User talk:Turnagra

Article Review
Hello turnagra. I have simplified Pedro Piquero's article, replacing it, under your suggestions, with reliable sources and eliminating external links to wikipedia. I would like to know your opinion to help me. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.34.202 (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverted move
I have reverted your move of Fox Glacier, New Zealand, becuase it was contrary to Naming conventions (New Zealand) and there was no discussion. If you believe this article should be an exception to the convention, please open a discussion on the talk page.- gadfium 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - apologies for moving it without discussion. I'm trying to see how it runs contrary to the naming conventions, particularly number 5? Unless it's relating to the use of 'township' instead of 'town'? Turnagra (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you! I'll go back and try to expand on the lead in the next couple of weeks sometime! Turnagra (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

June 2021
Your edit to How Great Thou Art has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. '' Do not add copyrighted lyrics to articles about songs. This is unhelpful, not only because of copyright, but also because Wikipedia is not a lyrics database.'' RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * is there a reason why the entire edit was reverted and not just a subsequent edit to remove the lyrics? I'm also curious as to how the use of the lyrics in that instance to demonstrate its link to another hymn differs in use to the numerous other uses of lyrics in that article, especially since many of them are newer than the lyrics to Whakaaria Mai? I'd be keen to go back and add the section on Whakaaria Mai even without the lyrics if need be since the edit was much broader than that, but want to get a bit more context first to make sure I'm not missing something. Turnagra (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are more recent lyrics, and these are also under copyright, they also need to be removed. As for the presence of translations, that's a given for most major hymns. Unless this version is particularly significant and stands out amongst the translations for some reason, a short mention, such as "The song has been translated into other languages, including [...]" would be the logical way to give an encyclopedic summary of the topic (as opposed to giving too much detail). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my point with the lyrics was that they're from a different hymn than How Great Thou Art, so it's more of a combination, but happy to do that via text instead of a lyrical comparison. As far as the significance of it, Whakaaria Mai is definitely significant as a version of the song and is probably the most famous hymn in New Zealand - in my view, absolutely worthy of a couple paragraphs at least. Turnagra (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Article Review
Hi there, I notice that you were the last person prior to myself to make an edit to the Christchurch suburb of Wigram. I have put a lot of effort over the last several weeks making it as complete as I can and I would really appreciate your input into the article, any edits/reviews etc, or if you could advise me of anything which you think should be changed? I would love to get my edits reviewed by someone like yourself who is also familair with the area.

Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia!

StraightTalkNZ (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your work on the article! I see that User:Schwede66 has already made a few changes and given you some feedback, so that's probably a good place to start. I think the key thing is trying to reword a lot of the content into text similar to other articles, instead of bulleted lists or incomplete sentences. I also think it's worth taking another check to see whether all of the categories are strictly necessary, or whether some of them could be combined. For instance, the article for Addington has a single "facilities" section - a similar section for Wigram could reasonably have paragraphs that cover the "National Institutions", "Parks, sport and recreation", "Elderly Housing and care" and potentially Education sections. This would make the article much easier to read. I also feel like the Governance section could be included within the infobox, and so I'm not sure if it's worth having a separate section on that.


 * At any rate, hopefully that's enough to get started on - happy to provide more feedback or be a sounding board for thoughts etc if that would be helpful! Turnagra (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, the above comments would be better posted on the Wigram talk page, as other editors interested in the topic would also benefit from your good thoughts. You can always leave a note here that you've moved (or copied) your response to there.  Schwede 66  08:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Turnagra thanks for the tips, I merged those three under Landmarks and features as per the Saint Heliers article as I think that several items genuinely fit into regional landmarks e.g. Nga Puna Wai and the Museum rather than just "Features". I also rewrote some of those sections to try to make it more text instead of just bulleted lists/incomplete sentences like you reccomended.  Hopefully it makes reads a bit better and thanks for your advice!

StraightTalkNZ (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glaciers of New Zealand, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Fox and Forbes Glacier. 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) 06:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

NZ names and the meaning of life
Hi, just some rambling thoughts to help explain myself on more meta topics. One of my little pet problems is AfD's where because the default is Keep, editors who want that have no insensitive to engage past posting a vote. That does not mean I am accusing anyone of anything. It is more that when the system incentivizes disengagement it does not aid discussion. No, I don't have a better system in mind. On another point we have put so much ink into this RfD and I don't feel closer to understanding your point of view. Part of that is my own unwillingness to read and understand everything (I have been a bit slack, sorry), but also I feel the way threads work is floored. I would prefer I think lots of subheadings to keep us on narrow subtopics. For example in the Taranaki talk, I may have been guilty of moving the goalposts which happens often when you have so many points and feel you have to get them all out at once. As for my main problem of too few editors knowing the rules we make, I am musing on the idea of a NZ template on talk pages that links any specific NZ rule and spelling pages, like a FAQ but less aggressive. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kia ora, cheers for reaching out. I totally agree with what you said on the dual name discussions, I think they very quickly get out of hand and become unwieldy - I feel sorry for anyone new trying to wade in now! I think what might help when it comes to the understanding of points of view is to separate the discussion from the specific guidelines and talk about the actual reasons behind the points of view - for instance, are you just opposed to dual names because they don't align with wider wikipedia policies or is there some other reason you're not a fan of dual place names behind used? I think a bit of kōrero around that first, which doesn't even touch on the specific guidelines, would be far more helpful in terms of understanding where people are coming from and then being able to come to a clearer picture on how we can move forward. Turnagra (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re Circumpolar peoples. Firstly I assure you we just follow the same pages and I am not following you. Secondly I wanted more subheadings and now I have four? different sub-threads on fundamentally the same question across two pages, be careful what you wish for. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Not that you need any validation from me, but I thought the vote would have gone the other way. If I was on the "other-side" I would have definitively seen it as an example of an administrator counting the votes. Then hours later I was unimpressed when I saw a few pages moved in my watch list, then gobsmacked when I found out how many others had been. Anyway just wanted to say that your comment that neutrality propagates the injustices of the majority was not lost on me. It is late, slavery has started to be mentioned, take some consolidation that what ever happens next I have to tell myself that it is what I wanted. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Blanket move discussion NZ your vote
Hallo Turnagra,

