User talk:Gadfium/Archive 9

Admin deletion
dear Gadfium: re: admin deletion there is a way that admins need to behave... im just glad that you are doing it appropriately....as for "gutt-less" is that how its pronouced? he needs to understand that he is deleating a 12 yearold without an appropriate explination to a minor.... infact he aught to contact parents... minors need to have parent authentication to even edit...however i get a call from my daughter that some strange man is on her computer & that some man has started a fight with my 12 yearold over her nonsense page....i live 750 miles away and after reading his rational for deleation, felt the need to cheer her up as she was balling her eyes out!!!!i would get myself banned a hundred times if idiots like him are crass enough to behave as they do. As a pediatrician i have encouraged my family and the children of many others to let their imaginations fly....although this is not the right venue.... "gutless" has no right to be rude...if he had behaved more like you, there would have been no tears shed nor would have my actions been necessary and i could use it as a teaching tool...so i resorted to messing with that uptight admin...i understand that we are all trying to keep wikki a valid sourse of info... and it does rock!!! infact i love it!!! however, that particular admin needs to get off his god complex... and remember that true admin is to serve nurture and help grow and encourage loyalty and support and educate....not to rule factionize banish and let his lack of empathy get the best of him... thanks for allowing me to vent... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medped (talk • contribs) 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are talking about. The only contact I am aware that I've had with you previously was to warn you about vandalism to another user's talk page.


 * It sounds as though you need to exercise more control over your daughter's internet activity. If she is creating nonsense articles here, then we will certainly delete them and warn her that her behaviour is inappropriate. We usually use a standard set of warnings; if any warning contains inappropriate language, then I'll look into it.


 * You might like to consider that you may be taken more seriously in future if you don't resort to juvenile insults.- gadfium 03:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Duders' Beach
Thanks for the help with format; I know now how to make pictures into thumbs :) Gacole (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chatham Cup
Hi Gadfium - thanks for adding the year categories to those articles. I forgot to do that when I started them, but I've been adding it to the last few and I'll remember when i get round to writing the rest (I'm trying to do one per day). Grutness...wha?  22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I presume you recognise yourself in the rant a couple of sections above?- gadfium 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do, though I had to look up what it was about - he's referring to User:Chief Jotty, who created the same nonsense article three times under different titles (each time speedily deleted by a different admin). After the first of them, which I deleted (it had been correctly nominated for speedying by someone else, since it was patent nionsense), she vandalised my user page - which was quickly reverted by Iridescent - then left me a note on my talk page saying that she could easily delete my user page if she wished and i should thank her for not doing so (she also left an abusive comment on the talk page of the editor who nominated one of the other articles for speedy deletion, BTW). My response to her, regarded by the poster above as "crass" and "idiotic", was actually very calm under the circumstances - as can still be seen at her user talk page. Given the number of warning's she'd already had, it would have been perfectly within my options to block her, but rather than that I simply directed her to Wikipedia's policy pages on articles. Intriguingly, Medped then vandalised my page, which was reverted by you. Hopefully Chief Jotty will learn correct wikiquette, but if she does I doubt she'll learn it from Medped - she's still young and learning; he's old enough to know better. Grutness...wha?  01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Angeline Greensill
Is it possible to have early termination of an AfD discussion? If so, can it happen for the article on Angeline Greensill? The original article is now much modified and just needs a few tweaks. I'll continue to work with Atutahi on getting those done. Thanks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've closed the AfD as "withdrawn".- gadfium 05:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that per WP:SK, only when there are no other delete opinions should a deletion debate be closed when the nominator withdraws. It's probably no harm in this case but just letting you know for future reference. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not normally involved in AfD closures and overlooked it.- gadfium 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

216.102.14.5
That's my school system's IP you just banned (lol). I'm not sure what the protocol is in this case, but I thought you ought to know. But now that I think about it, it may be an excellent idea to ban a school's IP more often, restricting edits to registered users. Heh. Markmichaelh (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We block school IP's when they are involved in frequent vandalism. We block them for IP editors only, so people such as yourself can still edit so long as you log in, and others at your school who wish to edit will need to create an account at home, which they can then use at school.


 * The block is only for a week, but if the vandalism continues then further blocks are likely to be for longer.- gadfium 18:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So called "Tally" sort - guess again dude
The reference book by Jon Bentley was published in 2000. The method I published and copyrighted online was in 1996.

Although the book describes the method in a very computer scientific way, the reference does not provide a source of any kind for the method and does not refer to the method by any name, much less go so far as to label it the "tally" sort. At one time the method was published here in the Wikipedia but nominated for deletion as original research and moved to the Wikia. In that regard the claim that the method is a "well-known variant" of the counting sort is bogus. Only one closed encyclopedia attempts list the "Tally" sort using Bentley as its reference. Had someone told me that this is typically how Jews steal things from Gentiles I would not have believed them but now it is a different story. What you have now done is brought into question as to whether or not Einstein's famous energy/mas equation was stolen as well. May God punish your people severely. Check further and you will find I am the creator and source of the Check and Rapid sort routines which the Wikipedia itself through your efforts is now trying to steal. 71.100.3.239 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what copyright means. Our article did not appear to be duplicating any substantial portion of your website. It is not possible to copyright an idea. I see your tag to the article has been removed again, by another editor.- gadfium 18:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 71.100.*.* has a history of creating original research articles such as Articles for deletion/Rapid sort and Articles for deletion/Optimal classification. This is just his perverted way of trying to get his articles back to Wikipedia. Ignore everything he says, and contact the appropriate parties if personal attacks gets too much (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive459 and Requests for checkuser/Case/Julie Dancer) --Jiuguang (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Move request
Hi Gadfium, could you please move New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade over Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (New Zealand)? Seems to be general consensus that this version should be used. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Same request for a move of New Zealand Ministry of Social Development over Ministry of Social Development (New Zealand). Much appreciated. Ingolfson (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.- gadfium 06:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand at Guadalcanal Campaign
Although New Zealand isn't mentioned in the main article, this is from Operation Ke, one of the sub-articles for that campaign, Also on January 29 at 18:30, two corvettes from the Royal New Zealand Navy, Moa and Kiwi, intercepted the Japanese submarine I-1 which was attempting a supply run, off of Kamimbo on Guadalcanal. The two corvettes sank I-1 after a 90-minute battle.

