User talk:PH AKL

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Augustus Bennett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dromore. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Edward Aldrich. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Despard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Dawson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tasman Empire Airways Limited logo 1939–46.svg
Thank you for uploading File:Tasman Empire Airways Limited logo 1939–46.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file 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 file 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 files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keith Murray (ceramic artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Cambrai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waitoreke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick Hutton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Phillpotts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Williams.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cecil Wood (engineer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyttelton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frederick Hutton (scientist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Williamson and New Zealand Institute.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Cecil Woods
Hi - interested in a reference you used about Woods having made a car in the 1890's. What is the date of the letter you are citing and where is it publicly available. NealeWellington (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reference updated. See: McCrystal, John (2003). "100 Years of Motoring in New Zealand". Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett Publishers Limited. ISBN 9789822080063. McCrystal may have referenced the letters in his book; we having acquired information on the vehicles from the same source at that time. PH AKL (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When I was originally investigating Cecil Woods and his claimed dates I found that they did not align with the newspapers of the time. Do you have any thoughts on that. All the later writing seem to be based on Wood's statements made many years after the events. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter. NealeWellington (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "It is what it is" with the accounts that have survived. More would be good for clarity and bridging disconnectedness. Wood's letters to his son were helpful with detail. Wood family recollections were also helpful back in about 2002–03. The motor tricycle appears to be the final development of 1895–1902 engine and car experiments. When Dennison inspected it in parts in 1900, he may not have been aware of earlier trials and its "evolution". Including the tricycle, there were four cars. The only photo of the third car, parts of which were used to make the fourth, has not been added to the page. PH AKL (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wood's original full photographic print of Wood in his motor tricycle parked in front of the Tourist Cycle Works (est. 1894) building, Stafford Street, Timaru, has hand written in fountain pen on the base of its matt: "First on the road as a skeleton 1895 ran with two people 1896". An original print, without the hand written inscription, is held by South Canterbury Museum, and is viewable online. PH AKL (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Researching these old events is really interesting. NealeWellington (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * References updated. Most of Cecil Walkden Wood's two letters are published in: Rodliffe, C. Geoffrey (2007). "Cecil Wood by the Family of Cecil Wood". Richard Pearse and His Flying Machines: An Anthology of Research Notes, Essays and Ideas (1 ed.). Auckland: C. G. Rodliffe. pp. 34–35. ISBN 9780473123628. Wood's sketches not included. PH AKL (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Hulme (British Army officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Flag.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Hulme (British Army officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Auchmuty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Wynyard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rp.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Pratt (missionary), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portsea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Puketutu/Hulme