You have participated in a previous vote. There is a blanket move discussion initated by User:Spekkios to revert your vote on other pages which is here: Talk:Fox_Glacier_/_Te_Moeka_o_Tuawe in case you are not aware of it yet. Gryffindor (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for that - hadn't got around to that one yet but have been well involved in the other move requests. Be sure to also check out the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) page for an ongoing discussion around the much wider page moves that have happened and an attempt at forming a process going forward. Turnagra (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Maps of New Zealand
Hi Turnagra! I can work on other maps of NZ. May be you can make a list of what is needed and give me the frames of these maps (in N,S, E, W coordinates). I will generate them. If you wish to work on them too I can generate the drafts and you can finish them. The maps are svg and I use Inkscape to finalise them. As a start I thought that I can create a detailed geographical map of New Zealand similar to this, this or this. --Ikonact (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ikonact! For maps like that, if you'd like to do one of New Zealand at a whole we could probably find a use for it, but it might be more useful to do one for each of the two main islands separately for their respective articles. I also think having some for some of the offshore island groups (such as the Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands, Campbell Islands and Mercury Islands) could be useful, in the same way that we already have ones for Stewart Island / Rakiura and the Chatham Islands (though I note that both of these ideally need to be updated with dual names where relevant).
 * The other main maps I've been thinking of at this stage have been one of the Marlborough Sounds (N,S,E,W borders probably 40°35' 41°35' 174°30' 173°25') and Banks Peninsula (N,S,E,W borders probably 43°32' 43°56' 173°10' 172°30') - these two would probably benefit from having location maps, so I'm not sure whether you'd prefer to just do the blank location map or do a detailed one too - up to you! Turnagra (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will start with the location maps. I made a try with Marlborough Sounds. If OK I can make Banks Peninsula. I will do the islands after that. Let me know --Ikonact (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I made also the map of the Banks Peninsula.--Ikonact (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those both look great, thank you Ikonact! Do you mind if I go ahead and set them up as location maps now? Look forward to seeing how the detailed ones turn out, too! Turnagra (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good that these fit your expectations. Just a little clarification: when you say "detailed ones" do you mean for these location maps or the island groups maps? I do not think that we need more details on these location maps but if you wish so, I can make them. I will focus on the islands now. This may take a bit more time. --Ikonact (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant the island maps. There would definitely be cases where we could use labelled / detailed versions of the location maps, but I don't think that's a priority at the moment. Turnagra (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Turnagra, here is the first map I made of Three Kings Islands--Ikonact (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this, thank you! Is there any way to get the bathymetric data, or nothing high-res enough to use? Turnagra (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried with the ETOPO1 data but the resolution is too low to work well for such small maps. I can give a second try and optimise. May be bathymetry data from LINZ can work too but I have to dig a bit deeper on their site to find the correct data. If you have any idea for better data I will take it. --Ikonact (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found Depth contour polyline on LINZ site. I can try it and let you know. --Ikonact (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Added bathymetry --Ikonact (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's come out well, thank you! Out of curiosity, how did you convert the depth contour lines into what you have on your image? That was where I ran into issues in my map, as I couldn't figure out how to properly change it over. Turnagra (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you use as tool for your maps? I use some scripts that I made to turn shape files into svg. I extract the contours for a given level from the shapefile and then apply the same logic as for costliness. --Ikonact (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This was just trying to use QGIS, with varying levels of success... Turnagra (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that with QGIS it is not obvious. You can filter using the "valdco" filed. But the bathymetry data from LINZ is a bit tricky. No polygones but lines so it is difficult to fill with colour. I am working on the Campbell island now and the contours around are not ideal. The same was around Three Kings Islands. There were holes and some strange perfect circles of 20m in between 30 and 50m areas. --Ikonact (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm following this with interest. Great work! Would it be possible to produce a map that shows the Heaphy Track, with the track itself shown on it? The current issue with the track is that three bridges have just been washed away, including a suspension bridge of 147 m length! Would be nice to show on a map where that happened.  Schwede 66  21:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Schwede66! That may be possible but I will be grateful if you are have an example of what you want. A topo map with the track? --Ikonact (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I actually quite like the relief maps that you've been producing.  Schwede 66  21:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, is it still the correct process that if I want to use one of your maps as a location map (e.g. in an infobox), I'd have to define it in Module:Location map? Given that you work a lot with maps, you'd probably more up to date with the happenings than I am.  Schwede 66  22:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I created a map data in Commons for Heaphy Track. This can be imported in the article. I will work on a topo map later on. Regarding the location maps, I think Turnagra is better placed than me to explain. --Ikonact (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , awesome work. Love it! The map shows two tracks, though. The Heaphy Track (the long one) and a shorter side-track, the Shakespeare Flat Track. See the clip. Could you keep the latter separate, please? How should these maps be categorised? I had not come across this type of data before.  Schwede 66  00:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * the maps should all be already loaded as location maps (see for Fiordland, Banks Peninsula, and Marlborough Sounds) so all you'd need to do is specify them on the relevant infobox. I've done this for the first two already on some articles (eg. Taiari / Chalky Inlet for Fiordland and Ōtamahua / Quail Island for Banks Peninsula) but haven't got to the Marlborough Sounds yet. Turnagra (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that it does things the way it should be in other infoboxes, but  seems to be set up differently. Going by the documentation, it seems that you do need to set it up via Module:Location map for coordinates to be shown as a pin. See Takapūneke for an example.  Schwede  66  23:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weird, I have no idea why that one is working differently to the others. How did you manage to get it working, so that I can do it for the other two maps? Turnagra (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I does work once a map is set up via Module:Location map (which you've done; or was it Ikonact?) and by using it via the parameter   Schwede  66  00:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I made the Campbell Island map too --Ikonact (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, love your work! I'll set to updating that article with it. Turnagra (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

+ Map of Auckland Islands --Ikonact (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks great as usual! I'm not sure what's still on your list, but just in case you were planning to do the Antipodes Islands it seems there's already a map of the same style for them so probably don't need to bother there. Turnagra (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a list here of those islands that have a map already. I will start with the Snares Islands now --Ikonact (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