I'd say that the crews of those two New Zealand corvettes, including future New Zealand Admiral Peter Phipps, who commanded one of those ships, would say that New Zealand was a definite participant in the Guadalcanal campaign. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, as the Cactus Air Force article develops, you'll see that a New Zealand reconnaisance squadron was deployed to Guadalcanal in the latter stages of the campaign. NZ was a definite participant. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that New Zealand was a participant in the campaign. I don't think it is appropriate for every article which bears some distant relationship to New Zealand should be tagged as part of WikiProject New Zealand. My attention was drawn to this article because it was listed as one of less than a dozen New Zealand-related featured articles. I think this distinction should be reserved for articles which are more directly about the country or its inhabitants.- gadfium 08:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi! Thanks for posting a comment on my page. Those were really REALLY helpful links! Thank you! And yes, I am a New Zealander =) EryZ (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Award

 * Thanks. I actually have a real-life zen garden.- gadfium 20:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rua (band)
Ugh! Rua (band) has been deleted by stealth - someoen prodded it while I was out of town with no internet. Is undeletion permitted on the basis that I would have contested it (and fixed the article as there are references aplenty) permitted, or do we have to start from scratch? If the latter, could you please restore the page to my userspace. Cheers. dramatic (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article. Please add the references as you suggest above.- gadfium 10:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! dramatic (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Gadfium, sure, would be helpful when a user vandalises several articles. I've had a re-read of WP:ROLLBACK, and understand it's only to be used for obviously unproductive edits. Thank you! XLerate (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Antonio Marcel Green
Are two personal attacks/ BLP violations on Antonio Marcel Green in the space of a week enough to justify semi-protection? dramatic (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I suggest you add it to WikiProject New Zealand/Vandalism patrol, so more editors will see vandalism on it.- gadfium 22:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

RJ:New Zealand federal budget
Would that be 'national' then? Note that Wikipedia takes a worldwide view where possible. Ottre 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, perhaps you are new here. Wikipedia works via trademark policies. You need citations to show why it is inappropriate to delineate the term. Please feel free to respond at the article talk page. Ottre 05:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not all that new. Perhaps you are confused by my empty talk page. That's because I archive it regularly. See to the right of the page for the archives.


 * I wasn't aware that Wikipedia works via trademark policies. Could you point me to the policy or guideline page which explains this? At any rate, I rather doubt that anyone has a trademark over the phrase "New Zealand budget" which would prevent it being used as the title of an encyclopedia article. We use the most common term for articles, see WP:COMMONNAME. In the case of the article on the New Zealand budget delivered in 2006, the title 2006 New Zealand budget would appear to meet this guideline.- gadfium 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Geonotice
Gmaxwell has not been running the Geonotice for several months (I think he's been busy). I would advise you to plan your meetup on the assumption that the Geonotice doesn't happen (and if it does that's a bonus!)--Pharos (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me be the
first to say congrats. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Sri Lanka
Hello Gadfium, i was told by User:Grutness that i can get help from you to improve portals. i am working on Portal:Sri Lanka, i have done major revamps, but still there are some work to do. like setting criteria for selected article, assessing them and Selecting DYKs. i hope you can help me with it. wishes! --chanakal (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did play a major role in the New Zealand portal in its early days, and still maintain the Oceania portal, but I limit my time on portal work now. I regret to say that I have never been to Sri Lanka and know little about the country, so I can not help you.- gadfium 03:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite alright Gadfium, wishes! --chanakal (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oceania portal featured article suggestion
I posted Hokule'a on the Oceania Portal's featured article suggestion list, and on a later visit, realized it was not the suggestion list, it was the list itself. I should have posted in the next section down, I think. Sorry about that. I'll go move it down to the next section. Newportm (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add articles directly to the selected articles list. I will include Hokule'a in the next few months.- gadfium 03:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Political parties in New Zealand
That is quite rich from you. As far as I am aware, that is actually a political party. Verify your facts before accusing me of deliberatly breaking Wikipedia's verifable rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan Madley (talk • contribs) 06:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please include a link to the party's website, and a link to some reliable third party source to verify that the party exists.- gadfium 06:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Help
I created this page but it doesn't link to the other SOEs because the SOE reference is to Quotable Value Ltd (without the "QV"). I dont know how to change a page's title once it is made and wonder if you could please do the honours so that it all ties together?