Hi there, I thought it would be courteous to stop by with a more detail explanation of my reversion of your last change to the Battle of Puketutu article than given in the edit summary. The mention of Ōhaeawai is not relevant here, as the pā there is not even mentioned in this article. Also unless I missed it when scanning it, the source you added doesn't specify Ōhaeawai, and only refers to "Heke's Pah". On the other hand, my source (Simons) does refer to Puketutu. I am monitoring changes to the article quite closely at the moment as I intend to take it to FAC where it will get heavily scrutinised there (it has already gone through the GA process and an A-Class assessment at MilHist). On a separate note, I see you have been doing quite a bit of work on the William Hulme article. Some sections seem quite excessive in detail, not all of it being particularly pertinent to Hulme. For example the Thalner Fort section has nine paragraphs but only mentions him twice and one of these is him going on leave. However, with a bit of copy editing work, trimming of duplicate links, background context added and some modern sources to supplement the relatively aged ones already used, I think this section could be spun out into a standalone 'Battle of Thalner' article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I suggest deleting "Note 4" on the "Battle of Puketutu" page. Regarding heavy scrutiny, Captain George Bennett, Commanding Royal Engineer (CRE), had been ill in Auckland and died on 30 April 1845, so couldn't accompany Hulme's inland expedition to Okaihau and Puketutu. From 1842, Bennett had studied, drawn, reported and advised on Maori fortifications. Captain William Marlow, CRE, wasn't available for the expedition, for he didn't arrive in New Zealand to replace Bennett until the Ohaeawai expedition. Hulme walked away from Te Kahika, Puketutu, (no outright defeat or surrender either way) and didn't crack it open to get a look inside. If he had (the thought of it!), there was no senior engineer to lead a survey and cross-section the site. Nevertheless, at some point, a crude plan of Te Kahika, titled "O'KAIHAU 40 feet to one inch" was drawn. Marlow, known at battles of Ohaeawai and Ruapekapeka, drew a plan and cross section of Heke's Ohaeawai pa, which he sent on to the Royal Engineers in England. Simmons may have uncovered primary sources for his claim, however, over the decades I haven't found reference to earlier mock pa stockade experiments at Chatham specifically in relation to "Puketutu" / Okaihau", and assume that Simmons incorrectly assigned Marlow's "Heki's Pah" to "Puketutu"---Too easy to do. Regarding Hulme and Thalner, by accounts, after Major Gordon's death, Hulme led the Storming Party of Royal Scots flanking companies and the Madras European Regiment in an assault upon Thalner's garrison which ranged in estimates from 180 to 300 individuals. Only several individuals of the garrison appear to have survived/escaped the assault alive. The Thalner section of Hulme's biography was shortened, whilst avoiding undermining the story of how Hulme came to be there and play a key role in that sad event. How a situation proceeds to a trigger point is moment by moment. Hulme's key role in the deadly outcome could again be made a little more obvious, and I'll look at that. Hulme's biographies are usually a bit lacking. To read between three articles--William Hulme, Thalner and Battle of Thalner--to find Hulme's story would be a complex approach. Additionally, the "Battle of Puketutu" article requires review. For example, the article states, "Hulme's report, which included inflated casualty numbers for Heke and Kawiti's warriors, on the engagement at Puketutu", whereas Hulme's official despatch of 27 May 1845 simply stated that rebel losses "could not be correctly ascertained, but it must have been great." When compared to citation, Belich simply wrote, "Translating optimistically from Hulme's report, FitzRoy exulted in a major victory, with at least 200 Maoris killed and wounded." So, Hulme didn't include inflated casualty numbers for Heke and Kawiti's forces in his official despatch? That needs to be looked at. Cheers PH AKL (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and deleted Note 4. On reflection I think, bearing in mind that the Puketutu pā was burnt down without any British military gaining entry and therefore being able to inspect it, it seems more likely it was Heke and Kawiti's later pās that were mocked up at Chatham despite what Simons says. I have also revised the after-battle reporting of the casualties. Zawed (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RE Hulme, the level of detail remains excessive and includes much off-topic detail, making for an article that is difficult to read and follow. Generally, you should be writing in a summary style. As I suggested, an article could be created for the battle, and that could be linked for readers wanting more detail. While some high level context would still be required in the Hulme article, that would not require an explanation of the cession of Sendhwa fort, the description of Thalner fort and its environs, the precise details of the surrender/parley attempt by Murray's party, the execution of the Kiladar, the quote from Carnaticus and so on. For example, much of the 6th paragraph and a portion of the 7th could be summarised as: "Murray led a party of four further into the fort to negotiate terms but due to a misunderstanding as they attempted to disarm the Arabs, they were attacked. Other British soldiers rushed to assist and were able to rescue a wounded Murray but the others in his party were killed. The British soldiers fell back with MacGregor and some of his grenadiers providing covering fire. As they did so, Hulme and another officer led the storming party through the gate of the fort and