User talk:Gadfium/Archive 7

Gadfium. Normally I would agree that this does not belong in the New Zealand. However confusion between GDP per capita and median household income has been a real problem. For the moment I will let it slide. However if problems persist then I will want to clarify things. Badenoch 06:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring my question about Heather's egg - it was a good faith enquiry. StephenBuxton 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that explaining what is proposed in the bill is contentious. It took me a lot of reading to get it clear what was being proposed from 400 pages of document. You can read about it in hansard, that this is what is being proposed, more power to immigration officers, and a reduction of appeal rights to one tribunal. This is viewed generally as more efficient. Please revert the rv POV or explain why it is a POV. —F^red11⁴ 20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Immigration to New Zealand says

"By reducing the exisiting appeal rights and giving more power to immigration officers, principles of fairness and natural justice could be more easily overridden."

Clearly, it is POV to say that the bill is intended to override principles of fairness and natural justice. It would be more reasonable to quote someone influential as saying that, with source, but when the bill receives less than a paragraph it may be better just to stick to the facts and leave the interpretation to a separate article on the bill itself.-gadfium 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say or imply that the bill is intended to override certain priniciples. A bill is a proposed set of laws that are being currently debated. I think it is unfair to state the intention of a bill, because that is very subjective. It is more reasonable to offer insight into what could arise from the bill. That was my intention. I intend that others add their take on what might happen if it was passed, and then once it becomes law alter the text to reflect what finally arises from the debating chamber. —F^red11⁴ 08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. You still need to quote someone else as saying it, not give your own interpretation. I'm willing to let the rest of your edit stand.-gadfium 08:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the above to Talk:Immigration to New Zealand where it is more likely to be viewed by subsequent editors of the article. Please continue there if you consider it necessary.-gadfium 08:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an honest accident. I got TWINKLE installed and for some reason didn't realize that submitting a Query meant editing the page. I figure. Been here for almost 3 years. I have 60,000 edits. About time I made a stupid mistake. :-D Anyway. Thanks for the heads up on the user talk page. I removed the warning. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you hadn't deleted that article. I JUST started it. I was busy researching how other book pages were built so I could properly write it up. I don't think it's fair to delete an article on its first day. How can you possibly tell how it's going to be expanded unless you give it a week or so? I understand that you deleted without predjudice, but shouldn't you give work a chance first? Rather disappointed with your quick deletion tactics. Not everyone is an expert at this; we need time to learn and grow and experience. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to this in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Made in DNA (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the deletion summary, I said "Deleted but without prejudice if recreated and expanded with sources". In other words, you are welcome to recreate it with the expansion you promised, and with some sources e.g. reviews. If you don't have a copy of the original text you wrote and want a copy, I'm happy to give it to you.

In short, we do expect that an article conforms to certain standards right from the start; yours was marginal, in that it had a full paragraph of text but it didn't include any sources or explanation of why the book was notable. You might like to look at Wikipedia:Notability (books) before you put too much more effort in since self-published books sometimes have problems meeting our criteria for inclusion.-gadfium 07:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you expect an article to conform to certain standards and I agree. My point was, you have to give an article time to meet such standards. I don't believe my article was given more than 48 hours before it was deleted. Are you suggesting that an article should be perfect right off the bat? I hardly think that's fair.

As for notable books, are you suggesting that the time and effort an author puts into a self-published book is not worthy of Wikipedia somehow? As it stands, MEDIA WHORES, which was touted by comic guru Warren Ellis, not once, but TWICE in both his blogs, is one of the world's first books written completely via SMS for an SMS-audience and then compiled into a PDF format and launched, but you didn't know that I'll bet, because you didn't give me time to put that information up.

I'm sorry if I come off strongly about all this, but I have a lot invested, yet I am willing to take the time to make any article Wiki-worthy (ie neutral). It's not that hard, I am, after all, an author, self-published or not, no one can deny me that. All I want, is the chance to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.29.54.177 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that last one was me. I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Made in DNA (talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this is your own book, then you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest in writing about it, and should consider letting someone else write the article rather than doing so yourself. At least, I suggest you work on the article offline and create it here when it's ready.

An article doesn't have to be perfect when it's first posted, but it does have to explain why the subject is notable; in this case, the guideline for determining notability is Wikipedia:Notability (books). I didn't write that guideline; if you want to ask questions about it, you'll get better answers posting on its talk page. Even a claim to notability, which may fall short of those guidelines, is enough to prevent speedy deletion of the article - the article would then be taken through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process if someone didn't think it met our standards, and that would allow a discussion on the merits of the article. However, what you posted was two sentences, plus some empty headers. These two sentences were

A microfiction e-book by Japan-based expat American author Made in DNA. A compilation of original, single 140-character posts serialized on Twitter.