Much obliged in advance Gacole (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. See WP:MOVE for how you could have done it yourself.- gadfium 02:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) I'll go swot up Gacole (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gah it's pretty obvious once it's pointed out. Thanks again Gacole (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Myriad Genetics
I tend to just write, and not get involved in anything about how Wikipedia works. But I noticed that a page about a controversial biotechnology firm appears to have had suspicious editing activity. Perhaps you know other editors and administrators who would be interested in looking into the matter. Could you look at my comment on Myriad Genetics talk page. I think something is very fishy. Unfortunately, there are not very many people involved in writing and editing articles about medical genetics. Metzenberg (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article looks reasonably neutral at the moment. The material recently deleted from the article was perhaps too uncritical, but it did seem entirely factual and mostly relevant. The material deleted from the talk page was basically a rant. I wouldn't have deleted either since we are pretty lenient about what we allow on talk pages, but I'm not going to revert the deletions either. I've added the article to my watchlist, so I'll see further attempts to skew it one way or the other. I think your post on the talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medical Genetics should draw attention from editors more involved in the area than I am.- gadfium 04:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stroppy editor at Li Yang :(Comic book writer)
Hi, please take a look at. The creator removed one speedy tag, and when I replaced it and warned against further removal, a SPA removed it again. Time for some blocking? dramatic (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has since been deleted. I don't think any further action is required, unless it's recreated.- gadfium 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:SimonPower.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:SimonPower.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gadfium. Say, where did you get this special case of fair-use for New Zealand politicians? Unless there's some sort of official OTRS or policy decision that I don't know about, there's no such exemption and I would be very surprised to see it go unchallenged anyways. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops... Just realized that your addition of that dubious fair-use rationale is 200 years old... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I long ago gave up fighting for images. Delete away.- gadfium 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:DonnaAwatere.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:DonnaAwatere.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin MacDonald (New Zealand)
Wasn't planning on expanding. My motivation, which I now am uncertain of, was documenting the chief executives of NZ govt. agencies. Delete away. Lanma726 (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Current events: Regional pages
Current events: Regional pages, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Current events: Regional pages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of those pages list at Current events: Regional pages MfD during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Suntag  ☼  08:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Entrepreneurial mindset
Someone with the user name Maxsenges has been editing this article. The article reads as an exploration of original thought. Much of the material is edited and contributed from user Maxsenges. It appears that his original thought is promoted on wikipedia. What should I do?&mdash; F red  114  10:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A good start would be to add your concerns to the article talk page, and try to discuss there how to improve the article. If major contributors do not reply to you there, you could add a polite note to their talk pages pointing to the discussion on the article talk page. Another method of drawing attention to the discussion would be placing an Original research tag at the top of the article, but you should not do this without also posting to the talk page.


 * If you want more people to get involved with the article, try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business. If that isn't the most appropriate Wikiproject, they'll be able to tell you which is.


 * Finally, if you think the article is unredeemable, you can nominate it for deletion using the WP:AFD process.- gadfium 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look pleaase
Can you have a look at Phar Lap here. User:Ernest the sheep is insisting on reinstating the words "to a lesser extent". That is POV in my view, and the farcical thing is his edit summary says "(neutral POV)". If you agree with me then fine, I'll ask for sysop assistance. If not, then that's OK too and I will withdraw from that article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just realised, you are a sysop. But that's wasn't the reason I approached you -- it was because I have seen your edits hereabouts and they are always neutral. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a previous run-in with Ernest over a different article, so I think you should seek advice from someone else.- gadfium 03:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that. I'll take it to INL later tonight, or tomorrow morning. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mynameisearl123
Gadfium, I have learnt from my friend Mynameisearl123 that he has been blocked from editing. He has been camping with me in the Australian Desert for the last six months so I can vouch for him. I kindly ask that he should be removed from the blocked list. jonest1234 —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

Request
Something slighty more reasonable than the (admittedly funny) attempt at getting an unblock above: Could you please move New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development to Ministry of Economic Development (New Zealand)? Thank you. Ingolfson (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.- gadfium 07:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Joseph Savage's declaration of war
Unfortunately the source you quote gets a critical fact wrong - the time difference between NZMT (Mean Time) and GMT was 11:30 hours in September 1939, not the 10:30 hours mentioned. The UK was then on BST (GMT +1) and Germany did not observe any Summer Time in the interwar period (making British and German time the same). They suggest the reason this fact is in the public domain is because we're disingenuously misreading time zones - a false analogy since that would tend to put the UK's declaration in the morning and NZ's in the evening. It has nothing to do with misreading timezones, it is all about a British 15 minute delay between the commencement of the state of war and the PM's announcement of same.

The British Ambassador to Berlin, Nevile Henderson delivered the ultimatum stating German had two hours ("by 11:00 British Summer Time") to cease hostilites.

Savage declared war (in NZ) on Germany upon receiving notification from The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs stating, "No reply received by eleven" - some 15 minutes before the British PM announced it to the British public "I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street....". The declarations were supposed to coincide - 11:00 in the UK, 21:30 in NZ. However, Neville Chamberlain's 15 minute delay before he spoke to the nation, has been taken to mean that Savage beat him to the post. Subsequently, the Governor General submitted the full proclamation to the Secretary of State at 01:55 on 4 September - further requesting the British government's assistance in passing on NZ's declaration to the German government. Fanx (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to correct the article giving a better reference. Since there is confusion over this issue, a reference is essential. You might also like to contact the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to point out their mistake, since their website is a widely used and generally reliable resource. There is a feedback link on the page.- gadfium 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :) Grutness...wha?  22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LGBT New Zealand
Check the references properly before reversing them - stop being so lazy. gaynz.com has been using this page for advertising for years. the stats clearly show they are nowhere near the most popular site, and yet gay.co.nz is consistently overwritten by them and it gets through. lets see some proper editorial instead of these lazy reversals. the whole point is not to allow advertising, and yet they hammer wiki until some other lazy editor lets it through —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.63.83 (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Message on my User talk Page
Hi there,

Thanks for your message - it seems that I have missed some of the changes that AWB made, I'll go through the articles that I've done so far.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.61.42 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Helpful  One  20:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to add section denied
Hello,

I am trying to add a public health section on the Fiji wikipedia page. It keeps getting denied with the reason that it is not meant for advertising. There are articles about health issues affecting the population of Fiji that I would like to share with everyone. What do I do?