+ Map of Snares Islands--Ikonact (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

+ Map of Bounty Islands --Ikonact (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * These both look great, thanks! Turnagra (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Turnagra! I reduced my activities on Wikipedia those last weeks and therefore did not finish with the NZ islands maps. I see from my list that I still need to make the map of the Kermadec Islands. Could you please let me know if there is any other map that you would like to have? Thanks --Ikonact (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * All good, hope everything's okay! The only other island group which could potentially benefit from a map would be maybe the Mercury Islands, since the current one has great detail of the bathymetry but nothing on the surface. If possible, I've wondered whether maps for the North and South Islands could be worthwhile as well, though I know that would be a lot more work so that's absolutely fine if you'd rather not do that!
 * With the recent changes to the sub-antarctic islands and my other planned projects, I've also been wondering about whether a blank location map for Zealandia could be feasible - though this is quite a bit area, so there might be too much distortion for an easy one of those? Turnagra (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Turnagra! I am working on the maps but in the current political context I do miss some creative inspiration. Meanwhile I would like to draw your attention to this excellent map of Marlborough Sounds created by @Sting on a request at the fr.wiki. I hope you will enjoy it. Ikonact (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Ikonact, I completely understand and just hope you look after yourself! Thank you for the heads up on that other map as well, it looks fantastic! Turnagra (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your request,, here's the discussion about the Heaphy Track map.  Schwede 66  07:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK
Have you ever considered giving your quality articles exposure on the main page (i.e. homepage) of Wikipedia? Puhi Kai Iti / Cook Landing Site qualifies for DYK (Did you know ...) and it's guaranteed that it will be shown. If you are lucky, it even gets a photo spot. I can show you the ropes if you are interested. It has to happen within seven days of the article having been created.  Schwede 66  07:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the idea! I think I'd looked into it briefly in the past but either couldn't quite get my head around the process or couldn't figure out a good hook. Happy to give it a shot if you reckon the articles are up to it, and of course any pointers would be much appreciated! Turnagra (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Schwede66 - I just gave the nomination a shot, I think I did it properly? (on looking back, I forgot to change the date that I made the article, so it's showing up as having been made today...) Turnagra (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's looking good. With regards to the date, I've simply shifted the template to the correct header and that fixes that part. I've watchlisted the nomination page so can assist if needed.  Schwede 66  20:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverting / undo
you can’t just undo a good faith move because it was undiscussed. You need to include a reason for why you believe the move was wrong. — HTGS (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Kia ora HTGS - I was pressed for time this morning when I made the reversion, which is why I didn't fully explain it as I probably should have per WP:BRD. Fundamentally, it's the exact same argument that forms the basis of the current move request: Your new title required more disambiguation, was longer, and overall not an improvement to the article. I note your reference to the Cave Creek Disaster, which happened three years before the dual name was adopted. Recent usage when not talking of the disaster uses the dual name, and so that's a better and more accurate fit for the article per the guidelines for geographic names.
 * I also note the wording in your original message, and would like to remind you about WP:AGF. Turnagra (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Which is 'Removed from request'?
Your list of moves at Requested_moves lists a different move as "* Removed from request 23/3 as dual name does not apply to town" than which has "Diamond Harbour, New Zealand" struck out instead of "Cam River (Canterbury)". I presume one of these two should be altered to match the other. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up R. S. Shaw! It should be Te Waipapa / Diamond Harbour which was removed from the request. I've properly deleted it now, and will check in later today at the requested moves page to see whether the change has properly been reflected. Turnagra (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Alšėniškiai
Hi, why did you close the discussion without moving, if the arguments were clearly in favor of that? Marcelus (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Kia ora Marcelus - I closed it as there seemed to be consensus amongst other editors not to move the article. The request had already been relisted once and there have not been any new comments in over three weeks. Turnagra (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Notice that on 9 march the page was moved by User:Cukrakalnis without any discussion, I didn't want to start an edit war, so that's why I started the move discussion. And there was no consensus, Cukrakalnis was proposing moving the page to the Latin name, also you need to weigh arguments, the name proposed by me was clearly the most popular in Google Scholar. The page should be moved at least to the old name.Marcelus (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No answer??? Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I hadn't seen the various moves in the page's history - though I think Cukrakalnis had every right to move the article initially per WP:BEBOLD. I'm a bit confused as to the subsequent order of things, which looks like you moved the page to your desired title and then took out a move request? The subsequent reversion of your move would've been to make the move request work properly. All of this, however, doesn't escape the fact that there was consensus in that move request against moving the page to Holszański. At most, it may be worth reverting the article to its original stable title of Olshanski for a move request, as probably would've been a better approach than what took place, but I don't think that's necessary either. Turnagra (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again there was no consensus, because only two users were against moving (one of them was a user who originally moved it to Alšėniškiai), and they had no substantial arguments. My argument was that Holszański is the most popular in English literature, the other proposal was that the page should be moved to one of the Slavic forms of the name because most authors prefer the Slavic form of the name (which btw is historically accurate, Alšėniškiai is modern Lithuanisation). So I guess I should WP:BEBOLD and move the page back to Olshanski?Marcelus (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a better course of action if you disagree with the closure is to open a WP:MOVEREVIEW. Turnagra (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But don't you see the problem here? The user is moving the article under an incorrect name. You end the discussion prematurely without checking what the actual situation of the article was. A week is really not much time for such a fairly niche topic. Now I, in turn, have to start another discussion on the same topic, which will probably end similarly.Marcelus (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Marcelus is incorrect when he says name proposed by me was clearly the most popular in Google Scholar and they had no substantial arguments, because, as I said on the talk page: Most of the "Holszański" mentions are of separate individuals and not the family itself. The accurate rendition for the family would be "Holszańscy" (plural instead of singular) [12] - this gives only 3 results. Alšėniškiai is undoubtedly preferred to Holszańscy.' We are talking about the whole family, not individuals, who would have likely called themselves different names, like in the case of another family, the Giedraičiai (examples: Gedroits (Vera Gedroits), Guedroitz (Wladimir Guedroitz, Alexis Guedroitz), Giedroyc (Jerzy Giedroyc) or Guédroïtz (Ania Guédroïtz)). This is not the first time that Marcelus made ungrounded overgeneralizations and claims.
 * Cukrakalnis was proposing moving the page to the Latin name that was only a minor suggestion when I said Could Latin-language names be a neutral compromise to these discussions about which language names to use? I asked this, because there is a continuous never-ending and unconstructive back-and-forth between me and Marcelus for a long time (already close to half-a-year). Marcelus also moved the page Romualdas Giedraitis to Romuald Giedroyć on January 18, when the closure was clear No Consensus on 5 November 2021. Turnagra, does this constitute a violation of wiki guidelines? If so, which ones? I am unsure where to report it, that's why I am asking, and this is not an isolated case as there is a disquieting trend of Marcelus breaking Wikipedia rules. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are comparing incomparable things. You give examples of different Giedroycs whose common origin cannot be proven. This family was extremely extended. Already at the very beginning in the 14th century, we find many "Giedroycs knyazs" without specific kinship. Besides, you give the example of a Russian-speaking Giedroyc family whose name was transliterated in its own way in English. There were the Polish-speaking Giedroycs, who spelled themselves "Giedroyć", and the 14th/15th-century Giedroycs, who were undoubtedly Lithuanian and should be referred to by their Lithuanian-sounding surname. With the Holszanskis, the situation is different. This is a family with undoubtedly Lithuanian roots, but which became Ruthenised already in the first generation. From the second generation we can only find Russian and later Polish names. Besides, we can count the members of this family, they died out in the 16th century. It would be against the historical truth to use the Lithuanised form of their surname, because they never used it. And google hits prove that researchers agree that we should use Slavic family name in reference to the. You can accuse me of many things, but I just need to know you are understanding my point. Marcelus (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion had been going for nearly a month (including a relist) and had not had any new comments in over three weeks - that's not a discussion which has been ended prematurely. I'm not convinced by the argument that we should be using a plural for the name instead of a singular (for example, we have articles at Rockefeller and Roosevelt, not "Rockefellers" and "Roosevelts"), but the discussion had still gone on long enough in my view.
 * As I said before, I'm more than happy for you to take out a move review if you're not happy with my closure. I don't think that my talk page is the best venue to continue this discussion outside the context of the original closure. Turnagra (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Article
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cielquiparle (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC).

