User talk:Gadfium/archive37

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] Problem with someone from an IP

I seem to have picked up a stalker (after losing my secret admirer, User:Richard002...) An anon, User talk:147.126.95.165, has been going around reverting changes I have made to articles [1] [2] [3] [4]. Can you give them a block or something? Richard001 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. If the stalking continues after that, I suggest you raise it at WP:AN/I. If you think it may be the same person as Richard002, you could ask for a checkuser, but I think most likely they're separate people. -gadfium 07:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
At it again. I think a longer block is called for. Richard001 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Raise the matter at WP:AN/I to get more feedback.-gadfium 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air New Zealand Destinations

Hi, I noticed you removed the section of Trivia that I added. I agree that the podcast isn't the most reliable source, however I know that the number of airlines that go entirely around the world are low (i.e. with out partnering passengers to other airline partners). I don't know what the other is, but if you can recommend any good sites to research this, that would be great. cheers ~~sauj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauj (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this is not spam

please not remove irestorer (free backup program) link from disk cloning that is not ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.249.190 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I restored it to the disk cloning article after another editor removed it. You just added it a second time - it doesn't need to be listed twice. Your other edits to the article didn't appear to be an improvement.-gadfium 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Very Much.

[edit] List of New Zealand military people

Hi. I have prodded List of New Zealand military people on the basis that it is made redundant by Category:New Zealand military personnel. Leithp 12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not plan to contest this prod, but it should remain in place for the usual five days in case anyone else wishes to. The list was one of several split out from List of New Zealanders in the hope that someone might adopt it. If no one is interested in doing so, then there is no point in having a list when the category is much more complete.-gadfium 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No content in Category:Farscape characters

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Farscape characters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Farscape characters has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Farscape characters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DUDE

thats totally true about michael kim i dnt see why that had to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac the pirate (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quit it!

Listen, stop stalking me and deleting my edits. It would be slightly more acceptable if you at least just found a source and wikified it, but at the moment I can tell you are just aiming to annoy me and you've done that, so quit it now. Dude just quit it. Spykeesam (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am only deleting the edits which make highly questionable assertions without reliable sources. Such edits reduce the quality of the articles. I'm not going to go looking for sources, because I strongly suspect suitable sources don't exist, because what you post is, to put it politely, nonsense.-gadfium 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it politely, just quit stalking me. Spykeesam (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues for comment

I have split out Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China and Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam from the parent articles. I have have had at least a couple of editors claim it is POV especially based on WP:CFORK. Can you cast you experience eye over what I have done and comment on POVness? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 06:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with POVness in the first article, and have removed the tag. I don't see a problem with the phrasing of the second article, but I am not convinced it need exist as a stand-alone article rather than be remerged with Three Gorges Dam, where the content would be read by many more people, as I pointed out when you asked me last month.-gadfium 06:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Sorry, I thought I had caught all the links. Metsbot said there weren't any links and I foolishly believed it! Never believe a machine. I will double and triple check next time. Woody (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Entwisle

Hi Gadfium - I see you've been talking with Peter Entwisle - FWIW, though he has a few problems with the niceties of wiki-work (e.g., the four tildes business), he is an extremely useful person to have contributing, as a noted expert on Otago history, especially as it relates to architecture and art (he's a published author on the subject, as well as being a regular columnist for the Otago Daily Times). definitely worth "cultivating", as it were. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia has a way to go in terms of ease of use for editors.-gadfium 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: Sandra coney

Hi Gadfium, I presume that you read what I wrote at User Talk:Sandra coney (after asking about provcedure on WP:VPP) dramatic (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd read that although I hadn't read the VPP discussion until just now. The edits made to her article look fine; the edits made to the Cartwright Inquiry are changing the balance of the article, but I think it now more closely reflects public opinion; I think the defenders of Herb Green, such as Graemealexanderphillips, had their opinions overrepresented there before. Your warning on Coney's talk page was excellent. I think it is almost certainly her and not an imposter - imposters tend not to be subtle - and I think to block the account would be a mistake. We'll see if she keeps editing.-gadfium 18:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bactoid