Dmakund (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See the reply at Talk:Fiji.- gadfium 08:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"The picture doesn't look like her"
What is that supposed to mean? I will not re-add the image but it would be nice to read an explanation. This is the image we use in infobox Image:Bill Clinton.jpg for Bill Clinton even though he looks like this today Image:Bill Clinton @ Hillary Rally.jpg. Just because he got older doesn't mean we shouldn't use the official portrait of him as a president and just because she got older doesn't mean we shouldn't use the official portrait of her as a PM in the infobox.--Avala (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise for reverting the edit before the one changing the image. I had not noticed that my view encompassed two edits, and the revert of that earlier edit was unintentional.


 * The 2005 picture has been extensively photoshopped. Helen Clark has never looked like that portrait. This is not just a matter of whether she is in makeup or not, and it has nothing to do with the normal aging process. US Presidents may normally have heavily edited portraits, but this is not the norm for New Zealand. It may be appropriate to use the 2005 picture to illustrate Clark as Prime Minister, as it is the official portrait used by the Office of the Prime Minister (or was until the last election), but it seems more reasonable on the article about the person to have a picture of her as she looks. I would have no objection to an earlier photo from the time she became PM.- gadfium 05:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the official photo was edited or not but I think the current infobox photo is of very low quality. For a decade in office, is it really possible there is no other photo of her but these two extremes? Especially considering that the PM office allowed using their material. And one more thing - the infobox in article is called Infobox Prime Minister so I think it should depict her as a PM not as private person.--Avala (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should continue discussing this on the talk page of the article, where you will get views from more people. My preference is for the 2007 picture, although I think it could be improved by adjusting the colour balance a bit. You are welcome to upload further pictures if you are aware of any available under suitably free licences.- gadfium 01:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Maori
I have reverted some changes made by two users - I thought the changes about the Moriori were a strong to be made without discussion and they are covered in the Moriori article. I couldn't see the justification claimed on the talk page for adding the cannibalism category. Anyway, you might want to take a look. Kahuroa (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Electorate updates
Hi, gadfium. For the electorate results, I just used an Excel sheet, simply because I don't know how to use anything more sophisticated. I'd guess there are far better ways of compiling the data, although I'd be happy to give you a copy of the template file that I used if you'd like. I'll do some electorate updates today as well. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll leave the initial data entry to your script then, and help out with adding the comparative information. I'd love to have a copy of the script, too; I use Linux and PyMOL on a fairly regular basis for research, so hopefully I can make sense of it. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Puffies
This is memphisdan, the man who wants a definition of puffy /puffies to reflect that these are common names for a certain condition of the breast and I see it is you who has removed it. I am unable to find an archived comment as to why. I see you are an expert on NZ and saw that kids from some school wear puffy coats.. the kind of info that is irrelevant 50+ miles from that school no doubt. Meanwhile puffy nipples are appreciated worldwide. Perhaps this is a little victorian prudery on your part but Wikipedia is no place for it. Please reply to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisdan (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The archived discussion is at User talk:Gadfium/archive25. My advice there still stands. You are welcome to contribute an article on the topic, complete with references. I suggested then, and still think it good advice, that you might be better adding to the existing articles on nipple or areola.- gadfium 17:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


David WS (contribs)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy holidays! David WS (contribs)  19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Clare Curran
I think the controversy section should stay, at least at the moment it is one of the main reasons why she is notable. There is lots of information out there Clare Curran; Water cooler gossip on grand scaleTshiels1 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of empty sections in the first place, but I presume you are planning to expand the article in the immediate future. Avoiding controversy sections is a standard practice on Wikipedia (but not a policy or guideline). See criticism-section. It's often a lot of work to remove such a section once it becomes established, which is why there's still one at Helen Clark. I think you can adequately deal with any issues in sections on her past employment and candidacy, which can be arranged chronologically.- gadfium 01:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They controversy was front-page/lead-story news and also raises into question whether she was an appropriate candidate of MP for that matter.Tshiels1 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to your including material on controversies. I'd like to see it in chronological order, rather than in a separate section. If she becomes involved in an unrelated controversy in 10 years time, that should go in the "Sixth Labour Government" section, not in a blanket "controversies" section.- gadfium 07:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I entitle the section "Ministry of Environment Controversy?" or put it under "Life before politics"Tshiels1 (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's up to you. It's a political issue, so "Life before politics" may not be strictly appropriate, but just "Ministry of Environment contract" or "Consultancy work" (if that's the right term) might be better.- gadfium 08:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Merry Christmas.Tshiels1 (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Clare Curran 2
Hi, I have created an article for Clare Curran using the info she emailed me. As much as I tried to have the article more balanced than what she sent me, could you please have a look and help me convert it into a balanced article. Thanks.Tshiels1 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lynn of Tawa
Hey, sorry for the goof. The way the entry was written made it sound like a vanity entry. I added a bit of detail to the explanation--you might glance and see if it looks ok to you. Joyous! | Talk 22:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian Brothers
Thanks for your improvements. Rick570 (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ajahn Thaniya
Gadfium - I am the president of the Saranaloka Foundation that supports the nuns in America from this tradition. Ajahn Thaniya disrobed about a year ago. There is nothing "written" on it that can be sourced. I made the edit while three of her former sisters (other nuns) were standing here telling me what to write. We were trying to delete the page, which would be her wish, but I do not know how to do this. Please let me know what is needed to correct this information. Jill Santutthijill (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the article for deletion. You are welcome to go to Articles for deletion/Ajahn Thaniya and express your opinion there. As you were not the article creator, it is not appropriate simply to delete the article without this discussion.- gadfium 05:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I have posted a note there with a bit more info. Santutthijill (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

COI guidelines
Hi Gadfium,

I've been trying to get the conflict of interest guidelines clarified so that people know what Wikipedia's stance is on editing with a conflict of interest (at the moment they're pretty contradictory). I wrote a proposed revision (with a few changes from other people), but because of my own conflict of interest I don't want to make major changes myself. The people on the village pump page are in general agreement that changes need to be made, but thus far no one has actually done anything, and I suspect that no one will.