Had you added what you said above: that it "is one of the world's first books written completely via SMS for an SMS-audience and then compiled into a PDF format and launched", then there is a claim to notability, and had you added links to Warren Ellis' mentions, that would have been a reference to a third-party mention (although blogs are not normally considered reliable sources, Ellis' blogs may be considered more reliable than most). A review in a more conventional media would be even better.-gadfium 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my point is, which you still have not addressed, you did not give me proper time to update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Made in DNA (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to create a better article than that in the initial edit. You need to establish notability, you need at least one reliable source, and it certainly helps if you are not writing about your own book. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear about this.-gadfium 08:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching some of my air-headed typos at Tokelau - I really must be more careful with the edit preview button!

On a more serious note, is it appropriate for me to add countries like Japan to the Category:New Zealand-Pacific relations? Alice.S 08:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that country articles don't belong there unless the country is a dependency or associate of New Zealand. An article on New Zealand-Japanese relations might belong, but we don't have such an article. It depends on whether you consider "Pacific" to mean "Pacific Ocean and rim" or "Pacific Islands" - the category states it includes "islands of the Pacific Ocean" which is ambiguous. You could ask User:Grutness who created the category for further clarification.-gadfium 09:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

Thanks for the prompt and useful reply. Alice.S 10:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember, remember, the fifth of November? Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007. It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have seen you around (and remembered you recommended 2007 South Pacific Games to the main page a couple of months back) and wondered if you could have a look at Trial of Penenden Heath to see if it's worth a DYK. It needs some work (mainly I need to read the paper sources) but grateful for your thoughts in any case.Dick G 06:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly qualifies for DYK - it's long enough, created in the last five days, well written and sourced. You just have to come up with a hook which is interesting enough - something which will appeal to more than just English historians.

I did notice that you repeat that the exact date is unknown but between 1075 and 1077 in both the lede and in the second to last paragraph. Also, the reason you added [sic] after Penenden heath isn't clear to me - is it that "Heath" isn't capitalised?-gadfium 07:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back on this so soon. Will give some thought to the hook. Am not familiar with the process for DYK so excuse my ignorance on that score. The reason for the [sic] was indeed to cover off the fact that "heath" is not capitalised; overkill perhaps but wanted to avoid it looking like a typo. Oh, and will look at the duplication re dates. Cheers Dick G 08:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes apologies for what looked like ruthless commercial linking to my web site. I would however still like to be an External link on pages to do with Metrosideros, Griselinia, Ficcus, and other epiphyte related pages due to the ecological and educational angle of my work. Project Crimson, a current external link on these same pages has endorsed my work with Rata in NZ in writing . I would like to re-insert the link but will direct to pages on the Pollen site that relate directly to Rata (or the page topic) for eg http://www.pollen.net.nz/blog/?p=30 and http://www.pollen.net.nz/about-shrine.php . The reason I want to do this is to raise the awareness of and interest in how special these trees are in NZ and the world, showing people what they are capable of and getting them into the public eye, in a truly original and dramatic way. Please let me know what you think, Regards Pollen8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollen8 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Pollen8.-gadfium 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rescuing me there, Gadfium!

As you're probably aware, I don't like to revert controversial edits, preferring to discuss or place a template instead so the (controversial or erroneous) editor can possibly revert themselves. Alice.S 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WinstonPeters.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PeterDunne.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PaulAdams NZ.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 09:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:MidgeMarsden.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. Jackaranga 10:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these images all have good fair use rationales, but deletion of fair use images is not worth fighting over.-gadfium 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you see the deletion log of the article, you will see that it has a history of copyright violations. Similarly, the past revisions contain copied and pasted text. Thanks. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I don't think that a comment from me is needed there now. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with messy words when deeds leave no doubt. 71.100.15.165 00:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there: this isn't to start an argument about the change to the tag. Either category will work in the long run, I believe, and what's a week to Wikipedia? I would like to know, just for my information, what I failed to search for that you found. Not one of the titles, or the name, had even a hint of a hint on Google, except by other authors or clearly belonging to other people, as in the Terry Godard who is with Homeland Security, for example. I gather you found something that said this person exists and is famous as written. Could you point me the right way? I'd hate to do this to someone real, or, another someone real. Thanks Bielle (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't a hoax, since it looks like he exists and wrote the play claimed. However, checking the google refs I found, I see the text was identical to [1]. Had I noticed this earlier, I would have speedy deleted as a copyvio. However, the article has been substantially rewritten since. I think technically it should still be deleted as a copyvio, but I'll point this out at the AfD and let someone else make that decision.-gadfium 05:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link especially. I thought I tried all the titles on Google, but perhaps I missed the only one with a hit! So he is real, but also, I think imaginary in some ways. The AfD will tell. Cheers! Bielle (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have to apologise for the santa text insertion within the article on John Key. If you read my latest blog post at www.tapedapplase.blogpot.com things will become much clearer. Your swift resoonse to the "vandalism" is deeply reassuring.