Advice re RM Discussions
I’ve observed that you have made a number of non-admin closures of RMs (some not without some blowback from other editors). When I started closing RMs over a decade ago, I made many mistakes as well. The learning curve was challenging. One of the things I did in 2015 was to capture a summary of commonly used arguments in RMs that in my view should be avoided. I share it with you as you may find it useful. Arguments to Avoid in Requested Move Discussions Mike Cline (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Kia ora Mike, cheers for this. I've been trying to stick to the fairly straightforward ones for the time being (especially since a lot of the move requests I don't actually have the ability to do because I don't have the required perms yet) but this will definitely be useful going forward. Turnagra (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Puhi Kai Iti / Cook Landing Site
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Hector Mountains
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:10th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)
Hi; could you explain how you determined there was a consensus against this proposal? BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said in the closing notes, the move has been active for over a month and in that time the prevailing view of the discussion is that the disambiguation of that page (as well as the two other divisions raised as part of the discussion) is fine as it is. There was no consensus on any other potential title, nor grounds for a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS close, while the discussion seemed sufficient to close against a move. Turnagra (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What I am asking is how you weighted the arguments that allowed you to decide that there was a consensus against the move. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. You argued that the disambiguation wasn't sufficient, other editors said it was you both cited WP:MILMOS with different interpretations, and I found the argument from the other editor more compelling. Turnagra (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What I am getting at with this is that I believe you assessed consensus incorrectly, so I am asking you to explain why you found the "oppose" arguments more compelling than the "support" arguments. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And I have done so. I'm curious as to what other outcome you think would be possible in this instance, as a close in favour of a move with no proposed title would bean incredibly poor choice of outcome. I'm happy to reverse my close and relist if you'd prefer, as you clearly won't accept any answer I give and frankly I can't be bothered continuing the discussion, but I suspect this will just delay the same outcome. Turnagra (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have; you've explained that you found the argument from one of the other editors more compelling, but you haven't explained why, in the context of Wikipedia policy, you found it more compelling. And the two results that I believe would have been appropriate would have been no consensus, or a relist. BilledMammal (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd assumed that it would be clear from their respective points. Now do you want me to relist or not? Turnagra (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. I'm not certain why you are unwilling to explain why, in the context of Wikipedia policy, you found their respective points more compelling. If you are not willing to explain why, then either changing the result to "no consensus", or a relist, would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not unwilling, I'm just confused as to how you're not understanding it. Peacemaker's explanation of how the current titles fit the guidelines in WP:MILMOS makes for a stronger argument than your vague assertion that it doesn't fit the same guideline, especially when that guideline states the disambiguating term should be the common name of the country whose armed forces the unit belongs to the following section about further disambiguation is not necessary as per Peacemaker's argument that the other units are sufficiently distinct by virtue of being NKVD and Guards Motor divisions respectively. If that's still not good enough for you, I'm happy to go and change it to no consensus. Turnagra (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. However, I believe you assessed consensus incorrectly; Peacemaker did argue that they are sufficiently disambiguated, but two editors, myself and Necrothesp, argued that usage is still ambiguous as 10th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) can reasonable refer to both of these articles, and since WP:MILMOS doesn't give guidance on whether usage is ambiguous there is no basis to provide additional weight to Peacemakers argument. As such, I still believe that changing the result to no consensus would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Tracking my edits
Apologies for opening a second discussion; I have an extensive backlog on my watchlist to go through.