Soooo, as a long established Wikipedia and admin, could you try and fix this? Make whatever changes you see fit (obviously), just make sure that everyone knows where they stand. Thanks! --Helenalex (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not much interested in policy matters. If you don't think the people you've already communicated with on the village pump will actively promote a rationalisation of the guidelines along the lines you propose, I suggest you try starting a conversation on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel. See WP:IRC, but if you haven't used IRC before it can be rather daunting. I use the Chatzilla plugin for Firefox. If you let me know what time you plan to be on IRC I'll try to be there too.- gadfium 01:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with editing material
Gadfium,

I deleted material on Charles Blattberg because it was copied from his personal website. There is also a flag on the talk page that warns this material may deleted. I also explained on the talk page why I deleted the material. My edit has been undone without explanation. What would be the best action to take now? &mdash; F red  114  01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. The flag you mention is simply that libellous material is not allowed, and doesn't appear to apply to this material. There's a possibility that the material is being added by the article's subject, who presumably owns copyright to the text on the website. If they place a GFDL copyright notice on the website, then there is no copyright problems to Wikipedia using the material. The text looks to be sufficiently neutral and factual to be acceptable once the copyright is resolved.- gadfium 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dan Brown
dear gadfium, i'm בן אבשלום and you said that i didn't told the truth in a article about Dan Brown. you're wrong. All the information i took from Forbes magazine.
 * Actually, I said that your edit was unsourced. In other words, you didn't say where you got the information from, so other people could check it. I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't correct. In a reasonably well-referenced article such as Dan Brown, adding more information without including the sources make the article less reliable, even though the added information is correct.


 * Sorry for any misunderstanding.- gadfium 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the word Limen
Hi Gadfium, I just can't make sense of a reply from a user. I have tried to reply as a prompt for clarification, but it was unsigned, so no talk page. Can you make sense of it? The post is | here &mdash; F red  114  06:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Language Reference Desk is probably the appropriate place to ask.- gadfium 06:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Matamata
Sorry, just to explain my logic; the guy who added this information has a history of adding deliberate factual errors to articles and even misassigning sources to these errors;. He's been blocked for this now and I've gone through all his old edits, unfortunately I didn't fact check his recent edits, but did so with his latter ones (i.e. his Wittelsbach Diamond entry). Thanks for covering my error, feel free to go through he's contribs to double check. Ryan 4314  (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. The IP is possibly used by more than one person, with the Lord of the Rings fan not being the same as the one deliberately introducing factual errors.- gadfium 19:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea I suspect your right, he did leave a message to that effect. Normal vandalism doesn't bother me that much, but some of this guy's errors have been visible for months, whilst receiving hundreds of hits. The LOTR fan must know about the ability to create an account by now. Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Seen this?
Quentin koromete. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the process of AFDing it.- gadfium 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Housing New Zealand Corporation vs State housing
Just checking your edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHousing_New_Zealand_Corporation&diff=262688611&oldid=258694200 that weren't under the impression that you were editing State housing. Housing New Zealand Corporation looks to be more of a stub than C class. Lanma726 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I regard the work you did on Housing NZ as relevant to the collaboration, and had both pages open at the time I was updating to the next topic.- gadfium 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

deletion of my edit on a talk page: Six day War
Gadfium, my edit on a talk page was recently deleted here. Is this allowed at Wikipedia? I have left a message hereon the editors talk page asking them to explain on my talk page. I noted that the editor has once before been directed not to delete from talk pages. Can you keep an eye on this? &mdash; F red  114  21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, I have no more say on content of articles than any other editor, and I do not normally edit on articles relating to the Israeli-Arab issues. I can give you some advice, but I do not intend to become involved.


 * Your talk page comment was perhaps borderline in its relevance to the article, and your source was a press release issued by the Wellington Palestine Group. The issue of Rabin's comment may be worth following up, but I suggest you find a better source, and it would be more relevant at Yitzhak Rabin than at Six Day War.- gadfium 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Article rating
Hello Gadfium - I saw you awarded Devonport as a "B" article. I don't disagree with you - what I'd like to use the fact for is to ask whether you have further experience with the rating system? I just had a very disheartening experience trying to get an article to GA status (Bouncer (doorman)) after being failed on technicalities (!) before, this time I got a reviewer (User:Philcha) who was sympathetic - but seems to have totally lost track of where GA is in the ranking system (I see it is actually supposed to be BELOW "A"! What the heck???).

Basically he made such an enormous list of change requests (and then topped them up with another set of change requests in excruciating detail after I had made some progress) that eventually first User:The Cake is a Lie and then I myself (the last stalwart remaining) gave up. I don't think he was intentionally negative - just totally losing track of Compare Criteria Good v. Featured and similar restraint. Constant sniping by a non-assessing (and non-helping) fourth user (ReverendLogos) who was questioning just about every single sentence (not kidding) and all images in the article didn't help.

