User:Mozasaur/archive1.html

Carter article
Carter wiki stats last year sept 05 before me. 381 words 2349 characters no spaces 2721 with spaces 18 paragraphs 55 lines 0 pictures

prior to current edit batch (<15july). 654 words 4423 characters no spaces 5051 characters with spaces 41 paragraphs 95 lines 12 pictures

now. too hard to assess as much moved in from other articles

thoughts
When enough of us enter the evolutionary flow, always giving energy to the higher-self of everyone we meet, we will build a new culture where our bodies evolve to ever higher levels of energy and perception. —THE EIGHTH INSIGHT James Redfield -

I like the idea of focusing on GIVING as opposed to the giving some and taking heaps that goes on here by a samll minority. Inclusiveness seems to me to be a higher order than deletionist. Inclusionism springs up from wanting to share; deletionism follows vandalism. In the end it depepnds on your mental set and setting, but is can be your cncious choice, if you want to take the time to consider it. moza

Auckland Volcanology Geological Map
I'm glad you like it. It's one of my favourite maps; charming in itself, and it's fascinating to note all the things that have changed since. -- Avenue 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Year in New Zealand
I've suggested this series of articles as a possible future New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight. I fear they will take forever to bring up to a reasonable state otherwise. If you think this is a good idea, you might like to add your support on that page.-gadfium 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit over the top
Moz, your comment on Talk:Taniwha is well over the top, because the person you mention may never have the opportunity to defend himself. Perhaps you might like to remove it. Moriori 06:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "you may be right, so perhaps I should alter it to quote the other persons who gave me their story, and none of who hide behind user names. In fact I'll use his nick-name, that i didnt recall but my classmates did. I do appreciate your balancing contribution, thanks, it IS important for checks and balances to be in place, and clearly I need it for my contributions. please try and understand that".moza 05:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mozasaur you left this paragraph immediately above on my user page. When you contact another user, do it on their talk page, not the user page. Moriori 08:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand Wiki cleanup
This should be in wikipedia namespace shouldn't it, not in general article namespace?--Crossmr 04:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * well help me move it there i guess.moza 04:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have redirected it towards WikiProject New Zealand which it is a duplicate of. I copied over most of the content but please check I didn't miss any. I assume you wern't aware of the existing page. - SimonLyall 06:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * well actually the point is to have a matrix to record the actual state of each and every article, so that anyone can see at a glance on one page the progress. ok, dw I'll just move that part to my user page. at least its finally moving up a significant notch, so lets celibrate that, sigh.moza 13:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

NZ Timeline
Hi thanks for reverting me. I didn't look at the talk page which was my mistake.

My edits mainly centre around the NZ school (and related) pages, and I tend to take a dim view about non-sourced claims of "school X is the best..."---so it looked like an unsupported precedence/vanity claim, and can pretty much explain the quote on the user page.

I'm aware of instruction creep and its dangers, however I felt that inclusion of the quote would explain a lot of my editing. I've been reminded to use the talk pages more, and I've advertised what I felt would be major edits on talk pages before (e.g. Talk:Helen Clark, Talk:Auckland Grammar School, Talk:Christ's College, Canterbury). I'm all for free information, but I also feel strongly about wrong/misleading information. I'll take your advice to heart.

Cheers Mr Bluefin 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorys
Please don't add very broad categorys like Category:Recreation to articles without making sure they are appropriate  - SimonLyall 19:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the help, I know i can rely on having my cats checked after a late night of building an article on Kiwi history. I monitor everything as well, and I notice and learn from others every day. Have a squiz at Situational leadership theory, Ken's been around about 10 times longer than wikipedia, like myself, and has some good ideas. Another relevant site is catch them.. (and  another  is  ) and I think all of us could benefit from the concepts presented there. Its probaly going to take us a while though, we have been tainted with this combatitive style that pervades this place, for some time, and that history is going to take time to heal from. One of my strengths is that I am flexible enough to keep re-inventing my-self to adapt to new and interesting paths in our society, and learn how best to develop them and move ahead. I have just been given permission to publish a pile of awesome images about that rail trail, and the Waipiata history, and I believe that that in itself will help users of the encyclopedia richer for their experience.