Eight hours after I moved Eyre Mountains/Taka Ra Haka Conservation Park you reverted the move, despite having never edited the article before. Similarly, eight hours after I created Scott Point you moved it to Tiriparepa / Scott Point, despite the article having no links to it at the time. I cannot think of any explanation for either of these examples, particularly the Scott Point example, aside from WP:HOUNDING, and so while I have raised this before with you I need to raise it again; please stop tracking my edits. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I regularly track a number of pages particularly around dual names  as well as the new page list for WPNZ. I can assure you I'm not personally tracking your edits  I have far better things to do with my time. Turnagra (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * . As you can see, Scott Point was not listed on it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well then I'm not sure where I saw it perhaps on the WPNZ unassessed list? What I can assure you of though is that it wasn't by stalking your history. Turnagra (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time you moved the article, it wasn't in the scope of any wikiproject, so it can't have been in WPNZ's unassessed list. In addition, it had no categories, was an orphan, and wasn't on the WPNZ new page list. At this point, I am unable to assume good faith, as there appears to be no way that you could have identified that article without tracking my edits. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've explained that other move already watchlists are a thing as you've said so yourself  and while I can't recall how I found Tiriparepa / Scott Point as that one took place so long ago, I can assure you that you're nowhere near important enough to warrant me paying that much attention to you. Now please stop lobbing false accusations and go find someone else's door to darken. Turnagra (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By itself, that other move would not be suspicious. Surprising, but in the context of WP:AGF I would believe you, as I did the first time you reverted a number of my edits despite never having edited any of those pages. However, with this history, and with the example of Scott Point where neither of us can determine how you could have found the article other than tracking my edits, I cannot believe you, and would ask that you commit to not tracking my edits. BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I may not have edited a specific page, but it's an area (New Zealand places, especially those with dual names) where I've got an extensive edit history, so I'm not sure why you're surprised that I have a bunch of them on my watchlist even if I haven't edited them specifically. I'm not sure what the point of committing to not do something I already don't do is, but if it'll help you sleep better at night then sure, whatever. Turnagra (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Kia ora anō BilledMammal I received a notification about your recent message and reversion (just to be clear about how I found it). As I've mentioned several times previously, I have a range of articles on my watchlist, even if I may not have edited them in the past. I would have done the exact same move had another editor reverted the page, as indeed I have. I was not tracking your edits, as I have also mentioned several times previously. For instance, having looked at your contributions for the purpose of this reply, I had no idea that you were trying to downgrade WP:POINT. Turnagra (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hope you guys don't mind me butting in (cc ). Turnagra, I'm pretty certain that I know how you would have seen Scott Point. When the article was first created, it contained a link to Ninety Mile Beach, New Zealand. As that beach has a dual name, my guess is that it's on your watchlist, Turnagra. If so, creating the article with that link would have triggered your notice badge to show up in blue. You can check whether that's true by clicking on your notice badge and that should show you all past notices.  Schwede 66  00:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind; if you can provide an innocent explanation it would make me considerably more comfortable. However, that isn't it; you don't receive notifications for articles being linked to articles that are on your watchlist, you only receive them for articles you have created. BilledMammal (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Stephens Island (New_Zealand). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Specifically, the statement vexatious move requests you and others have carried out is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. This is also not an isolated incident; for example, a few days before you accused me of being fundamentally opposed to indigenous names.

Please be careful to avoid personal attacks in the future.'' BilledMammal (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:ASPERSIONS is not a get out of jail free card. My comments have been based entirely on our history of interactions and your proposed moves on places where even the most stringent opponents of dual names agree that the dual name is the common name see, for example, on Aoraki / Mount Cook. I would also point out your similar opposition to South African moves (which, for the record, I saw by virtue of engaging with them through the WP:RM page). Until your actions demonstrate otherwise, I can only act based on the evidence which I have seen.
 * On the subject of casting aspersions, I would also like to point you to the discussion directly above this, in which you accused me of hounding with no proof a complete failure of WP:AGF, and in the process committing the very thing you're now trying to give me an (unfounded) warning for. Turnagra (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at the data; Google News shows 35 articles using only Mount Cook in the past month, compared to 14 using both Aoraki and Mount Cook. Google Scholar shows 434 results using only Mount Cook since 2018, compared to 240 results using both Aoraki and Mount Cook. This is in addition to the ngrams and specific examples I presented in the nomination - there is clearly a strong argument that the WP:COMMONNAME is Mount Cook, and that means that it was - and is - appropriate to open a discussion on the topic.
 * However, that isn't relevant. Aspersions is a requirement to support your accusations with evidence, and at the appropriate location - Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. You made yours without evidence, and on an article talk page.
 * Regarding the hounding, evidence was presented, including evidence that you edited an article that you could only have found through my contributions page. BilledMammal (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And now you say This is bordering on WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you believe my conduct is inappropriate, please raise it directly with me, rather than throwing out aspersions on article talk pages - I would also suggest reading Wikilawyering. BilledMammal (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi Turnagra, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ATurnagra added] the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed' and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned prolific creators of articles where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  20:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Copland Track
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Do you see this as a content dispute, or an issue with editor behaviour? For the former, see WP:Dispute resolution, and perhaps WP:Mediation. for the latter, there's WP:ANI and if you get no satisfaction there, WP:ARBCOM. However, there are several parties on each side of this discussion (so WP:Third opinion is not suitable) and by taking it to the "drama boards" you will be seeking comment from people who may not understand the New Zealand perspectives on use of Māori and macrons and there is a chance it will backfire onto you.