I am not asking you to take up my cause - only to look at it and see whether you agree that this is totally excessive, and whether I should take it up with some sort of mediation process (if you have the time, please do not feel guilty about saying it if you don't). Thanks Ingolfson (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The transcluded part of the GA review doesn't seem to update into the main talk page of the article correctly. May have to click to go to the subpage to get the most up-to-date version. Sorry, its looong. You can skim most of the content-related stuff, I guess. Ingolfson (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no experience with the GA system, or with any rating beyond B class apart from a small number of non-articles (a portal and two lists) and one FA removal candidate. I think A class no longer exists apart from a few WikiProjects which I am not involved in. The A-rated WPNZ articles achieved their ratings under an older system. I believe the rating system nowadays goes from B to GA to FA, but with GA being an optional step often skipped.


 * I have been aware of the frustration you have had over Doorman. Without commenting on this specific case or the criticisms of this article, it would appear that the GA process is vulnerable to the assessment of a single individual. I have no knowledge of what appeal process might exist. I believe the usual mediation processes on Wikipedia are geared towards article content rather than assessments. It might be possible to request a Request for commet for the article. You might also find it productive to ask at the FA process whether you can apply directly there despite a failed GA rating. A peer review is a third alternative.- gadfium 08:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments Gadfium. I don't think I am masochist enough to apply for FA at this stage. Maybe once my frustration over this has receeded in memory... Ingolfson (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Sri Lanka
Hello Gadfium, i hope you remember once i asked help from you to develop Portal:Sri Lanka. Now i have done a fair degree of work on it and i think now it is in good shape. i have requested a review of the portal. I will be so grateful if you can have a quick look at the portal and do a little review. Regards!--chanakal (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor' index correction
Thanks for catching that error; I copied the text from another page, and missed the misspelling of IE. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 15:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking
Thanks for taking action on this troll. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Template:LGBT rights source alerts"
not sure which talk page you are objecting to its placement on, but other than Socialism and LGBT rights, it only is on LGBT rights in (country) article talk pages (mainly to discourage the use of sodomylaws, which had been heavily used - and provide a way for editors to warn about outdated sources (if source #1 is out of date for countries A, B, and C, then it might be outdated for countries G, Q, and Z. This way alerts can be easily and briefly placed on all LGBT in (country) talk pages A-Z. If you think it is disruptive on a certain talk, feel free to remove or cmt it out. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Battle Hill
Hi, I just re-wrote this article so that it's, in my view, a viable stub backed by reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Cooper
Hi, I am Jessica Coopers publicist and she asked me to update her wiki entry using the info from her website, which I had just designed for her. How can we get the same info in her Wiki Page? Thanks Paula-april
 * As you are her publicist, you should be aware of our guidelines on conflict of interest.


 * If you wish to use the material directly from her website, you must add a statement to the relevant page of the website along the lines of "Any material from this page may be used under the Gnu Free Documentation Licence". However, the tone of an encyclopedia article is different from the tone of a publicity website, so it would be better to rewrite the content with care to avoid promotional language.


 * I don't object to a list of her exhibitions and publications being in the article, but to call them a "CV" is inappropriate, and I removed them entirely as I couldn't be sure that the list had been taken entirely without change from a copyrighted source. I suggest you trim the lists to include only the more major items before readding them.


 * For the most part, we use external links to verify the material in an article. Wikipedia is not a web directory, so a lengthy list of external websites about Cooper is not desirable in the article. A smaller number of the most informative links would be suitable.


 * Please take the time to go through the introduction to editing so you can apply basic formatting as you add material.- gadfium 19:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks gafium. I will revise and re-submit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paula-april (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing
Sorry! I didn't realise that it was not within wikipedia etiquette to use talk pages of previous editors to build a consensus view on Articles for deletion/Bruce Simpson. My apologies. --Pakaraki (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin nom
Hi Gadfium, thank you for the vote of confidence :-) I'll take a rain check at the moment, but am happy to revisit the topic in six months or so. Thanks also for the forewarning. XLerate (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

NZ State Highway 73
I see that you have contributed a bit to Greymouth. I had hoped to find an article about New Zealand State Highway 73 across the Southern Alps (roughly parallel to the TranzAlpine railway). It looks like madness to consider driving from Picton to Greymouth and thence via Highway 73 to Christchurch. But is it? I wondered if maybe you would know? I notice that it is not even mentioned in the Greymouth article... (Though I suppose as it starts at Kumara Junction rather than Greymouth itself, I suppose it could be argued that it doesn't belong - but it would be a lousy argument). It would lead nicely to the Arthur's Pass article. [I realise that Wikipedia is not a tourist information site, but it should at least satisfy basic curiousity!] --Red King (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason why New Zealand State Highway 73 is a redlink is because no one has written the article yet. You'll see from New Zealand State Highway navbox that we have articles on quite a few other state highways, and if you would like to write the article you could model it on one of the others.


 * I was last in Greymouth 11 years ago, and I have never driven along highway 73, so I'm afraid I can't give you any local knowledge. Your proposed trip sounds very pleasant though, at least in summer. I would think you'd want to spend at least two days doing it, as it would be a very long drive for a single day.