Sorry again for any inconveniance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taped Applause (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I was disappointedly that it was not getting many updates. I an setting it up so that there is weekly changes, easy to update and low maintenance. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 19:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Hi, My user name is Franklin.vp in wikipedia. I realized that someone had access to my wiki account. Since I found some inappropriate content uploaded using my account in "my contributions" It is a special page so I can't change what it is said there. I would like to those lines to be erased from "my contributions" page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Franklin.vp

   * 02:48, 26 August 2007 ( hist) (diff) Penis ( →Erection)
   * 02:47, 26 August 2007 ( hist) (diff) Image:Human Eyaculation.jpg (top)
   * 02:43, 26 August 2007 (hist) ( diff) Ambigram (→ Ambigram types)
   * 06:33, 25 August 2007 (hist) ( diff) Penis (→Erection) 

I already changed my password. Please Help me!!

I see someone else has already helped you. For anyone else reading this, the problem was resolved by renaming the account so that it was not associated with the user.-gadfium 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you don't acknowledge the reason I gave for removing the content. You are aware of wikipedia's biography of living persons policy I assume. All material presented in these type of articles must be meticulously sourced. Precedent in this encyclopedia is to frown upon using opinion articles from newspapers as sources. You do know the difference between an article and an opinion piece don't you? I would suggest you revert your latest addition or find a more solid reference Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Gadfium, I thank you for taking this issue up last week, and restoring the content about Malcolm Fraser's stance against Apartheid. I also believe it is important information regarding the character of Malcolm Fraser. I also think it was something that Fraser himself was proud of. Anyway, the deletion incident was also the subject of an ANi complaint, which has now been archived. Thanks, Lester 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been reviewing my past history on wikipedia and have noticed that you and I have had a few unpleasant run-ins with eachother, I was wondering if there was a way we could mend out fences so-to-speak, as I consider you to be an established Kiwi editor on Wikipedia (a rarity I am beginning to notice). Aniway, Thanks for listening. Cheers (♠Taifarious1♠) 01:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been out of town for the last couple of weeks.

I always thought you were a promising editor, and I'm happy that we can start over with no hard feelings.-gadfium 02:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the change to the "Eltham, New Zealand" page. Looks much better now - much more readable :)

Boethius65 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to the Gary Forrester page. I didn't know how to do that. Say, are you in Wellington by any chance? We live here now, and we love it. Just got back from a holiday in Raumati. Anyway, any edits you might wish to make from a NZ perspective (or any other perspective, for that matter) would be greatly appreciated. Cheers --Georgette.mccallum (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm in Auckland.

I saw the Gary Forrester page because I try to take a look at all articles related to New Zealand - although I'm currently running about a month behind. Most such pages I categorise, some I format or otherwise tidy up, occasionally I nominate one for deletion. Most such articles are a lot less well-developed when I see them than the Forrester page.-gadfium 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reverted this image to the previous version. I am attempting to discuss the image with the author, so that he agrees to upload a non-watermarked version. I realize that we can use the GFDL version without additional permission, but it's a better solution to find a version that the author is willing to distribute. If you don't mind, let me ask you to wait a couple days to see what develops. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've assisted with sorting this article a number of times... i've had it on my watchlist and found myself undoing the same edits, again and again... can you make any headway with perhaps trying to have the article set to members-only-edit or somesuch? The history of the article speaks for itself, all due to to what I am fairly certain is the same guy, again and again. As an Admin I guess you have some knowledge of how this process works, my interest is in keeping the article accurate and relevant. BlakJakNZ (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deputy principal name is relevant to the article; it just isn't a valid field in the infobox. If the information being added is correct, then put it in the article text and the anon will presumably be happy. I think this is someone who wants to see the deputy name in the article; very likely not a vandal (but perhaps the deputy himself). You could tag their addition of the deputy name with a {{cn}} tag, if you cannot verify that it is correct.

