User talk:Midnighttonight/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

==info==

Thanks for the info!Keeperoftheseal 06:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome (& Baldwin Street)

Welcome to wikipedia! I shan't bother to post the generic 'welcome' message, as you already seem to be doing a good job of finding your way around. One thing I'll just point out is that you can sign your name and the date (on talk and project pages, not articles) by typing four tildes ~~~~.

I note your contribution to Baldwin Street tonight, and I'm just wondering whether you have any specific information on Dunedin with respect to street layouts. I know there were some howlers (Oamaru, for example), and the Dunedin CBD may have been imposed from afar (but Edinburgh not London?); but I have an early 20th Century map, and it seems that much of the daft layout to early Dunedin may have been homegrown. Major roads tended to follow the contours better, but subdivisions off them would be laid out grid style. Just curious. Cheers. --Limegreen 10:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment on article Mario Bachand

"Comment. Does he realise that anyone could print off what he writes here and not pay for it? I am suspecting that this might become an advert for the book (i.e. see this book for more info kinda thing). The article also needs to be wikified if it is kept."

I do realize that anyone can print it off. As for "suspecting this might become an advert for the book (ie. see this book for more info kinda thing)", well, the book is out of print so you need not worry about that. Not that I think "more info" would be a bad thing, which you might (I trust not) be suggesting. I do think people, certainly Canadians, but also New Zealanders, should attend to the Bachand affair. You might well be right about 'wikifying', although I could present a strong argument, with reference to discourse theory, new narrative, critical theory, the new history, literary nonfiction etc. etc., that might be persuasive. I of course will accede to the wishes of the community on that issue.

Best wishes,

Michael McLoughlin

(moved from UserPage --Midnighttonight 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

Save the Game!

Help us track down verifiable sources to bring The Game back! Go to SaveTheGame.org! Bkkbrad 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evolution of genders AFD

Your comment abou the distinction between sex and genders is entriely correct, But I have to point out that the article does not deal with this in any way, shape, or form, and the author admits to using the term "gender" to mean something entirely different from this widely accepted definition to which you allude. Pete.Hurd 11:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waitangi Park

thanks and yes you're correct the current event thing is mis-placed, just my desire to share that experience and april 9th is the deadline.moza 11:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand English

Thank you for your message regarding my question on the NZSL article. My question still would be if NZ English as such is recognised as the official language of NZ, instead of just recognising "English" as the official language. I mean, not even Switzerland recognises Swiss German as its official language, but just German, and those differ much more than NZ and UK English. But still the article on NZSL claims that "NZ English" is one of the official languages of NZ, and that confuses me. Blur4760 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prince symbol.svg vs. ☮

Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). I added the distinction between purely graphical symbols represented as images, which cannot be used, and valid Unicode characters, which can. Updated a few Sign “☮” the Times pages as a result! -- JFG 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Have a Safe & enjoyable wikibreak :) Brian | (Talk) 11:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material

Sorry to be the heavy here, but we can't allow posting of copyrighted material. You need to summarise the material and present the summary with appropriate references to the original. It doesn't matter that the original may not be available to most people; the idea is that if someone wants to check it badly enough, they can use their library or the original newspaper's office.-gadfium 09:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with extracts. So long as you make some effort to summarise the material, or to select only small portions of it, I'm happy. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't give you any guarantees that others won't object.-gadfium 09:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland meetup

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination!

Thanks a lot for the nomination of my picture. I'm glad you like it.

Dean

Regarding your comments on Eye_(cyclone)

Do you know of any colloquial names for storms down under? It would help people like you relate better to the article.

wales - porn

This is a new one for me, do ellaborate.--Manboobies 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ellis

There is nothing to stop you from giving the article equal weighting. I am not about to count every word and put a pro or a con next to it and then add them up. But if you feel there is a problem, you should try to rectify it. Personally I don't see a problem with it as it stands. I did provide information from the trial which I think helped to explain why he was found guilty. As has been said many times, this case is more about moral panic and hysteria than actual evidence.

Peter Ellis

"For many people it is about child abuse and evidence which points to that". Well, for the umpteenth time, why don't you put that "evidence" in the article instead of complaining? Where is this evidence that you talk about? Your POV is most definitely coming out.

Zenith Applied Philosophy

I see you are adding references to Zenith Applied Philosophy to a number of articles. For example, you've written that Kyle Chapman was a member. How you we know this? We require that information be verifiable from reliable sources. Though I personally respect it, Fight Dem Back is a blog, and so is Public Address[1]. Books, newspapers, magazines, public records, large online news sites, etc, are all more suitable sources. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Clark

Lately there has been a few changes to the Helen Clark article, could you look at reconsidering the POV tag? thanks Brian | (Talk) 05:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you still feel one section of the article are POV, perhaps {{POV-section}} would be more appropriate, or {{POV-check-section}}.-gadfium 06:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!

Good move on the section expand tag on the achievements section Brian | (Talk) 07:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.-gadfium 08:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It's been interesting discussing the articles with you, in particular Helen Clark. From our discussions, I think we agree on most things, which is good. I also think you need an outsider from time to time like me, so as you, the regulars, do not to get too comfortable with the state of the some articles. I do think the articles in NZ politicians, in particular Helen Clark has a long way to go. Wallie 09:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wallie 10:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on US v Iran

I see you voted for a keep on this article. So did I. I think that many of the points are important. It was sloppily presented, and could be a little POV. It was also over-complicated for us mere mortals. But there was good stuff in it, and it is a very important issue, which is no longer addressed. It has gone away now because of the poll (deleted). However, I think we could get another going detailing the "Response to Iran's Nuclear Program", which I thought the article should be called. What do you think. This is more important than mucking around with Paintergate. Wallie 14:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2

Thanks for your kind comments on the Admin page. I think I'd better stay right away from anything to do with Australian or New Zealand politicans for a while. Maybe come back in a month or so. Like you would say in Rugby, ...put myself in the sin-bin. I don't want to get burnt again. wallie 20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up the republic!

Hi Midnighttonight. I noted your pro-republic comments on Brian's[2] talk page. I wasn't going to point out the XML thing, as he copied the code from my website... --Lholden 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]