talk • contribs) 22:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to the user's talk page to keep the conversation in one place.-gadfium 22:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to look a bit harder when you surf the net, World natural bodybuilding olympia was ease to find. http://www.naturalbodybuilding.com/ It is an annual event, as is the Mr Universe Natural, as in the following link I have provided you with http://www.naturalbodybuilding.com/pages/pages/natural_universe.php

Does this satisfy your needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymjim (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly helps. It appears that they call the event the "Natural bodybuilding olympia", not the "World natural bodybuilding olympia". Now, you need only evidence that Saunders represented New Zealand at the event, and that he is connected to Waipukurau.-gadfium 02:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. Sorry for bothering you but you're one of the few people with any remaining patience for dealing with Claudia. She's restored this content [[5]] at Ngāti Tama which seems to be a borderline BLP violation (and, as always, is so poorly sourced it may as well be unsourced). I've already been reverted once trying to deal with it and don't have any time or patience for getting into a protracted dispute about it. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I can find do largely check out. I am not aware that Claudia has ever added incorrect material to articles, although her presentation might at times be PoV, and some edits to talk pages have not been acceptable. Claudia providing references only in edit summaries, and in insufficient detail, may be reason to revert her edits but doesn't go far enough to warrant disciplinary action. I have previously asked at the Administrator's noticeboard for advice on this, and don't recall the advice I got as being particularly helpful.

I suggest you ask an administrator with no connection to the subject matter at all to take an impartial look. Try User talk:JamesBWatson.-gadfium 08:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the help. I wasn't asking for disciplinary action just a look at the article from a BLP perspective and chose you because you've got the patience and experience of dealing with Claudia. I presently have extremely limited time to do any work on Wikipedia; checking my watchlist for obvious vandalism every few days is all I have time for. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your expert help in sorting out the Ngati Tama article. Im not sure why the complaining Dave didnt do the decent thing and fix a few things himself. He seems to be quick to find fault and push the delete button without giving much thought to that key ideas in Wikipedia to try and be positive and helpful.***** from me for your assistance. The article looks very professional now .Tu Meke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium,

When a page has been deleted is it still available to edit somewhere - or will I have to start all over again? Cheers Offender9000 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still available, but is viewable only to administrators (because some pages which are deleted contain libellous content). The page can be restored at any time, including its full edit history. I do not intend to take action until I get a response from Yunshui, or a week has gone by without his response to my query, or he resumes editing without responding to my query. If I am not happy with the response (or lack thereof), I will take the matter to deletion review. Feel free to prompt me if I forget to do so.-gadfium 06:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the NZPB page. Much appreciated. In regard to the use of a link to my Flying Blind website, can you tell me what's the problem with that as opposed to this link posted by Schwede http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/746499365. If someone wanted to check the source, this link does not help in any way. It doesn't say anything about the book or where they might obtain it. Specifically which WP policy applies to the use of citations in this way? Offender9000 (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The perceived problem with a link to the Flying Blind website is that the website exists to promote and sell the book, and you stand to make money from sales made through the link. In practice, I am well aware that New Zealand authors tend to make very little money from book sales. The standard method of citing a book is to include the isbn; that will then link to our list of book sources. See ISBN 9780473180751. With a couple of clicks from there, I can see what copies are available in my local library, or in any of the major booksellers. The booksellers part works better for books published by major international houses; your book is unlikely to be found there. However, for the most part, people checking a reference would like to find the result freely available online, and failing that freely available in a library, rather than being given only the option of buying the book.

The appropriate guideline is probably WP:BOOKSPAM and the immediately following section WP:REFSPAM. However, I do not believe that you are mentioning the book only to get sales or search engine exposure, as the guideline suggests. You have now a substantial history of contributing to Wikipedia articles and you use a rich assortment of references. You fall under the latter part of the final sentence of REFSPAM which is "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia."

I advise you therefore to include the isbn in all references to FB. Either drop the links to the FB website (and I think that would help in persuading people to remove conflict-of-interest tags), or talk to the people who oppose the link to the website by explaining that the links from the isbn are insufficient for this particular work.-gadfium 22:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon that is sound advice, Gadfium. Thank you. Offender9000, if there are other articles where your book is used as a reference, I can help you converting the reference to a cite book template or use the shortened footnote system (which is appropriate when you quote from different pages in the article). I think your contributions are valuable (ok, the only one that I have really looked at is the New Zealand Parole Board article) and to get rid of the NPOV tags is probably a worthwhile undertaking.

Gadfium, given that I have removed the 'offending' link from the New Zealand Parole Board article and as yet, nobody could point to any specific (other) violations of NPOV in response to my talk page query, I would value whether you casting a critical eye on that article. I would be inclined to remove the tag, but your support (or the pointing out of violations) would certainly be worthwhile. Schwede66 23:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at Talk:New Zealand Parole Board#NPOV in response to your request.-gadfium 01:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gday. The Australian-English dictionary in my word processor uses "re-rolled" and "rerolled"... but it is a Microsoft product so anything is possible. Now that I read it on the screen again I share your concerns so happy with the new wording anyway. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You re-roll a die. To change the role of something, I would expect you "re-role" it, but that seems clumsy English to me.-gadfium 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question has been asked at the Wikipedia Computing reference desk about the processing power of the IBM System/34 in comparison to later microprocessors. On 1 August 2005, you made an edit which said "In today's PC-based world, think of the S/34 as having the processor equivalent of two 10 MHz 386s", modifying a claim by an earlier anonymous editor. Would you mind coming to the ref desk and helping answer the question about this comparison?-gadfium 02:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. Jessemckay (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like to bring your attention to a new learning project in Wikiversity. As you have been involved with the discussion on the wikipedia Parkinson's disease page I felt you might be interested in looking at the project and perhaps even contributing material to it. Please see my Talk page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet#The_Science_Behind_Parkinson.27s_learning_project , the subpage, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet/ProjectDescription or the project itself , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s . It would be great if you could bring the project to the attention of others who might be interested in helping us develop it. Thanks.

Jtelford (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (My Wikiversity Username is Droflet)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for helping me out on my talk page with the Wellesley College thing. JPlunk (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, Many thanks for your suggestion. I tried to correct Andreas Kouroumas to Andreas Koukoumas but failed. Maybe I need some sleep. In the Cypriot Greek dialect there are changes to a name depending its context. Koukouma is formal but one can refer to e.g. o Koukoumas is a great poet. Christos Evangeli (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have successfully changed the article title to Andreas Koukouma. The old title of Andreas Kourouma will still work, as a redirect to the new title. I have no intention of making any changes to the article myself. Cypriot poets are a little outside my area of expertise.-gadfium 20:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can you please keep it like that for a week. for personal reasons and so i can keep my dignity amongst friends. a week is all i ask. please and thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.76.133 (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we require figures to be accurate.-gadfium 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, If you're interested, I posted material on the Kim Dotcom article and created a section called "Mistakes made by New Zealand authorities" and another once called "The involvement of Auckland mayor John Banks". Both sections have been deleted by Ianmacm. I started a discussion about this on the Talk page. Ianmacm thinks the material is not biographical - and he may have a point. What do you think? Offender9000 (lost access to my tildes)

I posted to the talk page of the article shortly before you placed this message. The Dotcom article should cover all these events, but in some cases it should be a summary of more detailed coverage elsewhere, eg in the John Banks article. I think a heading such as "Mistakes made by New Zealand authorities" is not appropriate because it moves the focus off Dotcom.-gadfium 22:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]