User talk:Gadfium/archive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived talk pages
2004 Mar-Dec
2005 Jan-Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul-Aug Sep Oct-Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May current

Contents

[edit] It's not..?

The article was an original essay and how-to. If I was wrong in deleting it, by all means feel free to restore it. - Lucky 6.9 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. I will be taking your advice and doing the best I can do avoid burnout. Thanks again. -- Merope Talk 13:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auckland attractions and landmarks

Gadfium, I have to say that I dislike the removal of said section. I am sorely tempted to revert your edits, but I don't impute any bad faith obviously, and I don't want to start any edit wars either. So can you first state why you ditched that whole section - and why you did not discuss it with others on the discussion page first?

Correction, I see you put it on the talk page. But at the same time that you did it, apparently.

Seeing that the section was quite well written (much more than a list) I find that many a tourist - or simply someone not of Auckland - could have made good use out of it being all gathered together. MadMaxDog 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the list pending discussion. However, I feel such a section is more appropriate to a travel site than to an encyclopedia.- gadfium 05:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Not fully disagreeing. But I see Wikipedia as eventually being as useful as a good travel site would too! MadMaxDog 05:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palau's Capital Change

Got your message on my Talk page regarding Palau's capital change. The flag over the capital building in Koror was lowered on 1 October to coincide with their Independence Day. But they did not authorize the move-in to the Melekeok facilities until 7 October, which coincided with a full moon. Not sure why that was important, but that's what the various news articles say, including this news blurb from Palau's VP: [1]. Here is the text:

President’s Cabinet Travels to Melekeok
September 22, 2006
President Remengesau conducted his cabinet meeting last Tuesday in his new office in the new Capitol building. According to Presidential Chief of Staff Billy Kuartei, the entire cabinet traveled to Melekeok to see their new offices. Kuartei said that all the furniture is in place in each office, and after the October 1st celebrations, employees can start moving their things in. The official move-in date is October 7 (full moon), and work will begin on Monday, October 9. Kuartei added that all is set for the October 1st celebrations, which will include a 45-member Harley Davidson Club bike ride from Koror to the new Capitol.

Hope that helps! --Mike Beidler 05:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strait of Magellan

Could you explain the reason for put POV in the edit summary field? Jespinos 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit was made by someone who was removing Argentina or Peru from a number of articles, obviously with the intention of promoting Chile. See [2]- gadfium 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of your reversions. I disagree with your opinion on Porvenir, you have to determine the relative importance of the towns. Puerto Williams do not form part of the Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, this is the true motive for the reversion. On another point, I suppose there are no sovereignty doubts over the Strait of Magellan. Jespinos 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to restore selected edits, go ahead. You are most likely in a better position than I am to determine what is correct.- gadfium 23:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

Hi Gadfium, I wonder whether you could Move Metanephrops challengeri to "New Zealand lobster". I can't. Thanks GrahamBould 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It was moved to the scientific name because there is more than one common name for it. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles_and_common_names, common names should be used when they are reasonably unique, but I'm not sure that this applies in this case. I suggest you propose the name change on the talk page, and then post a brief message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to bring attention to your proposal.- gadfium 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but I won't pursue this. Cheers GrahamBould 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply?

Thanks for that, I will read those pages. No I'm not Antonia Prebble. But if I am doing something wrong at the moment, can you please tell me so I can get it right. Antonia1234 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulk change

Gadfium, are you able to do a bulk change to a Category name on article pages (there are between 40 & 50 pages)? Is it worth it for this number, as I could do them manually? GrahamBould 13:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually that sort of thing is handled by a bot. See WP:CFR.- gadfium 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Have added the Category name change to the WP:CFR. Wonder how long it takes. GrahamBould 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My page

It appears you have removed completely my page on Maori child killings, saying "rm redlink, not a particularly likely topic for an article." I disagree, considering there are articles on child murders, and New Zealand crime. This is a more specific summation of a subset of those killings.

I would like to know where the page has gone ?

