User talk:Gadfium/archive21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 A block for clearing two warnings? I think NOT! 2 Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts: COPYVIO? I laugh at such an unwarranted accusation! 3 Image:BillEnglish.jpg 4 Current National Party caucus rankings 5 I am sure that what my edition is not spamming at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 Re: Freda du Faur 7 Locke redirect 8 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy 9 Gabites Porter Consultants & Traffic Design Group 10 infobox 11 Genocide Potential 12 Proposed revert to article Nelson Central School 13 St Patrick's College, Wellington 14 Gore - Nicknames of New Zealand cities 15 Muldoon "Rise and Fall" was published with an invalid ISBN 16 Re: History of Latin America Translation 17 Barry Manilow Peer Review 18 Reply 19 Reply 20 Please ban 21 Nice job cleaning up after Kevinccc 22 Updated Explained_Atom.svg 23 Barnstar 24 Niue, Comoros, Seychelles External Link deletion 25 Winter Gardens

[edit] A block for clearing two warnings? I think NOT!

My removal of two warnings, you say, was reason for my block? I laugh; those were there only because I simply edited the articles of those two people, and they refused to believe that anyone else (since they made the article) could make it better. Perhaps, you should block them, for "spuriously warning" me.EZisthebest 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I blocked you for the repeated copyvio and for putting spurious warnings on another user's talk page. I also noted that you had received previous warnings for your behaviour, although you had removed them from your talk page. I suggest you not laugh at warnings, but instead improve your conduct.-gadfium 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The TRUTH is that you have been blatantly ignoring the facts

placed before you. First, I was unjustly "warned" by James Bond for writing a sentence in his article, which HE PERSONALLY did not approve of, but made perfect sense. Secondly, I did not commit any copyright violations in my Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts article, as I have EXPLICIT PERMISSION to use the passage I used. Then you say I spuriously warned James Bond? I did not; he deleted MY writing for NO reason at all, so I warned him. If you define my warning as spurious, then HE "spuriously" warned me too. By the way, where does it say you cannot blank your talk page? EZisthebest 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts: COPYVIO? I laugh at such an unwarranted accusation!

I was given explicit authorization to use the passage. The website that your friend Bond talked about actually plagarized it from the official site; which I have permission from. Next time get your facts straight before accusing the innocent. Thanks. EZisthebest 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the onus is on you to prove that you have permission. We are only protecting the rights of the copyright holder.-gadfium 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean EZ, but the only warning I have ever given you (more of a good faith general note) was in regard to an edit you made on October 23, 2006 to the XXX: State of the Union article which I removed because It was unsourced. I then reverted your blanking of your own talk page because you removed warnings and comments of other users. I am not aware of any "Copyright violation" warnings coming from me.--James Bond 10:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BillEnglish.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BillEnglish.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Oden 11:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current National Party caucus rankings

Hi, GF. As you may have noted, I've altered details of not only Katherine Rich's cacus ranking, but also those of Don Brash, Bill English, Simon Power, Gerry Brownlee, Richard Worth and Judith Collins to reflect their current placements. It's shopkeeping. If we retained the prior list rankings, then we would confuse any offshore New Zealanders or others interested in current political developments in New Zealand. It's comparable to the US midterm election modifications that needed to be made to several Republican losing candidates due to the Democrat swing there early last month.

FYI, the current rankings are available through Scoop's current Politics menu.

User:Calibanu 13.39, December 4, 2006

[edit] I am sure that what my edition is not spamming at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a chemistry major student, I am confident that the page link I added is good for chemistry students, especially for basic chemisty learner. I have no economic interest with the website owner.Please don't reedit my edition again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chemistrypal (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re: Freda du Faur

When I discovered that pioneering female mountaineer Freda du Faur didn't have an entry of her own, I set out to rectify that oversight, resulting in the piece entitled Freda da Faur. Unfortunately, the original Mount Cook entry misspelt her name (which I rectified), but I've found myself unable to tweak the initial entry. Help!