 * There may be some mainlanders who watch my talk page. They're welcome to chime in with suggestions.- gadfium 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * State highway 73 is one of New Zealand's great road trips, passing through about 5 distinct phases of scenery. Actually, the best way to do it if you can manage is to take the train in one direction and drive the other, because both modes miss out some special bits. However, for a max scenery trip from Picton - Chch (over a minimum of 2 days, preferably 3), I'd go:


 * Picton - Havelock via Queen Charlotte Drive
 * Havelock - Renwick via SH 6
 * Renwick - Kawatiri Junction via SH 63 (visit both lakes Rotoiti and Rotoroa)
 * Kawatiri Junction - Westport turnoff via SH 6(optional detour to Westport if you decide to stay there)
 * Westport - Kumara junction via SH 6 (optional extra is to go round lake Brunner rather than the coastal route from Greymouth - Kumara)
 * Kumara - Chch via SH 73.


 * Good activities along the way include blackwater rafting at Charleston (1/2 day), Punakaiki (allow at least an hour), short walks at Arthurs Pass.

dramatic (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) - former mainlander.

Economy
Alright, regarding this

While Air NZ is not Auckland's entire economy, it should not be removed under any circumstances. If Air NZ's HQ is in Auckland City, it is a vital employer, and therefore it must remain. Instead other users should try to find other employers. A major company's HQ should not be removed because it is the only entry. BTW if you want to insinuate that Air NZ's HQ isn't the only thing there, please use the tag to note that there is more to it than this. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Talk:Auckland City.- gadfium 17:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied again, and please read it and consider reversing your own edit. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock drama
Hi gadfium, have you been keeping an eye on the sock drama here? I asked Acalamari to help but had no response and feel this user needed stopping much earlier. Is it appropriate for you to block User:Anirban16chatterjee? Julia Rossi (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you bring it up at WP:ANI. I have to go out shortly and don't have time to investigate. Also, a checkuser may be required to prove the allegation of sockpuppetry.- gadfium 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

South Island broad-billed moa‎
I suppose a redirect would work for South Island Broad-billed Moa‎, since something does link there; however South Island broad-billed moa‎ has no incoming links. The problem I have with these pages, is that recent work seems to show that this species did not exist --- or at least has been renamed the Stout-legged moa. So at least for the one with no links it should be deleted. The other is misleading as is, but I will look into a fix. In fact, I can just fix the incoming article so that there are no incoming links.speednat (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the species has been renamed, or there are any references to it under the old/incorrect name, even erroneous ones, in popular or scientific literature, then we should include a redirect so someone searching for information can find it. A redirect does not give credibility to the name.- gadfium 06:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

University of Otago Student Protest wikilinks
Hi there, you said that the wikilinks that I added to the University of Otago Student Protest section was 'overlinking'. Can you please advise me of what the criteria are for appropriately adding a wikilink to add greater context and connectivity to a subject? You said you would winnow out the dups. What does that mean and can you advise me of what links are appropriate and which ones are inappropriate from that section? I tried to follow the conventions I thought I saw in the rest of the article, but several editors have thought the additions were controversial and I am confused as to why some wikilinks are valid and others are not. Thanks very much for your friendly and helpful tone in your edits. Other editors have been quite impolite. Cheers 139.80.33.95 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:OVERLINK and Methods of website linking. You are linking words such as "debt" and "cannabis", which I think really don't need explanation. Perhaps more tricky are links to subjects not obvious from the linked text, eg you link to Tim Shadbolt with a text of Progressive Youth Movement. The Shadbolt article doesn't really explain what the PYM is. It certainly would be appropriate to link directly to Progressive Youth Movement, which might prompt someone to write that article.


 * I note that you have linked "group of students" to Otago NORML, but linking with a text of "the Otago NORML group" or something similarly obvious would be preferred. See WP:EGG for a discussion of why such non-intuitive links are discouraged.


 * The "see also" section is not for links already present in the article, so some of the links there should be removed per WP:ALSO.- gadfium 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point about the 'Otago NORML group' link, but I have had to reword that sentence over five times because XLerate keeps deleting it. On the talk pages XLerate makes it clear that he has a negative bias against cannabis law reform demonstrations at Otago and he doesn't want the information included.  I  have continually justified this contribution through the talk pages and by providing legitimate references.  How can I stop this abuse of Wikipedia?  I would love to add a more intuitive sentence with wikilink about the cannabis protest but XLerate will delete almost anything that makes it clear.  Can you help?139.80.33.95 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The link to Otago NORML belongs in the protest section, not the See Also, so I've moved it there.- gadfium 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

TAKAPUNA GRAMMAR SCHOOL
I see you've deleted the piece on the TGS site about Hanafi. I dunno whether you were a seventh former there last year but I was, so I think I'll know whether Hanafi lost his head boy status or not. If you want, I can give you his number and you can ask him yourself or ask any of last years leavers or even mr lamb himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The formidable one (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it because I doubted that it was true (although no source was given). I deleted it because it's a fairly trivial event in the history of the school, and the person concerned has a right to not have the incident recorded on one of the most popular websites in the world, where future employers can readily find it. He's already been punished for the prank. By contrast, the teacher accused of supplying drugs has already been in the national media, and any damage to his reputation has already been done. The story about him does need to be updated though. I haven't seen any news reports about the outcome of the trial.- gadfium 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Constitution of Fiji: Chapter 8
Ah; my bad. I'd seen that a number of the articles, like chapter 15, had no analysis and had just tagged that one as being similar. I also tagged 12, 13, 15, and 16, although I think that those all do contain only the text of the chapter; I don't know if the PRODs at those should be removed or not. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as much my bad as yours. I saw Chapter 8 first, and removed the prod for the reasons given. I didn't adequately check the other articles in the series. The analysis for Chapter 8 is unsourced, which would have been acceptable when it was written in 2004 but isn't adequate now. Most of the later articles in the series consist solely of the legal text, and that isn't appropriate, although potentially sourced analysis could be added. I suspect David Cannon ran out of steam on this project.