I object to your actions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Emordnilap (talk • contribs)

I didn't delete your page. I removed a link to it after it was deleted. I note that three editors who viewed your page thought it was a bad idea for an encyclopedia article, and on viewing it now, I agree. One of those editors said "Lousy name for an encyclopedia entry. Destroy this craptacular page.", the second suggested deletion as "Incitement to racial hatred", and the third deleted it as "No context". The article was emotive - not a good thing for an encyclopedia article. It almost immediately veered off topic onto crime committed by Maori, and it was confused about whether it was a biography of the victims or a list of them. I cannot see there will ever be a place for such articles on Wikipedia.- gadfium 17:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maori Queen Link

I have once again added in the Remembering Link to this memorial because it is totally relevant and certainly not 'mere promotion.' The online memorial established here is true testimony to the regard her people and the wider community held this person in and is the ONLY NZ national record of its kind. It contains personal comments of a significant number of people and has historical value. I consider it far more relevant than any general news item about the event which also serves to 'promote' the publication concerned. This memorial was established free of charge and developed with a conisderable abmout of volunteer effort - unlike any general 'news' item which has been placed in a paid publication. Could you please reinspect this link as the servers were down for an extended period yesterday for upgrading. --Remembering 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at your site, and it is clearly a commercial one. You charge people a fee to put up a memorial page for their loved ones. I wish you every success, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to publicise it.- gadfium 17:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again I must take issue with the removal of the external link to remembering.co.nz on the Dame Te Ata memorial. The fact is that Television New Zealand, the New Zealand Herald Radio New Zealand, stuff etc are all commercial organisations. Do these groups pay you to keep their links on the page? I can only assume this because two of them no longer work and another two are no longer live - that's out of 12 links. Television New Zealand also has a very limited number of personal tributes on its page just as Remembering does. Would a link to Remembering be better placed in the References section. Just how do you define a commercial site? This is not a mere attempt to score publicity! We have no need for that. Remembering receives scores (sometimes hundreds) of visitors on a daily basis. Many edcuational organisations use us regularly and this is a PERMANENT memorial quite unilike the commercial news links which Wikipedia is littered with and which don't last. I respectfully request that this request be reconsidered and a link at least be added to the References section.--Remembering 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The New Zealand Herald etc are not placing links themselves. Other editors place links to their websites because the information they contain is useful and in many cases act as references. You are placing links to your own website, and this is directly against Wikipedia guidelines in Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. You may have noticed that I am not the only editor to have removed your links.- gadfium 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a poor answer and one based more on prejudice than any worthwhile consideration or discussion of whether the link is really relevant. Surely a link that clicks through to a story that is no longer present is totally irrelevant but you have continued to publicise the media organisations concerned! I am a newbie here but I am staggered to learn that I am unable to place a link to add to the resources on an item purely because I am one of the site's co-owners. Irrelevant links would surely be removed anyway. Are you therefore saying only major media are allowed into your Oceania section? When I look at our counters I see we have been given less than three minutes of consideration and none of you have even bothered to view this memorial's Legacy page which contains the official press releases of 21 major organisations. We are a journal of record and we formally archive relevant electronic material for future reference. I find it staggering that the NZ Herald considers us a relevant link, Christchurch Libray, Councils and Govt departments also link us were appropriate but Wikipedia won't. --Remembering 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you look at Sacred Heart College, Auckland

I have no knowledge about Sacred Heart College, Auckland but some of the recent edits appear to be pretty serious, by an IP that by looking at other changes appears to be a vandal. Some of his edits may not be noticed unless someone with some background on the subject takes a look... like you =P Good luck! --Skywolf 21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The IP is quite likely used by a number of people, so it isn't safe to assume that because some edits are vandalism others must be too. Their edits to the school article boil down to adding a probably fake house name, which I removed, removing an existing house name, which someone else put back, and adding house colours, which I have no idea of the accuracy of but the anon who restored the deleted house didn't change. They also changed the role from 1300+ to 1000+, which may or may not be accurate but is not major vandalism. The change in principal name was made by the later anon who looks to have made reliable edits.
Earlier vandalism to the SHC article by this IP was juvenile grafiti probably not from the same person.- gadfium 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any particular knowledge of this school - I live in the same city, but attended secondary school a very long time ago in a different city. I watch changes to all school articles in New Zealand at least once a day, as they are very prone to vandalism.- gadfium 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercialism or Prejudice?

The Wikipedia article on Arthur Lydiard contains a link to NZEdge.com this is unquestionably a commercial site with its own shopping cart. Why then should a link to the Maori Queen be rejected on the basis that it is a commercial site or do the white fellas just get special treatment in Wikipedia?