Since the information is added less than once a month on average, protecting the article against edits by anons or newbies is not a good idea. This may be a person who isn't aware of the edit summaries we use when reverting; hasn't seen the talk page; and has a dynamic IP so hasn't seen messages left for them, so the only way to talk to them might be to add a large html comment in the text of the article saying <!-- ATTENTION: If you want to add the name of the deputy principal here, please discuss it at the talk page first. To edit the talk page, click the discussion tab at the top of the page. -->, and then expand the comments on the talk page.-gadfium 08:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Your comments make sense. Appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakJakNZ (talk • contribs) 11:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do u understand the meaning of trivia? it is supposed to give an insight into things that some people may find interesting or things they dnt know. some nirvana fans woould be interseteed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.61.25 (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it in the Nirvana article. It doesn't belong in articles which are unconnected with Cobain.-gadfium 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For: Tediously updating the NZ School deciles ratings. Thanks :) Brian | (Talk) 05:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm just getting these decile updates out of the way so I can start on the real work on NZ School articles I promised to do on the NZ Wikipedians' noticeboard.-gadfium 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Monstrous regiment.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 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't figure out the fair use claim, you aren't doing a very good job. Wouldn't it be simpler to put the template you want on book covers instead of nominating them for deletion? Some poor admin is going to look at all the images you tag and groan "Oh no, not another BetacommandBot-tagged image", or probably more likely, delete it without engaging any brain cells.-gadfium 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the nice message. It is always a pleasure to hear from you! I had to stay active if I wanted to edit Veropedia, so what the hey. It will be incredibly nice to interact with the established users and avoid dinking around with the NPP hassle. Take care! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake with the move. Teemu Leisti (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, Yes, good point, there seems to be two of the same name - what a kiwi is doing in the Atlantic I have no idea! Anyway, have updated article. I might look at creating an article listing the world's seamounts, hooking off the existing Seamount article. Thoughts? Cheers, & a happy new year GrahamBould (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LISTEN M8 IF U DNT BELIVE ME ABOUT PUTTING KURT COBAINS NAME ON TRIVIA THEN SEARCH STROSZEK AND LOOK AT THT TRIVIA. U WILL FIND OUT SOMETHING THT PEOPLE MAY BE INTERESETED IN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.61.25 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, people interested in Cobain will go to the Kurt Cobain article. They are much less likely to go to our article on The Piano looking for information on him.-gadfium 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for holding the fort in terms of moving bot articles to the list of new NZ articles while I'm away. I expect to be back on deck around the 10th or 11th. dramatic (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I've been adding the 'WikiProject New Zealand' tag to fauna talkpages where the subject is uniquely NZ, but am unsure whether to add it if the species is also endemic to, say, Australia. I've not been adding it in this case. Any thoughts? GrahamBould (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm, but to be honest I don't really see a benefit either. The most appropriate Wikiproject tag for your articles would be for WP:ANIMALS or WP:GAST; as far as I know a mollusc wikiproject doesn't exist. There can be multiple wikiproject tags on an article, but the most appropriate ones are for the people who are interested in the subject matter, and in your case I'd say that is more closely aligned to people interested in molluscs than those interested in New Zealand topics.-gadfium 10:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend it for endemic species. They are part of the project scope and may form a subproject one day. Richard001 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gad, could you move this one to import for me? The latter just redirects to the former, so there is no need for the further specification given in brackets. Richard001 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-gadfium 03:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango: compel for your changes. Corticopia (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 - I couldn't create a page. Only admins can do so - apparently. Try pressing the button! Point 2 - No, not trolling. I put in a perfectly reasonable request to User:Vsmith and his response was not would I would expect from an admin. In fact, it was downright insulting. See his talk page (Global Warming). Point 3 - Yes, I have a user ID but I haven't used it for about a year. Is there any rule that says I should? 86.31.45.177 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed to be an experienced Wikipedian, so you know how to create a page. An RFC is invalid without a page.-gadfium 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I do so as an IP user? 86.31.45.177 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can log in with your previous account. If you are not willing to divulge what that account was, then create a throwaway account to do so.-gadfium 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Throwaway account would take a few days before pages could be created. No worries, I'll let it go. User:Vsmith is not exceptional in his attitude to IP editors, but uncommonly he seems to be prejudiced against Europeans (comments regarding RIPE); a most unsavoury character to have as an admin, I would suggest. Incidentally, the procedure used for complaining about users seems to exclude IPs from doing so. Does this need looking at perhaps. Cheers, 86.31.45.177 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe accounts need to be autoconfirmed (ie 4 days old) to create pages. Autoconfirm only enables page moving and the editing of semi-protected pages.-gadfium 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Thanks. Boethius65 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way you put it was too opinion-making (you obviously don't believe it), and anyone reading your sentence quickly will assume it's not true. I don't find a lot about the ambiguity on the main article (Caves of Nanumanga), but I don't have access to Australian newspapers. I suggest you cange the article about the caves themselves (fe a new chapter about the controversy?).