One suggestion at the dispute resolution link is to disengage, and I have at least partially followed this strategy myself.- gadfium 04:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Whakatāne seamount
Thanks for the move as observed but should it not be Whakatāne Seamount ?ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Kia ora ChaseKiwi - I thought about that, but it seems that it's usually just referred to as "Whakatāne" as the name from what I can gather (which is consistent with other seamounts in the area). As such, "seamount" is filling more of the role of disambiguation in the title, with the current title seeming more natural than parenthetical. Keen to get your take on it if you reckon it works better as a proper noun though. Turnagra (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its its official name New Zealand Gazetteer entry ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad - feel free to change it! I feel a bit guilty having already had to correct one typo in it... Turnagra (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Renaming discussion was shallow to coin a pun
Good on you for detecting island issue in recent discussion on category renaming. Missed the fact that up to 100m or so under present sea level a maar could occur rather than a seamount. Please see Category talk:Seamounts of New Zealand ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:40, 1 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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Invitation
 Hello Turnagra:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  two week long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 14 January 2023.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   10:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)   ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   10:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject New Zealand law task force
(You may have noticed) The task force has been created per our discussion the other week, I invite you to join it if you are still interested :)  Carolina2k22 •  (talk)  •  (edits)  07:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carolina - definitely keen to help out, I just need to figure out how to rearrange the userboxes so not to lose how well they line up with the Piopio picture on my userpage currently! Turnagra (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! It does look quite lovely; I'm glad you're still interested! Carolina2k22 • (talk)  •  (edits)  23:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don't remove sections
Don't remove questions from the various Help desks, or from other people's talk pages, even when a question has been answered, or if something is no longer relevant. It looks like you did that here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1131660908.

You can, however, always remove things from your own Talk page. Other people may find the information useful and informative. Thanks! David10244 (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry David - I figured it'd be okay as it was my own question and wasn't long after posting. Will make sure not to next time! Turnagra (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

dual name debate
Kia ora, I know it's exhausting but thought you might like to know the Clutha/Mata-Au RFM has opened up again. TreeReader (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks TreeReader - I was already aware and had been trying to figure out how best to formulate my argument. As a word of caution, I'd suggest not paging people like this as it may be seen as WP:CANVASSING and could cause votes to be discounted. The better approach is to alert relevant wikiprojects, such as WP:WPNZ. Turnagra (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah ok thanks for letting me know. I thought it felt a bit sneaky but it's so frustrating going round in circles every 6 months! TreeReader (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, it can be a pain. I'd suggest keeping an eye on the requested moves section of the WPNZ article alerts so that you can see when move requests you may be interested in crop up, it's always an ongoing issue! Turnagra (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I wasn't aware of the alerts section on WPNZ, that's good to know. TreeReader (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Was a pleasure to be able to help out where I could. Turnagra (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Garden of Eden Ice Plateau
BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Cyclone Gabrielle

 * Well done nominating this! Now we just need the community to upload some images and videos.  Schwede 66  01:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And yeah, I'm a bit surprised that there's such a relative lack of images so far given how widespread the damage is. I assume that people in those areas probably have more pressing things on their mind at the moment though. Turnagra (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taiari / Chalky Inlet
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taiari / Chalky Inlet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taiari / Chalky Inlet
The article Taiari / Chalky Inlet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Taiari / Chalky Inlet for comments about the article, and Talk:Taiari / Chalky Inlet/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Burwood Plantation vs. Bottle Lake Forest Park
Kia ora, I have a Christchurch locality quandary. There's a Wikidata item for the Burwood Plantation, which some sources online equate with the Burwood Resource Recovery Park, but the location seems to be the same as Bottle Lake Forest. Do you know if these are names for the same place? --Prosperosity (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Prosperosity I'm not 100% sure, but my gut is that they're the same thing - or at least are now. There seems to be a topomap result which points to the plantation being where there's a subdivision now, so maybe they used to be distinct but have since combined? Turnagra (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm....in that case, I'll merge the items for now, and if it turns out that they're different, we can always recreate them. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "Burwood Plantation" and "Bottle Lake Forest Park" are used interchangeably. The recovery park is a small area within the plantation / park.  Schwede 66  04:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Taiari / Chalky Inlet
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Just wanting to try and do my bit to get the backlog down! Turnagra (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

OSH literacy:
The International Literacy Summit, the Institute of Occupational Safety & Health ( IOSH) have all stated that OSH literacy is a literacy comparable to computer literacy, health literacy, financial literacy etc. It meets all standards to be classified as a key skill literacy. Davidmagee9 (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Davidmagee9 Thanks for the context, I don't have any issues about it being its own article in that case! It might be worth editing the article to mention that stuff as well if it's not in there already. Turnagra (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Turnagra. I appreciate your time and will follow your kind advice. David Magee Davidmagee9 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Page Review - Mike Boateng
Hello,

I wish to express my concern over the recent submission decline of a page that I've patiently waited four months for approval, due to the presence of a single citation that could have been effortlessly excised. I feel it's critical to secure approval for this page at the earliest because a search for 'Mike Boateng' on Google only displays search results for the Michael Boateng whose page I created. Nevertheless, the accompanying knowledge panel is linked to a different Michael Boateng of lesser notability, and this confusion is negatively impacting the search results of the intended Mike Boateng, especially since the other individual has a criminal record.

In alignment with the notability guidelines stipulated by Wikipedia, I'd like to present the following arguments to emphasize Mike Boateng's worthiness of a Wikipedia page.


 * 1) Extensive Exposure: Mike Boateng, a prominent Black TV personality in the UK, has been featured extensively in credible and independent media outlets.
 * 2) Public Impact: His active role in popular reality TV shows such as Love Island and Celebrity Ex on the Beach has notably shaped public views and dialogues.
 * 3) Accolades: Mike's double nomination for the National Reality TV Award for categories like "Best Male Personality of the Year" and "Reality Personality of the Year" attests to his industry-wide recognition and further validates his notability.
 * 4) Comparison: In juxtaposition with other notable figures such as Jon Clark and Josh Ritchie, Mike's significance and contributions seem just as noteworthy, if not superior.