 * A similar example of a series of articles on each section of a constitution, done to high standards, is United States Constitution Since David Cannon created the Fijian constitution article so long ago, and hasn't been expanding them, the chances are that no one will add the necessary analysis to the remaining Fiji constitution articles.


 * I think the whole series on the constitution of Fiji should stay or be deleted together, and an AfD might be preferable to prodding some of the articles. An alternative is to replace the prods with a tag saying that the article is incomplete and needs sourced analysis of the text. It might be worth raising the matter at WP:Wikiproject Fiji, although I'm not sure if anyone is very active on that WikiProject.- gadfium 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't take semi-valid articles to AFD (inclusionist :) ); I'd just prodded those because some of them were already on WikiSource. I'll mention it at the WikiProject for them to handle. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
You gave an excellent answer here. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for coming to the rescue ;) How do you fix the problem? --Yoganate79 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see my edit in the page history. The table which covers the 1700s did not have the termination characters "|}".- gadfium 11:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Oh, I fail. Thanks for fixing. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 11:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That incident is now the majority of edits for this article. I'll be interested to see how many hits it got, when stats.grok.se is next updated. Normally, Greymouth High School gets 3 or 4 hits a day, so it's most unlikely any real reader saw it in its vandalised state.- gadfium 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Otago NORML page image changed by XLerate
Hi there, thanks for your help resolving the dispute on the University of Otago Student Protest section. Now Xlerate has gone and changed the logo image on the Otago University NORML page, but a quick look at the talk page shows he already had a dispute over this with another editor and a third opinion was sought which ruled that the logo with the University colours should remain. I tried to revert the changes, but it looks as though he made changes to the image file and not the page itself, which I can't seem to find a straightforward way to undo. I tried to upload a new image of the logo with the university coulours but I couldn't figure out how. Can you help me by reverting the logo to the one with Uni colours? And can you advise me what procedure I should follow if I want to try to resolve the edit wars that Xlerate keeps pursuing with regard to this subject? 139.80.33.95 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See Mediation. It seems rather strange that the website uses a differently coloured logo from the one claimed as official. It might be best to drop the logo entirely from the article until its status can be made clear.- gadfium 00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear from the discussion on the talk page that there is an official logo that is different to the website logo. I have seen t-shirts and membership cards with the official logo around Dunedin in the past day.  What can I do to either revert the image or have both displayed? 139.80.33.95 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot revert the image without getting an account. I advise you to resolve the dispute through discussion or mediation rather than through reversion, however. Calling edits that you disagree with vandalism, as you have done in the title to this thread, is not conducive to a resolution.- gadfium 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about calling it vandalism, I take your point. It did seem a bit odd though considering that XLerate had already had a discussion about this with another editor and it had to be resolved by a third opinion, which XLerate complied with, but then now he has undone the changes.  Additionally the logo on the group's website is the one with the university colours, so it would seem that there is only one image that is legitimate to display.  I am happy to register to make these changes, but I fear that I will be accused of starting a single purpose account and I am unsure if a brand new user is able to make changes to images.  Would you be willing to revert the image for me?  I only ask you because you are aware of the back and forth between XLerate and I, but if you are not keen I can ask someone else.  Cheers 139.80.33.95 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you wait for a reply to your query from XLerate. A few hours or a day with the "wrong" logo shouldn't matter too much.- gadfium 02:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, at your suggestion of discussion I thought maybe if I just asked him to change it back that would resolve things hopefully. Thanks for your help. 139.80.33.95 (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic Protection Squad
Thank you! XLerate (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

EMS in New Zealand
Thanks for your interest in the article. Just so you are clear, the Emergency Medicine and EMS Task Force of WPMED has agreed to leave those infoboxes in place for all EMS by country and Paramedic by country articles as a part of our effort to make the whole area look less U.S.-centric. We recognize the problem with the infoboxes and currently have someone working on designing a specific box for this purpose...what is here at the moment is an interim measure. With respect to the spelling, I'm afraid that I'm responsible for that. Being Canadian, I tend to use the British and American spellings interchangeably. By all means, if you want to copyedit the spelling to NZ standards, that would be great. Cheers.Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll leave the infobox alone. The article is very impressive, especially since you presumably do not have local knowledge.- gadfium 11:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NZ on screen
Perhaps the discussion you started at WP:WPEL should be moved to WP:EL? Looking over the other discussions (seeing how old they are and how few people responded), I think a better consensus can be reached at WP:EL. If you do move the discussion, feel free to move my reply to you as well. Themfromspace (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I've moved it.- gadfium 07:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Removals - your eye would be good
Hi Gadfium - I followed your lead and removed the "economy" sections (read company lists) on Auckland City and Auckland CBD. I think I have made a good case for the why, and how (something like this could be added), but surely there will be reverts, I'd say. Please help me keep an eye on this, as I may not get back to this for a week or more, and would appreciate discussion support too, if the editor(s) disagree with the removals. Ingolfson (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd forgotten about the issue. Since the original editor hasn't shown any inclination to expand the lists since January, I agree that they should go. The remaining section in the Auckland CBD article is pretty good, and I would support a similar section in Auckland city if anyone wanted to find the appropriate figures.- gadfium 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

CopyVio
I apologise for my glaring violation. I had thought to leave the page as a sort of placeholder to collect info while I prepared my own article, but looking back I obviously did not consider the nature of the word 'Publish' in the context of 'Wikipedia'. From now on I will keep any research materials etc firmly local (and respect terms of use etc). Egmason (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)