User: Calibanu 12.44, 05 December, 2006

I don't see why you couldn't have used "Move this page"; only very new users are prevented from using it. Anyway, I've moved it to Freda du Faur. There are still several misspellings of it at Aoraki/Mount Cook, and the new article is sometimes capitalising the "du" when I suspect it should not. I'll leave those for you to clean up, if you don't mind.-gadfium 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locke redirect

Hi, Gadfium. Can you have a look here. What's the deal with surnames when one person is much more notable than others? <<-armon->> 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that -and yes, that's what I meant by "getting an admin". <<-armon->> 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy

As this could be interpreted as a campaign to "colour" the article, which seems to have occurred looking at at this, what do you think about semi-protecting the page? <<-armon->> 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We only semi-protect if a range of anon editors are vandalising a page. In this case, anons or signed-in editors are welcome to add information from Hager's book, so long as it is credited and referenced, and doesn't include copyright violations. You make a good point that Hager's book is less reliable than the Auditor-General's report, but the anon also makes a good point (in the article) that the AG's scope of enquiry was limited.

I think you would be better seeking a compromise position than reverting the anon's edits outright. For example, in my last edit to the article, I put in a {{fact}} tag, and the anon then quoted the relevant pages of Hager's book. You have reverted to a point where the fact tag is there again. At the very least, you should leave the reference, unless you have checked out the book and found those pages are not relevant to the assertions made.-gadfium 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So I took your advice, but now I'm wondering if "National foot soldiers are deleting what is now in the public record, for their own deceitful propaganda purposes." includes you  ;) <<-armon->> 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify; do you think I might be a National foot soldier, or do you think I'm the anon editing the article? I'm not either.

No no no -sorry. I was referring to the absurdity of the accusation made by the anon. It apparently referred to you and me as a Nat "foot-soldiers" (which I assure you I am not, either). <<-armon->>

We should be insulted. At the very least, we should be officers.-gadfium 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What I deleted was a paragraph about National's billboard campaigns, which I believe to be irrelevant to the article. How they funded those billboards is reasonable to discuss, but any discussion of the content of them belongs in the election article, not the funding controversy article.

Fair enough. Made sense to me. <<-armon->>

I see you've used stuff.co.nz urls as references. If you can use nzherald.co.nz articles instead, they'll last longer. Stuff articles get taken down after a few months, but Herald articles stay on the web forever (so far). Just don't use the internal Herald search engine, because articles with "nzherald.co.nz/search" in the url become non-free after about a week. Use google to search the herald site with "site:nzherald.co.nz". Radio New Zealand items time-out within a year too.-gadfium 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good tip -I'll fix them when I get a chance. <<-armon->> 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This cite doesn't seem to appear anywhere else. Do you think that's a problem? <<-armon->> 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That particular quote doesn't appear in the Herald. A google search for '"very, very prominent friends" "Helen Clark"' gives me the same quote in the Sydney Morning Herald and ABC in Australia. I don't know what their retention times for news stories are, but I just tried an abc.com.au link from April last year and it still worked. You can find old links by looking through April 2005 in Australia and New Zealand and similar pages (changed to the format May 2006 in Oceania this year). -gadfium 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW: here's a heads up <<-armon->> 11:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabites Porter Consultants & Traffic Design Group

Hello Gadfium. Some admin (I'll try to refrain from name-calling, but it is hard) called 'Danny' deleted the two above stubs, which are both NZ traffic planning consultancies (yep, my industry). He gave 'linkless' as the reason for the first one, and called the second article 'non-notable spam'. Note that while I do not know all that much about the first, the second has existed for 30 years, has millions of turnover per annum, 85 employes, and major built projects based on their designs all over NZ. Why would that be 'non-notable spam'.

Of course, thanks to the delete (which he did not even announce!), I cannot show you the articles themselves, nor (except under threat if another instant delete) recreate them. I already placed comments and requests for undeletion on 'Danny's talk page (again, just barely staying polite - but staying so, I guess). Do you have any idea how to approach this? MadMaxDog 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What really gets me about this the the absolute no warning given. Had both of them on my watchlist and was intending to eventually work more on them...