I fail to see how removing spam links can be construed as racism.- gadfium 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the first request we have ever made for a link to Remembering. If you examine our site carefully you will understand why we never need to use outside links to bring visitors to this site. It is our policy to establish certain memorials free of charge. Dame Te Ata's memorial was one of these but I'm sure it's still spam in your book anyway. Herbert Spencer once wrote something that defines your dismissal of Dame Te Ata's memorial. He called it "contempt prior to investigation." --Remembering 09:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There have now been at least five Wikipedia editors who have reviewed your requests to add your links, and all have agreed that it isn't a good idea. At this point, you should accept the consensus.- gadfium 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting Request

Hi Gadfium. I posted a similar request on Dame Te Ata's dicussion list earlier but I guess you must have missed it. I realise we are banging our heads against eachother over the Maori Queen link. Can we seek a meeting with you at Auckland University. Myself and a deputation of others would be happy to meet with you in person because we feel there are deeper issues at stake here and we would like to clear them up. Would you like to meet with us?--Remembering 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that would help Wikipedia. Please read the instructions at the top of this page before posting here again.- gadfium 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Trolling" by User:Mostlyharmless

If you're going to clean up my "uncivil" remarks. I would point you here for the latest example of his personal attacks in a further attempt to get others to support his "cause". Despite being warned, he is continuing in this behaviour and if that's not the definition of "trolling", then it's wiki-stalking. I request that you do something about it. Armon 08:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How you can interpret that a phrase like "User:Armon with little regard for the facts" and his accusations that I'm harming articles somehow isn't a personal attack given his "fuck Armon, fuck all truth hating bastards!" tantrum, is utterly beyond me. Your reticence to actually do anything about him and the implication that my "Still trolling, huh" comment is somehow equivalent to his harassment is frankly, insulting. Armon 10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgina Beyer

The user has changed the wording again from your original compromise, which I was happy with. I have many reservations about this user... they claim to have worked with Beyer in the past, and so forth, which is creating their bias. I'm fairly new to wikipedia - what is done in situations such as this? 130.195.86.37 02:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the current version of the explanation about the maiden speech. The purpose of this sentence is to explain the joke for non-New Zealanders who might not otherwise understand it. There is no advantage to offending anyone in the process. I'm not sure that I understand the subtleties of the difference between my version and the current one, but I can't see that it's important. It might be important on the New Zealand English page, but not on Georgina Beyer.
I think Kiwimw is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I think you are too. I suggest you drop this and move on to other articles. There's no shortage of things to do around here.- gadfium 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia meetings?

Hello Gadfium! Some time ago, I found a page (or maybe a section of a user-page, not sure anymore) about a meeting of Wikipedians in Auckland that had happened sometime recently (well, within 1-2 years ;-). Can't find it anymore. So are there any future meetings currently planned? Cheers MadMaxDog 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is at Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland, and it happened on June 25 this year, just before you started editing Wikipedia. I don't know of any plans for another one, but there's nothing to stop you proposing another one. I suggest you give a suggested place and a time/date a few weeks away and use the NZ notice board to get initial consensus that that's suitable. Then you'll need to drop a message about it on the talk pages of currently active Auckland Wikipedians. You should talk to User:Brian New Zealand too, as the last meetup was his idea (although he couldn't attend in the end).- gadfium 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Meetup#Procedure.- gadfium 01:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audio visual material

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#Audio_Visual_links I just wanted to ask about the rm of this material. If people are interested around the world this is the only way they are going to get the content. Please explain why you rm again.RoddyYoung 10:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Treaty_of_Waitangi#Treaty_of_Waitangi_Audio_Visual_1.2C2.2C3.2C4.2C5.2C6.2C7_of_7.- gadfium 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exams

Good luck for your exams! I hope they go well. Ziggurat 19:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The first one (genetics) did. I'm not too worried about the next one (biochemistry). The last one is going to be a nightmare (physical and material chemistry). I'm fine with the quantum chemistry and other parts of the paper, but I just don't seem to be able to understand electrochemistry.- gadfium 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NZ Army & wikipedia

Hi Gadfium, I got this message on my talkpage this morning

“ Hi There, I am the NZ Army Internet Web Manager and came across the NZ Army on Wikipedia today. I am curious (as I don't know much about Wikipedia yet) as to where all the content comes from? I see some pages are linked to the NZ Army Website which is cool but am wondering where the rest comes from? I would be grateful if you could let me know or email me at army ArmyWebmaster@nzdf.mil.nz ”

how should this be answered? Should an e-mail be sent explaining about wikipedia? Brian | (Talk) 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you don't mind using your own email address to do so. Pointing to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:FAQ would be a good start.
Unfortunately the New Zealand Army is entirely unreferenced, but you could include a link to the history page to point out that many people have edited the article. Make it very clear that you don't own the article, but offer to fix any inaccuracies in it that they point out to you. That's probably better than suggesting at this early point that they correct the article themselves.
If you strike up a longer correspondence, then ask if they can supply photos under a creative commons licence. You probably know better than I do what photos would be useful, but a picture of the current uniform (and maybe some historical ones) would be good, also perhaps a photo of whoever is in overall command of the Army (I couldn't see a name in the article).- gadfium 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)