Thanx Twerbrou (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the references given in the article itself. The article seems to consider the oral history more convincing than the evidence of fire. I'd like to see some archeological opinion from other people, and from some years later when there's more reflection about the significance of the caves.

It is probably most appropriate not to mention them at all in the Tuvalu article, which is only an overview of the history and shouldn't go into speculation, and to have a brief mention in History of Tuvalu (as there is). I'll try another wording which is more neutral first.-gadfium 18:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my page. Cheers and thanks again. Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included Waimea College as Nelson. I consider Richmond part of Nelson. These things are hard to define. Garin College is about 2km north west of Waimea College. I am unsure when the "urban area" of Nelson begins and ends. Feel free to edit it back, I don't really worry about things like this. Stug.stug (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed for Herekino to go to start class? Nothing at all. My apologies - about a day passed between my looking at the article and adding the WPNZ template to a batch of 20 new articles, so I simply pasted nonchalantly. Since you are creating a lot of these articles, it would help if you could put {{WPNZ|class=stub}} (or start as the case may be) on the talk page yourself. I haven't been adding importance attributes to any articles I tag - I leave that to those more involved in reviewing the queue. dramatic (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to User_talk:Dramatic#Herekino) - No problem setting class - it will usually be stub or start, and these are well defined at Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Assessment#Quality_scale. Personally I would be hesitant about rating an article as B or higher. But the assessment team seem to be getting to most newly tagged articles within a week. dramatic (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium,

I actually was just about to report this user to WP:UAA; I don't know how I didn't realize this, but the name is a match with http://www.sitagita.com and is thus deserving of an indefinite block per WP:UN. I'll trust your discretion, naturally, but may I suggest an...extension of the block? --jonny-mt 07:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have their talk page watchlisted, so if they receive any further warnings I'll notice. I think any further problems will merit an indefinite block, but there's some small chance they'll choose to make more useful edits.-gadfium 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; here's hoping! --jonny-mt 10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've been indef blocked (not by me) for continuing the behaviour.-gadfium 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source for this and reason to believe this is a fact. This should not be considered vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgannon (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied on user's talk page.-gadfium 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article that you sent me. First of all: 1.) The article you sent me was a not a policy, rather a guideline. 2.) There are no things in that article that constitute it to be a non-usable source. 3.) The actual url is www.freewebs.com/randomstuffyoudidntknow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgannon (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soory, but that website is a collection of random information with no sources given. It may or may not be correct, but it certainly isn't a reliable source. An appropriate source would be a reputable biography of Eisenhower.-gadfium 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. - KrakatoaKatie 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Error (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Errors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- pb30<talk> 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Houhora, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm very pleased that an article I wrote made the front page.-gadfium 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To display the % stats you need to click the percentages button and then 'View'. I couldn't get this page to display correctly if I did this. I appreciate you tidying up my edits - I am on a steep learning curve here! fyi - until 4 years ago I was a teacher at Pap HS - that is my interest in this page. I see you have flagged the last paragraph for possible removal - it does seem to be the effort of a frustrated student and I agree that it should be removed. Thanks again for your assistance.Nogging (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did work out how to display percentages. My remaining concern is that the figures for 2007 are not yet posted, and we should not be displaying them in the article if they are not available to the public. I presume the 2007 figures will be available shortly.

Feel free to remove items in the article which are not of sufficient importance or which are not sourced, or place a {{cn}} tag next to the ones you believe to be true but need a reference. I generally go easy on the sourcing requirements for school articles; I view them as a place for students (and teachers) to learn how to edit Wikipedia. This is only my personal attitude; other editors may enforce policy more strictly.-gadfium 03:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Whangaroa Bay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a mistake; it was supposed to be a redirect but the contents of my clipboard were not what I thought they were.-gadfium 07:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Whangaroa Harbour, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for removing the unwarranted vandalism accussations from my talk page (99.241.48.112 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Improper talk page format. Was breaking up another post. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good find on the sister cities! Michellecrisp (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing conter-factual on the EGGS page. The fact that you cannot even spell the school's name correctly shows the worthlessness of Wikipedia. How come you put such polit crap on the AGS page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakusha (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the material you added to Epsom Girls' Grammar School because it read like a brochure for the school. The tone was unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I did not say it was counter-factual, although since you did not give your sources for the material, I cannot be sure that it is factual either.