I clearly see that we both want that same outcome, although have differing visions of how it might be achieved. I'm a bit weary of all the negative transactions, and I'm moving back to my core value of positivity and collaboration. My favorite dissertation on this idea of such human behaviour is Godel,_Escher,_Bach, delineating concepts of collaboration and cooperation vs defection. see also really interesting stuff.moza 21:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New Zealander-Israeli relations
I noticed you identified yourself as a Wikipedian in New Zealand. You may be interested in New Zealander-Israeli relations. Respectfully, Republitarian 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Taniwharau
Hi Moza. Your opinion is sought - see the talk page of Taniwharau, from the heading "Another opinion". Cheers. Kahuroa 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Walk the talk
Good! Tyrenius 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1937 in New Zealand
Please read WP:POINT. I still haven't seen any work from you to clean up any of these articles. If you just want to moan, do so on the talk page of the editor who created them.- gadfium 19:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Moz, you seem to do the odd good article on NZ Music. How about sticking to those rather than making yourself look like an idiot by vandalizing other articles you don't think are up to scratch. - SimonLyall 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * nah, obviously i prefer to moan where i choose to.. moaning here is clearly a waste of time, and its wasted on any user page, forget that. just fix them and take it on the chin. funny there is life out there still, where it counts. I did enough already in here, I'll fiddle for a while.. but my laptops gone back to repair..and I'm running a pile of new sites and services, and they are my reality. later.moza 11:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As a possible alternative approach, why don't you give out a barnstar to someone who's done good work on fixing up or adding to some of those articles? You are welcome to delete this comment when you've read it.- gadfium 00:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * hey hey, Toshiba gave me a brand new laptop to play with while they mess with mine... 2 months is a bit much for warranty repair, but i spose it gives wiki a break.. Anyway I have got enormous work out here and doing good stuff where its needed bringing ancient information to our world in both new and old ways. When  I get deeper in and finished colateral I'll bring it all here and expose it to the rigours of this space. Hey for the record I know you mean the best, so just keep on at it. And yes, Barnstar? I guess youre right, I certainly believe in 'catchin people gettin it right' but it seems a bit of a wierd way.moza 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A recent win for me in the biggest ever resource consent hearing
I recently did get a 'win' at the biggest resource consent hearing ever; the commissioners added an 'advisory' to the consent, that the consent holders were to consult with the Astronomical Society and shutter and dim their lights for our observations. I did witness another aurora australis last week on the Wellington South Coast, and if they put any more lights up down there, then those observations will be obliterated. The advisory is a legacy from the other astronomer and myself to NZ history, from now on all resource consent applicants and submitters can refer to that decision, to try and reduce the light pollution in our skies, and bring back our heritage of dark sky, to be able to see some of the fabulous stuff that happens up there. Its part of an international movement, by the IDA, (international dark sky association) but in this case instigated by a few individuals who care. If youre interested in what I'm doing there, GIVING freely to the people of New Zealand, then check out this page: http://www.was.org.nz/01southc.html maybe one of you will see fit to place the maps on wiki. moza 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wellingtonians
Hi! I'm not sure if we have ever conversed but we probably should have in view of our common interests such as ancestry and astronomy. I was briefly Secretary and Treasurer of Dunedin's observatory society back in my mis-spent youth, and my genealogy is mostly on WorldConnect ("robinp").

I decided to say a few friendly words to everyone in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Wellington since joining that category recently.