Danny is not just an admin. He works for the Wikimedia Foundation, and is responsible for WP:OFFICE. Under the auspices of the latter, Danny (usually using the account User:Dannyisme) will delete articles as a result of complaints received. Normally such an action is noted as being a WP:OFFICE action. Any admin who undoes such an action is immediately desysopped. This has been known to happen when Danny uses his normal account and fails to note that it is an OFFICE action. As a result, I am not willing to undelete the articles without Danny's explicit consent. If you want the text of the articles, I can email them to you (you'll have to enable an email address for Wikipedia first).

If there was anything in the articles which might have caused a complaint to be made to the Wikimedia Foundation, then I don't believe there is anything you can do. The legal safety of Wikipedia overrides all other considerations. However, I saw nothing which is likely to cause such a complaint in the articles.

I can give you some advice. For Gabites Porter Consultants, it was a single sentence stub, which failed to assert notability. See WP:CORP for guidelines on company notability. There are a great number of companies which have articles on Wikipedia which are never likely to meet WP:CORP standards, but Gabites Porter falls below the average of these. I don't think you have a case here. For Traffic Design Group, because the article was much more substantial, and because it is the largest company in its field in the country, you have some sort of case. The appropriate action is to list it at Deletion Review.

An alternative solution would be to create an article on Traffic and transport consultancies in New Zealand with at least a paragraph on each of the major firms, and then create a redirect from each firm name. Create the initial article in one edit, so it is not simply a recreation of the deleted articles. I have no idea whether this strategy would be ultimately successful, but it should at least be debated at WP:AFD rather than being speedy deleted.-gadfium 08:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So what is the chip on his (Danny's) shoulder? Why is he still being rude about it, dropping me a pithy line about Wikipedia not being a directory of companies etc and asking me to please give him notice of any other companies he can delete - when I offered to, once having the articles undeleted, to provide additional info establishing notability? MadMaxDog 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He's probably fed up with people complaining about his deleting of non-notable articles! I take a more generous interpretation of notability of companies than many others do. However, this discussion has in part prompted me to nominate for deletion an article on a minor software product that I have been defending up until now. See my recent contributions if you're curious.-gadfium 05:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW: What about things like Council reports establishing the participation of companies like Gabites or TDG in major NZ projects? Would that satify notability, even if the council reports, minutes etc... were not specifically about the company? MadMaxDog 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CORP for the rules, or ask at Deletion review whether there's anything you can do, or use my suggestion above to cover the industry rather than specific companies. I'm not an expert on the finer points of when something is deleted or kept.-gadfium 05:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the explanations, Gadfium. As an inclusionist, I tend to chafe under some of the restrictions placed on Wikipedia from (as I feel it sometimes) 'on high'. I'll likely recreate the TDG article, but only after some substantial research to establish notability. No wish to have it all wiped again. MadMaxDog 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infobox

Thank you for your past and recent prompt attention to my queries. I'll think about the infobox template for Ellis article. At the moment I feel a little dispirited about bothering, as if being made to jump through pointless hoops. RichardJ Christie 07:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. Would you like me to create the userbox? I can probably do so fairly quickly, because I'm somewhat familiar with the syntax.-gadfium 08:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see Brian has already done so.-gadfium 08:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It might need fulling out, I foresee that would slight be hard through. Also technically under the fairuse policy FU images are not meant to be in infoboxs Brian | (Talk) 08:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide Potential