In light of these arguments, I kindly request that this page be approved. I appreciate your understanding. Thank you. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI: Justtheeditor1 has resubmitted Draft:Mike Boateng and it is awaiting a reviewer. Your call on whether you want to revisit that or leave it to someone else. You should be aware that at a Teahouse entry about this draft, Justtheeditor1 wrote "Under different usernames, I work on developing Wikipedia pages for UK reality TV stars and their related ventures." I am researching and considering starting a Sockpuppet investigation. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks David - I'm happy to leave this for someone else to get a second opinion on the article. I'd also note their other comment in the tea house that they work with a group of people. I'm happy to leave that side of things with you as I'm not overly familiar with it. Turnagra (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi David,
 * You seem to be more concerned about this comment than any of my previous speaking about a concerning trend of unconscious bias when accessing submissions on people of colour. This fact is quite revealing. As also mentioned in the comments (which you conveniently seem to have missed), I’ve said to provide more context, my comment about "different usernames" doesn't mean I control these accounts. Instead, I assist in creating content within a community of fellow celebrity enthusiasts who then create the pages. This approach ensures that we don't violate the rules against sockpuppetry. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Kia ora Justtheeditor1 - as I mentioned in the Teahouse, me declining your article wasn't due solely to that single source, but rather issues around the reliability of the sources you chose more generally and questions about whether Boateng meets the notability criteria for articles (per WP:NPEOPLE). My view was that the sources you provided weren't reliable enough, nor did they demonstrate that Boateng had notability outside of the context of Love Island, and as a result brought WP:BLP1E into consideration.
 * I'd also like to vehemently deny your aspersion that my decline was in part based on racism - nothing could be further from the truth. Turnagra (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully acknowledge and respect your viewpoints. My remarks weren't targeted at you, and I concurred with your initial reasons for rejecting the submission. Instead, my comments stemmed from a troubling pattern that my group has detected during the submission process. We don't usually face these approval challenges when dealing with lesser-known white celebrities. However, our initial submissions for celebrities of color never get accepted, unlike our other submissions.
 * As you can observe, substantial efforts have been undertaken by me and others in the wiki community to elevate this page to the requisite standards for approval. Would you be so kind as to reassess the page and determine if it now meets the criteria? Justtheeditor1 (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we also take a brief pause to empathize and objectively evaluate the strong evidence present in what I've penned? It's hard to fathom the degree of frustration experienced by individuals like Mike who are seemingly at a loss to resolve such issues. This is precisely why groups like ours come into being. If you Google "Mike Boateng," EVERY result points to him. Various articles, images, the works. Yet, the knowledge panel that emerges is associated with a different, lesser-known Michael Boateng, whose Wikipedia page appears alongside all of Mike's search results. As a long-time follower of Mike, I've witnessed him express his struggles on social media about how this mix-up has hindered his job prospects and potential brand partnerships because it's the first thing that comes up in searches. The wrong person appearing on his search results due to Wikipedia. This is precisely the kind of situation Wikipedia was designed to address: to serve as an impartial repository of verifiable, well-established facts. Mike Boateng's truth is being obscured online by another individual's identity, and as a collective community, we should aspire to ensure that the facts remain untainted and truthful for both lesser-known and more prominent individuals. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can completely understand that frustration and have experienced something similar myself in the past (incidentally also relating to some borderline racist approaches taken by others). I'd make a few general points first:
 * I can't speak to your other submissions as I haven't seen them, but if you think there's genuinely some underlying bias there it could be worth teasing that out a bit. I'd suggest starting a subpage within your userspace (see WP:SUBPAGE) and having a table to review your group's draft articles with links to the versions at the time of their review so that you're able to build a stronger case and see whether there's any other differences which might cause it (or which can be pre-emptively discounted before someone uses it to explain the declines)
 * With regards to the google results, it's worth bearing in mind that these are often tailored based on google's understanding of you and aren't always representative of society as a whole. For instance, if I search for "Hamilton" I almost exclusively get results for the city here in New Zealand, rather than the musical, historical figure, or cities elsewhere. If I search Mike Boateng as someone who has never seen a single episode of Love Island or watched English club football, my results are about 50/50 between the two of them. This is why wikipedia doesn't generally rely on things like search results when determining primary topics for page moves, for instance.
 * Were this page to be accepted, the current Michael Boateng would likely remain at that title, per WP:SMALLDETAILS - so there's still a risk that search results would be confused.
 * With all this said, if you would like me to I am happy to take another look at the article - or else wait for another reviewer to give a second opinion. One thing I would suggest before this, though, is to have a look at some of the pages around reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:DEPS, and WP:RSP) and check the lists in the latter against the sources you've got. My concern is that some of the sources you've got, even if they're not explicitly mentioned on this list, feel as though they're at an equivalent level of reliability to sources which are listed. This means that the article could be at greater risk of deletion down the line, and making sure your sources are at a good level (see WP:42) helps to make the article much stronger and able to withstand any challenges that come up in the future. Turnagra (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed response. Your insight is valuable and has given me much to consider. I truly respect and appreciate the time and effort you've put into your analysis, and it's genuinely refreshing to find someone like you in the Wikipedia community offering such unbiased reviews.
 * I fully understand your perspective and find your suggestions to be quite helpful. I'll start by discussing with my group the idea of starting a subpage within our userspace, as per your suggestion, and work on developing a table to review our group's draft articles. This way, we can build a more robust case while also identifying any potential differences that could influence our submissions.
 * In regards to the search results, your point makes perfect sense. Google's algorithms can indeed personalize search results based on user behavior, which may not be representative of a broader societal view. This aspect hadn't occurred to me previously, so thank you for pointing it out.
 * Concerning the article, based on the changes that have been made, I kindly request that you take another look at the page. I believe it now meets the criteria for notability, but of course, I respect your expert judgment and will accept your final decision. We've also taken into consideration the advice you've provided regarding the reliability of sources (WP:RS, WP:DEPS, and WP:RSP). We're making continued efforts to ensure our sources meet the required level of reliability so as to strengthen the article and protect it from potential challenges in the future.
 * Once again, thank you for your guidance, and I look forward to any further feedback you may have. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try and find time but it might not be til this weekend. Before I do, though, I'd suggest taking another look through your sources in light of the links I sent (particularly the last two) and double check that you think these meet the relevant threshold for reliability on wikipedia. Turnagra (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and for your willingness to take the time to review the article. I appreciate your guidance and the links you've shared, particularly the last two, which offer insightful perspectives on the standards of source reliability on Wikipedia.
 * In light of your advice, I will revisit my sources and double-check their alignment with Wikipedia's standards for reliability. I understand the importance of ensuring that any information added to Wikipedia is well-sourced, accurate, and adheres to the principles of verifiability and neutrality.
 * Thank you once again for your time and effort. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback once you've had a chance to review the article. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Turnagra,
 * I understand you may not have had time this weekend. However, when you do manage to find some time, could you kindly review the article? All the necessary updates have been made to ensure the article meets the relevant threshold for reliability on Wikipedia. Thank you once again for your assistance. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got caught up by other things and haven't had much time for Wikipedia. At a quick look, I'd see whether there are alternate sources for the material you've currently used the mirror and IMDb for if possible, as these seem to have borderline reliability. This isn't necessarily to say that those sources would be a barrier to it being accepted, as I haven't had time for a proper look yet. Turnagra (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Turnagra,
 * It's been a while since your last message and I was wondering if you might have a chance to give the article a more thorough review now? Your insights would be invaluable. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry Justtheeditor1, this completely slipped my mind. I'll try to take a look this afternoon sometime. Turnagra (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, thank you. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Turnagra,
 * Firstly, I want to again express my gratitude for your role in ensuring the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia's content. Your hard work is truly invaluable.
 * However, I wanted to bring up a concern regarding the review process of the Mike Boateng page. I completely understand that you may be dealing with a multitude of tasks and I appreciate your commitment towards maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. But it's been quite disheartening to see the delay in the review of our page, especially given how prompt you were to issue the initial decline.
 * Since your initial review, the page has undergone substantial edits, both from myself and other Wikipedia users. We've taken into account your feedback regarding notability and have made concerted efforts to meet the standards outlined in the notability guidelines (WP:ORGCRIT). I firmly believe that the page now stands in compliance with Wikipedia's stringent criteria.
 * I understand your initial reservations, but I feel the initial decline might have been a tad harsh considering the significant improvements made since then. I would greatly appreciate it if you could expedite the review process and re-evaluate the Mike Boateng page at your earliest convenience.
 * Thank you again for your time and efforts. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your frustration, and please know that it's not intentional - I just genuinely keep forgetting, I've got a bunch of other stuff on and I end up spending my limited wikipedia time on other things. I've taken a look, and while I still have some questions about notability I'm happy to take your word for it as someone more familiar with the topic and get the ball rolling on approval. I'm still a bit iffy about the reliability of some of the sources too - the one source which is probably untenable more than the others is IMDb, you'll definitely need a more reliable source for the date of birth (see WP:IMDb). Turnagra (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's completely understandable that managing multiple tasks can be demanding, and I value the time you dedicated to this process amidst your other commitments.
 * Your willingness to start the approval process truly shows your commitment to collaboration and fairness.
 * Once again, thank you for your understanding, consideration, and your continued efforts to uphold the quality of Wikipedia's content. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for Assistance in Revising Article Submission
Hello Turnagra,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently received a decline on my article submission, and I appreciate your feedback regarding the sources I included. After carefully considering your suggestions, I am seeking guidance regarding the references in question.