Your most recent edit is obviously incorrect, as you typed 2004, but presumably you meant 2008. It is also unsourced, so I will remove it rather than correct it to a date which I have no evidence for.

I found a source for the acting principal.-gadfium 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss to understand what you mean by "polit crap". Polite? Complete? Politically correct? At any event, I have not made substantial edits to the Auckland Grammar School article recently, other than to restore the translation of the school motto given by the school website.-gadfium 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:DavidParkerNZ.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 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This event was of huge significant importance over 500 students stood up and participated in a 'dairy run'. Please refrain from reverting my edits unless you have sufficient information to challenge them. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcottis0100 (talk • contribs)

You need to provide reliable sources for your edits. See WP:SOURCE. An article in the Dominion Post would be fine. If the event didn't get media coverage, then it probably wasn't notable, no matter how important it may have been to you personally.-gadfium 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I and many others would appreciate if you stopped deleting valid posts on this wikipage. We have been to the school and have collaborated with the principal. You are continuosly removing valid quotes and information. Don't go and say "none of the information is sourced" because if you look at the page there is only one source listed for the entire page. Who do you think you are? Please Stop.

I have reverted your edits, not because they are unsourced, although that's an excellent reason, but because they are clearly test edits. Your only edits to the article have been to add a section of "Not that notable ex-pupils" and an out of context quote. I think your principal has more sense than this.-gadfium 17:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedia,

There was a link in the Hans Reiser topic to a thread on my site at www.justiceforchandra.com. The thread was a copy of a thread on another site (linux50), also linked in the topic. I have removed the copy on my site and that link to my site no longer works.

If the link ever gets edited back in to the Hane Reiser topic (doubtful, the page was finally semi-protected) then the link to the original source is more than sufficient. The copy of the content should not have been made to my site by the poster and it will stay removed from my site.

thanks for all your work making Wikipedia trustworthy.

rd admin, www.justiceforchandra.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.171.93 (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't usually link to forums, which is why the link has been removed when one persistent anon has added it in the past. Since you no longer host the thread, we can hope the anon will no longer try to link to it once the article protection expires.-gadfium 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the official photo is a bit unrealistic but the current one is not much better either. When I carefully take a look at the recent video of Helen Clark giving interview (October 2007) I can't agree she looks like that photo that is put on the article now either. I think the first might even be edited but the second one looks a bit unflattering as an image of a world leader (We don't have a photo of George Bush in a raincoat in infobox but the official portrait). I will re-add the official portrait in the section about her position of PM. I guess that is fair. --Avala (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess the only compromise is to include both showing the official and more humane side of Helen Clark. Infobox showing her as a person and the one in PM section showing her as a politician. --Avala (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, While the maps for all the North Island localities using the overlaid SVG dots are cleverly done and save resources, they have one problem: When you click on the map to enlarge it, you get the bare template map, without the location of the town in question. I wonder if this can be addressed by someone suitably skilled so that we don't have to make a specific map for each article? dramatic (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a better way to do it. Template talk:Location map would be the place to ask.-gadfium 21:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Key.

Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an

encyclopedia. Thank you.-gadfium 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Education4earth"

Please let me know what authority you have to ask me to stop editing pages and adding some important

facts. John Key and Helen Clark are main contenderes in NZ coming elections, how come Helen Clarks's page has

the paragraraph Controversies and John Key hasn't? Please read the Controversies on Helen Clark's page

and let me know in what sense the commentary there doesn't breach Wikipedia's neutral point of view,

whereas my text was? I added the paragrah Controversies to John Keys page to put things in perspective.

Some facts that I added are already mentioned on his page already e.g his attitude to Iraq war and Serious

Fraud Inverstigation. I am in no way affiliated with any of the parties, my main concern is that both entries

(John Key's and Helen Clark's) are given unequal treatment and undermining Wikipedia's neutrality. Please be more specific in future with your accusations, the text that I added are facts that are verifiable and

you can find them in any NZ newspaper and not my personal analysis.

Regards education4earth

A good start would be for you to source your edits. Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you are approaching this from the viewpoint of making one political leader look good, and another look bad, then you have the wrong perspective.-gadfium 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Controversies" sections are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. I'd love to get rid of the one in the Helen Clark article - not by deleting the material, but by reorganising the article so the controversies are spread through the biographical bits. Alas, there is only so much time in the day, and I have higher priorities. So add some well sourced and non copyvio material which is critical of Key to his article, but put it in the appropriate places in the text, eg things he said when first elected go in the Helensville section, other things before he became leader in the "Spokesperson for finance" section, etc.-gadfium 08:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created Survival Analysis to redirect to Survival analysis this afternoon. But the new one isn't really needed and doesn't follow the capitalisation standard that I discovered. I've fixed the one and only page that linked to it, Statistics. Can the redundant one be deleted? Tayste (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant redirects do no harm, so I'll leave it there.-gadfium 17:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, B.net, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.net.