"No one reputable has suggested it" should read "no one who understands the potential for genocide has removed it". Gadfium I have studied international relations at a public policy post graudate level at university. Your assertion around removing the genocide considerations by the UN and international community shows your lack of depth in understanding around this issue. I ask you to return what you have removed and remove the blood on your hands should genocide develop in Fiji. Doing nothing is just as complicit in the act as taking part. Your herd mentality of looking for someone else to say it before you think it show lack of causal thinking on your part. Explaining why the international community has not used popular media to make light of the fact has to do with the need for the international community to keep cards close to the chest on this matter. The obvious reason, to me any way, is that genocide is the only reason that the UN can become involved. Nations like New Zealand and Australia can take part, with other nations, to correct the situation if genocide looks like taking place only under a UN mandate. Also other nations in the world are on the UN watch list for genocide, like Iran, and suprise disclosure is an important part of the remedy. Again the international community keeps these cards close to the chest for suprise initiation if and when the need may arise to intervene. Gadfium you may not have the courage to change your mistake but that is something that the UN will not suffer with under a South Korean Secretary General. South Korean's are noted for taking failure, in senior management, personally. Unlike your reasons which seem to be herd thinking and ignorantly hiding as opposed to cognitive rational thinking conclusions. Gadfium the genocide potential alert is in your hands and it is my hope that these comments enlighten you and my stern words prompt you to do the right actions under your control. RoddyYoung 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My reason for rebuilding the discussion pages so that the links to verifiable references can be found is that deleters have no such standards applied to the level of deletes that they make. The onus of proof is firmly on those being deleted in the slim hope that someone catches what has been deleted before it goes. gadfium you are now deleting from the discussion page and asking for people to redirect to a central page. Stop this as each page requires its own discussion. However wikipedia still grows and is a good information location for an overview of the topic, so power to the people who want verifiable facts. RoddyYoung 00:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your general rationale about deletionsW. Frank 10:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revert to article Nelson Central School

May I compliment you on your Portal: New Zealand and your help with the above article.

However, on 14 December 2006 I propose reverting, unless there is convincing argument to the contrary, your deletions.

The rationale for the revert is outlined on Talk:Nelson Central School so I would appreciate you discussing the proposed revert, if necessary, on the articles discussion page RATHER THAN HERE.
Thanks for your anticipated help and co-operation in this matter.W. Frank 10:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Patrick's College, Wellington

Thanks for your assistance yesterday even though at the time I was rather frustrated - I have substantially rewritten and/or reworded the material and added some other info - actually not that easy a task when the original was also "in my own words". Also attempted to reduced the "hard sell of the material". I wanted to highlight David Kennedy but of course a common name and no current Wiki article except regarding some Camelot Kennedy in the USA of no huge significance but the highlighting would point to him. I guess that means I should make a David Kennedy of my own. Forgot to sign in before the edits so now attributed under the hex code instead of my moniker. As well, I believe that the article should be renamed St Patrick's College, Wellington rather than the current St Patrick's College, Kilbirnie but not sure I know how to do that. Would appreciate your assistance in that. Kiddo54 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gore - Nicknames of New Zealand cities

Can you tell me why you gave me a final warning and deleted my addition to the Gore article? You say it was linked to a vandalised Wiki article. Firstly, why should I be punished for a vandalism to another article I did not write? Guilty by association is not a fair and just rule, but of course, that is for you to decide right? Secondly, and most importantly. Why is the NZ cities nicknames article vandalised? It has entries under Auckland which refer to it as "Dorkland" and "The Queen City" that you did not remove. These are clearly derogatory! How is it vandalism to refer to Gore as the Gay Capital of New Zealand while allowing derogatory nicknames for Auckland? Including one which is about homosexuality. Your arbitrariness is staggering! Gore is known widely and informally as the Gay Capital of New Zealand, that is a fact. If you are to be the ruler of what nickname is or is not vandalism could you atleast have some consistency. Elliott2006 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A google search for "Gay capital of New Zealand" shows no links to Gore other than the Wikipedia article. The Queen City is clearly a fairly well known name for Auckland, again using Google. Dorkland is fairly marginal; there are a large number of Google hits for it, but it is a derogatory term. If someone removed it, I would not reinstate it.