attacked the garrison." That example would need a bit of work but hopefully you can see what I am trying to achieve. Zawed (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply and alterations to the Puketutu article. Also, the suggestion for Thalner Fort. I'll look at reducing the Thalner section when time permits. On a matter of logic in the Battle of Puketutu article, if this statement is a true, "Until he abandoned it on 9 May, Heke retained control of the battlefield following Hulme's withdrawal, and as such, Puketutu was his victory", then this statement is also true, that, "Until Nene abandoned the field, he retained control of the battlefield and destruction of Puketutu following Heke's withdrawal, and as such, Puketutu was Nene's victory." Maori allies were still operating in the field? It was an "allied victory"? But then, surely, as there was no outright defeat or surrender (the object of battle) on either side, the outcome of the test may be ordinarily no victory or "inconclusive". Should there be fixation on "victory"?. For a common sense military engineer's review of the battle, Collinson should have been read and cited in the article, particularly: "5thly.- It is very satisfactory to find that, with all these difficulties to encounter, the troops themselves behaved exceedingly well. They surmounted the difficulties of the country steadily, and after going through them all they showed, when they had the opportunity in the sally and ambush, that they could drive back the natives hand to hand on equal terms. These are circumstances when the drill and whole education of the soldier is at fault; the discipline and manœuvring of the parade are almost useless; each man is thrown on his individual resources; nevertheless, notwithstanding the totally new circumstances in which they were placed, I do not think there is any case recorded in the whole wars in which, with anything like a fair field, they did not easily drive back the natives." I believe later authors have mentioned "equal terms" too. It is an effort to find mention of the troops being "demoralised"; "behaving exceedingly well", damp, hungry, short of tea, sugar, biscuit, some other comforts and suitable means to carry the wounded, perhaps. When reading Bennett, who should also be cited, it was known then (Hulme and Bennett worked together on matters in Auckland, Wellington and the Bay of Islands) that the Northland terrain did not suit the European method of fighting; that Maori possessed considerable military knowledge and that fighting pa were death traps for infantry. Hulme walking away from the field was a sound military decision, for his stated reasons, as well as Te Kahika, Puketutu, being a purpose built temporary work of no strategic importance. Collinson commented that it was a mistake in attempting such a military expedition without sufficient means. He estimated a sufficient force would have been about 500 infantry, four howitzers (two 12-pounders and two 24-pounders), with some rockets, and some sappers to make the road and batteries. Hulme noted in his report that it was Paratine Rekeao who had urged him to waste no time in attacking Heke. The chief, Honi Ropiha Tamaha, should perhaps be mentioned for his efforts, as we are told he retrieved a wounded seaman whilst under fire and other wounded from the field. He discovered the ambush. Cheers PH AKL (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is appropriately referenced to modern, secondary sources; primary sources should be avoided unless absolutely necessary (for example, I cite Hulme's dispatch but only to contrast the casualty numbers in the official report with his estimate). Collinson, which is listed in the bibliographies of many of the secondary sources used (actually, sometimes in the primary source section), is a particularly dated source and is clearly a product of its time. I don't intend to add anything to it nor do I think it necessary. I am puzzled by your comments regarding victory; this will be of interest to most, if not all readers, and as per the article, it was Heke and Kawiti's. I heavily cited the relevant statement for this. I don't understand the point of your comment regarding Nene having victory on the basis of destroying the pā. As is clear in the article, the pā was built for a specific purpose: to draw the British into a costly engagement. Mission accomplished, Heke abandoned it. What happened to the pā afterwards is irrelevant to the outcome of the battle. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, and for the alterations. Urged by Nene? Who was Paratine Rekeao and for what reason was he urging Hulme to attack Heke? Will we ever know? Cheers PH AKL (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From the context of Hulme's dispatch it seems that "Paratine" was present at Pomare's pā at Otuihu. Simons refers to a chief Paratene that was sent by Nene to Auckland to meet with Fitzroy and urge action against Heke. None of the other sources I checked appear to mention this individual. I suspect while Nene was at Ōkaihau, Paratene was Nene's envoy but that would be speculation/OR and regardless, not worth mentioning. Zawed (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)