Your one edit was limited to adding the article to Category:New Zealand radio but since you're familiar with that category, your input at the deletion discussion would be helpful, especially if you can find a reliable source meeting the requirements of our Notability Guideline. I checked a while back myself and couldn't find anything. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 13:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the History section of Compounding which was listed as needing grammatical cleanup. Then I discovered I wasn't logged in, darn! Oh well, it made an interesting read anyway. Tayste (talk - contrib) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. You mentioned on the review for this article that you're able to look at Mane-Wheoki (1992). (Thx for checking the library!) Is there any way to get an electronic copy of it and pass it to me? I'd like to keep this one and I think that paper is needed to do it. Marskell (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any electronic version of this paper. I should be able to scan it at the library tomorrow (if not, I can photocopy it there and then scan it at home). I can then forward the scan (probably as a bitmap rather than OCR) to you, but only on condition that you do not make it publicly available on the web out of respect for the copyright of the original author/journal.-gadfium 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've sent you an e-mail. Marskell (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For going out of your way to track down a reference and help with an article in need, please accept this barnstar. Thank you! Marskell (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.-gadfium 07:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. This seems to have got a life of its own. I've never actually assessed any article - what happened was I copied the talk page tags of a recent similar article of mine & pasted it to a new article, overlooking that someone had already assessed it. Mea culpa. Cheers. GrahamBould (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it looks useful. I've just been using the 'undo' function, which is fine most of the time, just not if they've made multiple crap edits. --Helenalex (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Helenalex (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied to your message on my talk page, in short: yes! thanks :) Mathmo ^Talk 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again :) Mathmo ^Talk 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pouto Peninsula, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats. --Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, in helping me to find the "Did you know" on Frederick Madison Allen. Thanks to your guidance at Wikipedia: Village Pump, I managed to find the "did you know" entry on Allen - I saw quite a few other interested "Did you know" facts listed there, too! I see that you have had compliments for having had one of your contributions in the "Did you know" section(see previous entry). It is always good to find that our hard work in editing Wikipedia has been rewarded with our efforts resulting in articles which we have created or edited being featured in "Did you know"! Very best wishes, and thank you again for your help. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Te Kopuru, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am new to wikipedia the quotes i made are verifiable. Charles Mann's book "1491" and the talks I do on the lecture circuits have indicated a higher number of mortalities then you have on the site. The accepted percentage of deaths in 150 years ( from first contact is 90-95%. This is the total population in North and South America.

A little about myself- I have a Masters in EDU major American History at the secondary level. I am 3/4 Native American and have been gving lectures for over 30 years .These lectures are at schools, universities, teachers of History, The Department of Army Race Relations, Museums, as well as the National Audabon Society. I have kept a record and have an extensive portfolio of letters from these places of thanks for my lectures.

I have been in many news paper articles for my lectures, and living history regalia and camping. Also appeared on GPTV with James Billy the ex-chief of the Seminoles, Okefanokee Joe and other native peoples.

I thank you for your time I just would like to see the time period of the Temple Mound Culture covered more to include more recent archeaological evidance. I have an extensive libarary of books on many different sites whichhave been excivated.

Again thank you. Yahuli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahuli (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because the link you added to several articles was about a modern culture which is inspired by pre-Columbian ones, and that is not relevant to those earlier cultures. If there are sub-pages of that site which are more relevant, please link to them directly.-gadfium 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your Northland location map demo on Houhora would be a lot more convicing if the map wasn't captioned Te Kopuru (which isn't mentioned anywhere in the article) ;-) I have assumed that was a cutnpaste error and corrected it. dramatic (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium - I've uploaded a possible map at Image:NZ-Northland_plain_map2.png. It's not that dissimilar from the one you made, which was pretty good, i thought. I've put a line around the NZ map to separate it off and fiddled with the colours a little to make that map stand out more (the grey on blue wasn't very helpful). I've also removed the region lines from the smaller map - at that scale they just get in the way IMO. Hope my alterations are improvements enough! Grutness...wha? 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Gadfium,

I recently ran into the New Zealand Department of Child, Youth and Family Services page and noticed that half of the links in the references section link to hate forums, victim support forums, and discussion forums. I am not sure what wikipedia's policy is on these, but am unconvinced of their value, and have little doubt that those who put them there are a mixed bunch and some would enjoy an edit war. I don't know what is the most sensible way to prgress with this. I have seen your name editing many New Zealand pages, so thought you might be a good person to assess the situation.