Your behaviour here has been appalling. You have been given several chances already. So far, you have not been punished at all. However, if you continue as you have started, your editing privilege will be removed.-gadfium 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, do you have no life apart from treating grown adults like children? If the future of free speech is in the hands of people like you then I am very much saddened. And for the record, Google is not Wikipedia, I think you're confusing the two sites. If you are only going to place knowledge as acceptable because it stems from a Google article then you are not only lazy but a narrow minded technocrat. But you go right ahead and block this account, then I will make another, and another, and another, and another until you get a life and stop using your self-righteous crusade to inflate your ego by wielding what little power you have like a spoilt little child. Elliott2006 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeepers, Gadfium, from what I read HERE exclusively, you might almost think Elliott isn't too bad. Then you look at a few edits of his and... Yeah, right. Grown adult. MadMaxDog 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muldoon "Rise and Fall" was published with an invalid ISBN

Hello Gadfium! Recently you wrote to Rich Farmbrough about Smackbot's critique of an ISBN used in Robert Muldoon for his book, "The rise and fall of a young Turk". The ISBN shown there is 0589008731, and most libraries that hold this book also present that ISBN. However it's easy to confirm from isbn.org/converterpub.asp that the ISBN is *invalid* (the check digit does not match). For more evidence that the ISBN is wrong, look at the entry in the Library of Congress (catalog.loc.gov). They include this ISBN but they mark it as 'Cancelled ISBN'! This seems to be their special code for invalid ISBNs.

When this much research comes back with the same invalid ISBN time after time, it's logical to assume that the book was published with an invalid number. So there is no point in digging further in hope that a correct ISBN will emerge. If you are agreeable, I will replace the bad ISBN with an OCLC number, which will allow readers of the page to look up the book in major libraries just by clicking on the reference [1]. Let me know what you think. EdJohnston 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried clicking on that link, and entered New Zealand as the country. I was given a list of the "closest areas that have libraries holding the specified item:

Australia

Singapore

California

South Africa

British Columbia, Canada

Wisconsin

Ohio

Barbados

District of Columbia

Pennsylvania"

None of these are very close to New Zealand. The closest, Australia, is about 1200 km away. If I click on this, it does show me the book at the University of Queensland, but that's not much use to a New Zealand researcher who is the most likely one to want this book.

I think we should leave the ISBN and add the OCLC as well.

How does it happen that a book has an invalid ISBN anyway? This is not some vanity-published book, this is the autobiography of a man who became Prime Minister a few years later, published by one of New Zealand's major publishers, A H Reid.-gadfium 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes happen, for all the usual reasons. Apparently there are French publishers that recycle their ISBNs.... However if we think the number is correct apart from the checksum, we have the option of switching to the 13 digit ISBN, which should both be valid and find the book. Rich Farmbrough, 09:41 15 December 2006 (GMT).

The value of OCLC is that it 'certifies' that your book was correctly described. E.g. the author's name is right, the title, the publisher, date of publication, etc. This is some of what the ISBN does, but the ISBN may be slightly more useful for actually ordering the book. Whether a library near you participates in OCLC may not be as significant. I'm arguing that faulty ISBNs should simply be removed from Wikipedia as a data quality issue, but not everyone agrees with me. There could perhaps be a discussion over at WT:MOS on what the policy should be for bad ISBNs.

I find it annoying that some major libraries persist in carrying invalid ISBNs in their files. They seem to have not fully entered the computer age. The invalidity is easily checked by anyone (major library or not) using isbn.org/converterpub.asp. This certainly ought to reduce the reputation for accuracy enjoyed by that library. US Library of Congress may be the furthest ahead on this issue that I have checked, but they are not free of error. See the helpful summary I added to the main ISBN article.

Meanwhile, I have added "Rise and Fall" to the list of books published with invalid ISBNs over at Category_talk:Articles_with_invalid_ISBNs and I will go ahead and update the Muldoon article by adding an OCLC number as you agreed. EdJohnston 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: History of Latin America Translation

Please see discussion page, Talk:History of Latin America#Translation progress. I moved some content and wanted to draw your attention to it, as you made a previous comment on the talk page. I plan to work on translating the article if no-one else claims it in a few days. Madeinsane 00:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to see that someone is working on it.-gadfium 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Manilow Peer Review

Thanks for setting up the rest of the peer review thing for the Barry Manilow profile that I have been steadily improving since early November. I did a couple steps, but didn't know how to start a page for the peer review as an anonymous user without having an account here. Thanks again for your help, I appreciate it. 67.98.154.56 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Reply

Thanks for the help. So would the correct format be "Indian New Zealanders" ? Bakaman 19:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think either "Indians in New Zealand" or "Indian New Zealanders" would fine.-gadfium 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I created it at Category:Indian New Zealanders. If you know of any other notable Indians there, please do help in expanding the cat.Bakaman 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I am not sure if you got the reply to a question you made on my talk page. The question was a while ago now but just wanted to make sure you got it.

