I used the reconstruction by Mauricio Anton in Alan Turner's National Geographic Prehistoric Mammals, [1].--Mr Fink 03:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on updating the image, possibly make it look more arboreal... Do you have any recommendations or suggestions?--Mr Fink 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For my money the best things to base it on would be either [2] which is a model built by people with access to a reconstructed skeleton, or [3] which I believe is based on a more recently discovered full intact skeleton. I think that the biggest flaw in the current image is the awkward visual foreshortening due to the chosen pose. The more drama the better, to illustrate a story, but to illustrate the features of an animal the dramatic parts should be chosen to expose particular features. Karora 09:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a bigger version of the second link?--Mr Fink 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the above! You may or may not be aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Castles. Its a bit quiet there at the moment, but we're aiming to improve all of the Scottish Castle articles, and any help would be welcome. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck 09:54, 25 September 2007 (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.
Hello Karora. I was wondering if you could upload the following pic from your online gallery to the Wikipedia Commons: [4]. This is a photo of the Kānuka tree - (despite your caption there, it is Kānuka, not Mānuka - mānuka is basically a shrub, while kānuka is a tree). I have even filled out the upload form for you:
{{Information
|Description=Kanuka (Māori lanuage: Kānuka) or White Tea Tree, ''[[Kunzea ericoides]]'', endemic to New Zealand, at Wellington Botanic Gardens, Wellington, New Zealand.
|Source=self-made
|Date=April 21, 2007
|Author=[[User:Karora|Karora]]
}}
==Licensing==
{{PD-self}}
[[Category:Uncategorised by Andrew McMillan]]
[[Category:Plants of New Zealand]]
The reason I ask is that the pics on commons [5] and on the species page on this Wikipedia (Kunzea ericoides) are of an Australian species - which as the article points out, are not the same species. Mucho appreciated if its ok by you to do this... Cheers Kahuroa (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps man, great... And while you're out there hunting for a pic of a Tawa tree, you never know, might find a decent one of a Rimu (tree) as well. Kahuroa (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn! I just did a tour around the entire South Island and I saw a fabulous Rimu but didn't stop because I thought there must already be a good one on Wikipedia. I'm sure I can find another one though... Karora 06:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are some good ones out in the Waitakeres ... doesn't mean I can get a decent photo tho, does it Kahuroa (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got a usable pic of a mature rimu in the Waitakeres. Also got some of Tawa, but not that good - couldn't get a clean shot as they were in dense bush and not that tall. May upload one of those. Kahuroa (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a beautiful rimu! Well done. Karora 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora Karora, I'm happy that religiosity has gone, but your replacement New Zealand religious beliefs is illogical. People without religious beliefs should not be included under a heading which specifies the column is about religious beliefs. Does not compute. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, people have many beliefs which are not religious (I believe that it will rain tomorrow, but I have no plans to go out and proselytise about that :-), and the table is clearly referring to people's beliefs in relation to religion. "Does not have religious beliefs" is still a valid data point in the table.
Of course many practising Atheists would happily say that they do have a religious belief (i.e. Atheism), but that is a whole other can of worms, and I don't think we want to go there. Really though I think the table looks silly in it's entirety and should probably be removed. It oversimplifies the actual data enormously and doesn't really provide useful commentary to the article - the %age believers by age demographic in the source link is much more interesting, as is the source data about length of stay in NZ for the 'Other' group - and that's if we just chart religious stuff. Karora 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The first words (but one) of your reply say "people have many beliefs which are not religious". Exactly. Precisely my point. The word "religious" in the table should exclude people who do not have a religion. But they are included. Nonetheless, I also agree this meaningless table should be axed. It doesn't help Wiki at all. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, clearly I am dealing with a master word-twister :-) I should have said "Many people have beliefs which are unrelated to religion". Of course having no religious belief is related to religion :-) Karora 06:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Saying that having no religious belief is related to religion is the same as saying that not having a baby is related to having a baby. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Ah, again. Clicked the thingy before saying what I also meant to say -- your comment "Many people have beliefs which are unrelated to religion" is the very reason I believe the word religion should not be in the heading, but beliefs should.[reply]
So a table of 'Number of babies born to women' should not include a line for zero? Well, it's at least good that we agree that the table should go, but I think we need to find a more interesting one to replace it with too. Karora 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Karora. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Karora/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.GazimoffWriteRead 14:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I started to look through the questions, but realised that I think the process is pretty good at the moment, so decided not to comment after all. Karora 05:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karora, it was not my intention to remove anything regarding Fyfee House. But, Kaikoura does not go with normal naming policy - which should be Kaikoura, New Zealand.
Kiwigeno (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. Kaikoura is exactly where it belongs, like Rotorua, Wanganui, Porirua and Paraparaumu and many, many others, and had Gadfium not moved it back (explaining that it was there according to the naming conventions for articles on New Zealand) I would have been along and done it. In fact I was writing a comment roughly to that effect on your talk page while he beat me to it :-). Karora 11:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited LOL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anonymous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Karora. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Karora. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Karora. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:NZRS logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Request for applications for position of Wikipedian-at-Large, Aotearoa New Zealand[edit]
Kia ora! The Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand User Group invites you to read about the call for applications for a Wikipedian-at-Large for Aotearoa New Zealand in 2024. Group members are happy to explain the process and discuss ideas with interested editors.
Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay[edit]
Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.
Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellingtonand we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.
Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](http://gallery.mcmillan.net.nz/v/NZTravels/Wellington/Gardens/dsc_1620.jpg.html){kind=link}