It appears that the edit for which he was blocked was an isolated accident. Then again, I say this as someone who has blocked and unblocked him before due to his proclamations of innocence and having changed, but in this situation it actually does look accidental. I hesitate to wheel-war, especially in this case, but I do think an unblock would be the best course of action. --Golbez (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look at it. --Golbez (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trademe

Hi I noticed you reverted one of my edits on the Trademe article. You said my edit of the messageboards being referred to as "National HQ" was a rumour. This is not really the case and is more of an affectionate name in reference to the number of conservative posters. I would gladly cite this if only you could statically and permanently link to a thread there. Why didn't you just flag it for further citation and let it be discussed on the talk page? Bactoid (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't provide a source, and said in the edit that it was a joke. You also replaced the contents of one article with another, and had a dubious history including an indefinite block as a troll, lifted on condition that you "fly straight as an arrow". I think such edits breach that condition, and while I have lifted the block on your explanation that the replacement edit was a mistake, your query of the revert seems to indicate that you haven't grasped that this is a serious endeavour.-gadfium 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Affectionately would've been a better word but the fact you reverted my edit suggests you have something personal against me to the point where I am on your watch list. I believe that had it been anyone else you would've flagged it for citation and left it to the regular contributors to this article for debate. Bactoid (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe I ever interacted with you before yesterday, unless it was under some previous username that you used. The only "thing" I have against you is that you made two edits which clearly lowered the value of the articles, and you have a prior history involving being blocked as a troll. You appear not to be sorry for these edits although you claim one was a mistake. Please abide by the terms of your original unblocking. If you warrant another block from me, it will be indefinite. You have used up your quota of goodwill.
I have edited TradeMe in the past, and I have a watchlist of over 3000 items. It is not acceptable for you to suggest that I avoid editing this article. Please see WP:OWN before making suggestions like this. This is a formal warning about your behaviour, so I am copying to your talk page as well as mine.-gadfium 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reo Fortune

Would you help me clarify what is needed to avoid a speedy deletion for Reo Fortune, a bio of a notable New Zealander that I started recently? —Fred114 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article at present is prodded which is the simplest method of deletion to avoid. You are welcome to simply remove the prod tag, although improving the article at the same time is recommended. If an editor thinks notability is still not established, the article might then be nominated as a candidate for deletion, which gives editors a chance to discuss whether the article should be deleted, kept, or merged to another article.
The criteria for biographies is WP:BIO. A quick google search reveals multiple sources, so I do not think you will have trouble meeting the criteria. Being the discoverer of Fortunate numbers is probably enough, but you can explain more about his work as an anthropologist too. However, you need to expand the article and include several sources. Using online sources make it easier for others to check your facts, but aren't essential. I suggest you try to at least double the amount of text in the article and add a couple more references, preferably inline (after the sentence or paragraph they are supporting).-gadfium 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australia-New Zealand relations is ACOTF

Australia-New Zealand relations is the new Australian collaboration. You voted for the article, so please help to improve it in any way you can. --Scott Davis Talk 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palau

You may know a lot about the Cook Islands, but apparently not Palau, its history, economy and its relationship with the United States. The Survivor mention for Palau had been present without controversy since the first series, which means countless editors did not feel strange to have this section. If movie, music and other popular media mentions of Area Code XXX (substitute numbers for XXX) and a Europe-specific incident on Saipan are not controversial, mentioning Survivor in Palau definitely isn't. Palau is not the Australia Outback or China (where many Americans go) or Vanuatu (where very few Americans go). HkCaGu (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Templates: concatenation of strings" post on the Village pump

Hi, I noticed your thread on the Village pump, and I successfully tested a workaround. Use {{#tag:ref|content|name=foo}} instead of <ref name="foo">content</ref>, and you can bypass the bug. Nihiltres{t.l} 23:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, and you also have to use <includeonly> on the template. I did that just out of habit from working with the {{pp-meta}} family, but apparently here it makes a big difference. Nihiltres{t.l} 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)