Your question was regarding the year levels in New Zealand, yes, New Zealand schools can cater for students above year 13. The year 14-15's are adults who wish to continue with their education for whatever reason. So if you have removed that from any high school articles regarding New Zealand schools, you should put that back in, provided you have a souce which can back it up as other Wikipedians might not believe you. Nzgabriel 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did see your reply. I haven't quite decided what to do about it, since I consider calling adult students year 14 and year 15 very confusing. I also hadn't realised that some secondary schools didn't accept adult students, or perhaps they do, but don't call them separate years.

For the time being, I will not change this information on any school article, or prevent anyone from changing figures to agree with the MOE website.

Perhaps the most appropriate solution is to add a footnote to all relevant school articles explaining what years 14-15 mean.-gadfium 00:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

An easier solution might be to instead create an entry briefly explaining what year 14 and year 15 is and inserting internal wikilinks into each story. Nzgabriel 03:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please ban

Please ban this user user:Jesus would of vandalized Wikipedia. his/her name clearly states that he/she will vandilise wikipedia. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 01:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely as an inappropriate username.-gadfium 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 02:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job cleaning up after Kevinccc

How did you do that so fast? I was still contemplating his list of "contributions" when I discovered they were gone. --CliffC 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin rollback.-gadfium 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated Explained_Atom.svg

Thank you for notifying me. Here's the updated version in Commons already: [2]. And how could I make such bad spelling mistakes :O. wykis 07:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks for that Gadfium especially as this lone wolf could be much more active in the community aspect of Wikipedia. Really appreciate it! MadMaxDog 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Unconnected aside: I am just starting to read 'Consider Phlebas'. As good as it appears to be? MadMaxDog 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You certainly deserve it for all the work you've done. I think the giving of Barnstars has gone a little bit out of fashion these days, but they are a very good way of telling an editor they're doing a good job.

If you get more involved with the community, and demonstrate the need for admin tools, you'll be a good candidate for adminship in a few months.

I'd say yes, Consider Phlebas is very good, although obviously it depends on one's tastes. As with most Banks' novels, there is a very gross section.-gadfium 00:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'll see about getting somewhat more involved with the community (that is why I previously inquired about meeting some of you in person, that would be good to have another meet at some point). What would you suggest (where to get more involved regarding online presence)?

However, for the near future, I am not too keen on adminship (though I am curious what you refer to with 'admin tools'?) - Adminship would mean having to enforce some rules I still chafe under myself at times. Even if I have already seen the light regarding the sense of some of them ;-) I will of course be watchlisting a large number various articles as usual (BTW, how many pages do you watchlist?)

As for gross scenes, oh well, the sections in Player of Games weren't too bad, they had their place. I am also currently working (currently in my own subpages at User:MadMaxDog/Technology of the Culture) on another Culture article. Feel free to suggest or add, though I won't move it into normal Wikispace for some time - will be working on it as I read through the book). MadMaxDog 12:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The main admin tools are admin rollback (more efficient than any of the toolkits, and work with any browser/operating system, but the net result is the same), deletion of pages (also necessary for some page moves) and ability to view/restore deleted pages, ability to protect/semiprotect/unprotect pages, and ability to block badly behaved users or IPs. Everything you need to know about adminship is contained within Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and its linked pages. Many admins specialise in a particular area; some are vandal fighters and regularly patrol Special:Recentchanges, Special:Newpages, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or one of the anti-vandal IRC channels. Some tackle image copyright problems, some take care of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or close Articles for deletion. Probably the majority of admins go through a period of intense activity after being promoted, and then settle down to a more normal editing existence, only using the admin tools occasionally. In my case, I occasionally do anti-vandal patrols, but mainly I just keep an eye on my watchlist of over 1700 pages, plus several "public watchlists" such as Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Vandalism patrol and Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Schools_in_New_Zealand. In combination, these allow me to detect a substantial proportion of vandalism affecting New Zealand articles. When I find an instance of vandalism, I also check other recent edits by the same user or IP, and sometimes I might find a vandalised article in this way which other IPs have also played with, and I recurse into checking their edits.