Kind regards - Robin Patterson 06:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed "reply" on my talk page. I reckon you could enjoy contributing to the New Zealand Wikia, which is designed to take content that's not quite encyclopaedic enough for Wikipedia. Whatever you add will be welcomed in principle!! I didn't start that Wikia but I seem to be a lone voice most of the time. Robin Patterson 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:AntonElkington02.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AntonElkington02.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:AboveCourtenayPlace.jpg and Image:AboveCourtenayPlace2.jpg
You uploaded these image and tagged it with PD-release - which indicates you have the copyright holder's permission to release it. If this is the case you need to provide supporting evidence for this. If you took the photo you can change the license to PD-self and state that it is your own work in the image summary. If this is the case for other images you've uploaded you may want to consider changing their tags as well. You may also wish to consider uploaded images to Wikimedia Commons - as Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) a media repository or file storage area, images not used in an article will often be deleted as orphans. Best wishes. Madmedea 10:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Skygazing
I think you are missing the purpose of Wikipedia here. You seem to be promoting a sub hobby related to Amateur astronomy by a name that you wish to call it and claim that it is a real "thing". The problem is Wikipedia is not the place to do that. "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"... "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published", nor is it a place for promotion, nor is it a place for a "HowTo". You may be a SKYGAZER, but to have that article stay in Wikipedia you got to find a few thousand more who do the same thing by that very name. Like I said there are other projects out there besides Wikipedia... like Wikihow. This would be a perfect article for there. I personally have not put up a tag to NUKE the article because it has a lot of content I keep thinking could be used somewhere else (I even brought it back from the dead for just such a perpose). The problem is I keep hitting a blank when trying to fit it in. I think some "boundless energy" can be spent there. Halfblue 16:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah "I'm missing the point of wikipedia" and I suppose I need educating. perhaps there are 1000 points or 10,000 or even more, and perhaps they change daily as people change. I dont believe at this point that many people actually get the points of it all, some are quite obscure and have been hidden away for just that reason. I dont think that making people wrong is helping either. I have withdrawn for long periods to try and achieve some balanced judgements but in the end i dont think that is helping, I think wikipedia is exactly what it is, and thats that. Every editor will create their own version in their mind according to all their circumstances and I think that any concept of consensus or objectivity is seriously challenged in this space. I believe that there are many thousands of skygazers, for instance we had 25,000 people exposed to our messages on May 19th this year, so thats good enough for me. http://www.sidewalkastronomynight.com/id18.html


 * Total number of amateur astronomers:    1100 +
 * Total number of telescopes involved:       475+
 * Total number of viewing guests:              25,000+
 * Number of countries represented:    28
 * Number of U.S. states represented: 22


 * You can call that astronomy, and it is, but not as it is usually known, its more community education and awareness, and for me the ultimate outcome could be increased care for the condition of the sky. Skygazing has been practised for millenia, and its not all astronomy. I have images of wood carvings of personified  beings lying back on the brow of the canoe gazing into the sky. They are looking at birds and clouds just the same as stars and the moon, its skygazing for survival. The countless Pacific island residents have skygazed for millenia to be able to navigate across the Pacific, the greatest area of ocean on our planet. Why cant we pay homage to all skygazers, and drop the inane bs about its right to even exist. There is plenty of science and information sources about this subject.


 * I think that my core point is expression of disapointment for many editors using surgery as a solution, when simple hard article building work is the better alternative. Endlessley debating the rights and wrongs does provide some function here, but i suspect its self -gratificationand a bit indulgent, and I am guilty of that also. I do think that rising up above the detail and looking at the broader picture could help the whole thing improve. moza


 * (More at Talk:Skygazing) - I am planning to move this article off to a project page (I still think the content could make a good addition to some related articles) and redirect Skygazing to Amateur astronomy. If you think it should be otherwise we can take it to WP:AFD for consensus. Halfblue 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kaitiaki
Looks like you've done the most work on this. I've just added a few relevant bits - but also trimmed back a lot that was not really necessary. Please don't revert.
 * no worries.. I'm on an editor appreciation binge so THANKS for contributing!! its easy if i choose to not look at the history i wont even know what 'wasnt necessary' but my observation is that the dividing line is drawn diffferently by every editor when it comes to removal or inclusion. MUCH more importantly I think the article could be more expansionist about what the concept actually means, I think my writng is way too limited, I believe that it means guardianship, and the process of, for everything in fact.moza