User talk:NZ4Life

March 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Judith Collins has been reverted. Your edit here to Judith Collins was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/feed-the-kids-bill-defeated-in-parliament-2015031817) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Food in schools
Please don't add the same (or very similar) content to dozens of different articles, as you did relating to the Education (Food in Schools) Amendment Bill. You should find a single article where this is clearly on topic, perhaps Fifth National Government of New Zealand. However, it is not at all clear that this is sufficiently relevant even there, as this is a bill originally sponsored by the oppposition, and it is routine for any Westminster-style government to vote down such bills. This is a little unusual in that a Maori Party MP (and ally of the Government) picked up the bill. I suggest you make a case at Talk:Fifth National Government of New Zealand explaining why this is different from every other bill the government has voted down and should therefore be included.- gadfium 19:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting at Talk:Fifth National Government of New Zealand. Until there is a discussion coming to some agreement there, please don't restore your edits on the various MP articles. See WP:BRD. You've been bold, and that's good. Several editors (including me) have disagreed with you and reverted. Now we discuss. For you to restore all your edits would be disruptive.- gadfium 01:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope there will be well constructed and unbiased discussion in said groupTalk:Fifth National Government of New Zealand. I will refrain from editing/undoing more posts. Just note: I have undone like 2-3 few mearly moments ago before this message, apologies. NZ4Life 01:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * gadfium Just out of my curiosity regarding etiquette. I am wondering in response as to User;Mattlore's undo of my addition to individual members pages regarding the current topic where he states [|"‎Food in schools controversy: no source for 'controvery'"] as his reasoning. Different to your more educated critique of "correct placement".
 * Would you respond with the dump of 'sustained and continuing' news articles within the last 24 hours quoting "Principles and head of schools" outright calling the government "disgraceful" and "Defeating three bills designed to do just that indicates the governnment has no intention of doing the right thing."
 * Or would you heed his previous opinion where he attributes the fact's should still remain in one section rather than an inclusive attribute to participants due to his 'over-represented' personal belief regarding the magnitude of this 'controversy' and it's relevancy.
 * Eg.[][][]
 * I quite clearly understand the definition of "'controversy': prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion."
 * But I fear considering the waiting game regarding the etiquette you imparted to me for WP:BRD, "BRD is never a reason for reverting and instead creating discussion". I fail to see how I could possibly on my own manage to sustain a discussion on 60 different Talk sections all retaining to the same singular addition which is factual and within proper context.
 * Also, I have no idea what the 'reasonable amount of time' is considered when waiting for thorough response and agreement eg. "Similarly, if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit."
 * Or should I just engage more in the Talk:Fifth National Government of New Zealand regarding a agreeable addition?
 * I look forward to and appreciate your advise. Regards.


 * Example addition.


 * On 18 March 2015 in a controversial vote the National Party, voted against the |"Education (Food in Schools) Amendment Bill". Media, the public and school leaders responded negatively.


 * NZ4Life 11:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As there has been no opposition at Talk:Fifth National Government of New Zealand, I've added a sentence to the article. The example addition you give above would not fit the existing format of the article which is limited to the actions of the government and doesn't cover responses to them.

You have not gained any support that I've noticed for mentioning this on the articles on individual MPs who voted against it. However, it would be appropriate to mention at Metiria Turei as she was the final sponsor of the bill. Hone Harawira already mentions the bill but it needs to be updated. Would you like to update those two articles?- gadfium 00:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response and assistance and a well spotted critique, I was unaware of your addition. :) Regarding Metiria Turei & Hone Harawira's pages. From the look of it, you are well ahead of me on this and I will differ to your superior editing. Thank you again for the great discussion.NZ4Life 12:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)