Cheers Matt (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to my watchlist.-gadfium 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rating the article I started for Wikiproject New Zealand. But Cookie Bear (New Zealand) is a low-importance article, while Thingee is rated mid-importance? My goodness, what social amnesia exists amongst the young folk of today. Vegetationlife (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rating of articles isn't entirely consistent. The scale is given at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment#Importance scale but each editor has their own interpretations. I rate an article as "low importance" if I don't think any "normal" encyclopedia would cover it, even one which specialises in the subject. I would have rated Thingee similarly to Cookie Bear, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to change the rating (I would do if someone had rated it at high or top importance). However, anyone can change the rating of articles, so you can feel free to do so. If you're really keen, add a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment of how the guidelines should affect New Zealand cultural items, as I did a while ago for towns, and after a pause of a few days for people to reply, go through the talk pages of the articles in Category:New Zealand culture and apply suitable rating tags to them.-gadfium 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Yes having Rollback would be great. Also, how do we go about tagging an IP address for vandalism of an article? Someone keeps removing certain paragraphs from John Kirk (New Zealand politician) and The Republic of New Zealand Party. --Lholden (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted. The standard is to warn the IP on the first few occasions, using the templates in WP:UTM. {{uw-delete1}} would be the most appropriate here. If you have issued at least three warnings including one of the ones mentioning a block will result, then report the next offence to WP:AIV. However, in this case the vandal is on a dynamic IP address, so the two options are to hope they get bored, or semi-protect the article. If it continues for more than another day, drop me another line and I'll do the semi-protection, or request it at WP:RFPP. The material being removed from John Kirk should really be referenced though; I think finding a ref for the last paragraph is of much higher priority than protecting the page. I recall the incident, otherwise I'd remove the para myself.-gadfium 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another approach is to add the articles to WP:WNZV, which acts as my public watchlist (and maybe gets patrolled by other people too). For these articles, it wouldn't be suitable, but WP:MVP is the broader equivalent of this (though I hardly ever patrol that)-gadfium 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Yeah, I've discussed on my website whether there's a source / reference. If I get a chance I'll pop into the library on the weekend and search through the newspapers around June - July 1984 for a reference. --Lholden (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on the New Zealand talk page. Acalamari 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an opinion on a split of the Three Gorges Dam article that I did into Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam? (or make a vote on it.) See the merge discussion at Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 05:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit outside my area of expertise. The main article doesn't appear to be so long that it is vital to split it into subarticles, and you will probably get more readers of the material in the main article than in a subarticle. "Three Gorges Dam" was viewed 53,000 times so far in March, but "Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam" was viewed 850 times as at the time I looked at the stats.-gadfium 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does acknowledge that both New Zealand and Australia lay claim to the Pavlova, however, deleting unsourced claims is well within wikipedia policy and these changes should not be reverted, I refer to:

The claim that it was an Australian invention states that the pavlova is based on a cake baked by Bert Sachse at the Esplanade Hotel in Perth on 3 October 1935[citation needed]. Sachse's descendants believe he may have come up with the recipe earlier than that[citation needed], since Anna Pavlova visited Australia in 1926 and 1929 and died in 1931.

This statement has no sources, and is only a theory, and wikipedia policy:

"Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.... ...Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long.... It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced..."

Please take this into consideration, or instead of blindly reverting, find reliable information regarding the claim the Sachse's decendants have.

Thank you!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Metagraph (talk • contribs)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate if you put this at Talk:Pavlova (food)? Your edit is less likely to be reverted if you explain it where other editors are likely to look.-gadfium 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium,

I understand your concerns about my placement of the "Demographics of Oceania" navbox on Tokelau. I have been attempting to place this navbox on each of the articles to which it links to enable better navigation. As you pointed out, Demographics of Tokelau redirects to Tokelau#Demographics, therefore I thought that was the most appropriate place for it. Where do you think would be the best place for it? Do you think that adding it to the bottom of the article would be appropriate?

Neelix (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it should be on the Tokelau article at all. You could create a Demographics of Tokelau article with the existing contents op the Demographics section of Tokelau, and the few items from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tl.html#People which aren't already included.-gadfium 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for keeping an eye out for me, appreciated. :) Hope all is well! Glen 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind formatting this article and adding an infobox, etc? Thanks.-gadfium 05:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, no trouble. Always happy to help, but I will be out of touch for the next 5 weeks while touring France, then returning to Auckland in May after 37 years away. Cheers. GrahamBould (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]