No admin has to enforce any rules, although admins are generally held to a high standard in terms of obeying them themselves. For example, I understand the rationale behind the 3 revert rule, and have never broken the rule myself that I am aware of, and I have occasionally warned people about the rule, but I have not yet blocked anyone for exceeding it because for the most part blocks are not the best way of cooling down an edit war (I'm not entirely sure what the best way is...)

Admins tend to find themselves unpopular with those who break the rules or who see Wikipedia as a toy for their amusement, and so vandalism of admin pages, provocations, confrontations, and even occasional death threats or threats of violence may occur. I know of admins who have had their real names revealed and complaints made to their employers about their legitimate online activities. Most people do not carefully keep their online identity separate from their real life one, so finding a Wikipedian's real name is often not difficult.

I suggest you call a meetup of Wikipedians yourself. Advertise on the Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board, and ask people to vote on a choice of two dates, perhaps the Sunday of Auckland Anniversary weekend (which might suit people who are willing to travel to the meetup, but be bad for normal Aucklanders who might have plans to go away that weekend), and some other weekend. Nominate a venue, such as a quiet and family-friendly pub or cafe, or a park somewhere with an alternative venue if the weather isn't good. After say a week of getting feedback on the date, confirm the final details, create a page at Wikipedia:Meetup and spam the talk pages of Wikipedians you believe to be living in or near Auckland and who have recently been active. There isn't any need to create a detailed agenda; it can simply be a social event.-gadfium 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. I will probably do it (arrange a meetup) for sometime in the middle of the next year (unless somebody comes along and arranges it earlier), as the next few months will otherwise be a bit hectic in private life. MadMaxDog 00:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#NZ_Meetup_No._2.3F. Feb 10 or 11 is the proposed date.-gadfium 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Niue, Comoros, Seychelles External Link deletion

Hello, I added a link to the creative commons travel information at Unearth Travel as the licences are incompatible so do not allow for the adding of the information itself. The travel wiki has no adverts and information is being provided for a user. The fact that Wikitravel links have been left suggests that an unreasonable bias is involved with the deletions, which are not spam for the reasons outlined above. As I am sure you know wikitravel was acquired by Internet Brands Inc in April of this year and is not part of the wikimedia foundation and has a creative commons license too. I am thus unsure of the grounds for deletion. Please advise. Thank you for your time. PSBennett

See Links to be avoided, point 1, and Conflicts of interest.-gadfium 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So it seems I should pose the Unearth Travel vs Wikitravel on a talk page? PSBennett

No, you should not add links to your own web site. If other people consider it worth linking to, they will add the links. You might like to look at DMOZ, which is a web directory.-gadfium 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Further clarification has been made on the Spam talk page, I think I am now clear! Thanks for your time. PSBennett

[edit] Winter Gardens

Great picture. Lot better than mine. MadMaxDog 09:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There was a bit of post-processsing, and I had to straighten the image. I took it about ten days ago, but didn't get around to uploading it until last night. If I'd seen your photo before I did the post-processing, I probably wouldn't have bothered with mine.

Lucky us. As I said, yours is better. At some point I may take another photo of the inner gardens, and then ditch mine to make room for it... Always tricky, deleting pics, but when it is mine in the first place ;-) MadMaxDog 08:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

An edit to Hillsborough, Auckland caught my eye on 22 December, and as a result I discovered Monte Cecilia Park, which I would never have known about otherwise. It's nice when routine patrolling gives you a bonus like that.-gadfium 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I love the fact that Wikipedia actually gives me an added incentive to go out and learn about my new hometown. I'm really looking forward to getting a new digital camera soon as well. MadMaxDog 08:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)