It came to my attention that a few of the articles I referenced, although sourced from reputable magazines, are exclusively available in printed press and are not accessible online. In light of this, I would greatly appreciate your advice on how to handle these references appropriately.

Given the stricter requirements for citing sources in biographies of living people, as outlined in WP:BLP, I understand the importance of ensuring the accuracy and availability of all sources before resubmitting the article for approval.

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. I look forward to your guidance on how to proceed with the references.

Best regards, Cestgeorge (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Mōrena Cestgeorge, thanks for reaching out. I'm more than happy to help where I can (though acknowledging that a lot of the references are in French and so I won't be able to comment on whether they're reliable or back up what you've used them for). Citing paper sources is fine and happens all the time, the key thing is making sure they're reliable and independent (see WP:42). Having a look over WP:Citing sources is a good place to start too, and I'll provide more feedback on the article when I get a chance. The key thing with BLP is that everything is backed up by reliable sources. Turnagra (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and willingness to assist. I appreciate your guidance on ensuring reliable and independent sources for citations. I have taken note of your suggestions and will review WP:Citing sources for further information. I look forward to receiving your feedback on the article. Maintaining accuracy and adhering to BLP guidelines is important to me. If you have any additional recommendations or specific areas to focus on, please let me know. Thank you again for your support. Cestgeorge (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, perhaps I'll hold off on the more proper review until you've had a go with the guidance from that link? Turnagra (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope this message finds you well. I'm writing to inform you that I've taken the time to thoroughly review the guidance provided in the Wikipedia:Citing sources article. In accordance with the guidelines outlined there, I have made several improvements to the article in question.
 * Specifically, I have addressed dead links by replacing them with proper citations and have made efforts to locate notable references, with a preference for English sources. It is worth noting that while I have focused on English citations, some of the most notable references are in French.
 * Given the recent updates and improvements I've made to the article, I believe it is now an appropriate time for a more comprehensive review. I kindly request your assistance in conducting a thorough evaluation of the article and providing any necessary feedback or further guidance for refinement.
 * Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Cestgeorge (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to remind you of my previous message sent over a month ago regarding the article in question. I kindly request your attention to the detailed improvements I made, as outlined in my previous communication. Your review and feedback on those changes would be greatly appreciated.
 * Thank you for your time and consideration.
 * Warm regards, Cestgeorge (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay Cestgeorge, things got away from me. I'll try and look at it soon! Though if you haven't already, please resubmit it in case someone else gets to it ahead of me. Turnagra (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions on rewriting Draft:Oleg Rogynskyy?
Hi @Turnagra, you recently declined this page with a suggestion to do a heavy rewrite for a more neutral and encyclopedic tone. I made several changes and would appreciate further suggestions when you have time to look at the revised draft. Thank you. Igor Markov 10:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the changes you've made are a good start, but parts of it still feel very promotional. I think the best idea is to have a look over articles for similar people (particularly those with higher quality classes) and see how they're written. It should feel neutral, not as though it was written by a promoter of the person in question. Turnagra (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra, thank you for the encouragement. I made another round of changes, hopefully in the right direction. I am hesitant about the quote in the last sentence. For one, it explains why the Order of Merit 3rd degree was awarded, but the text is so general that it fits the descriptions of "reads like advertisement" that we so want to avoid. Keep it or ditch it? - What do you think?
 * - Igor Markov 02:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Algorithmic_Contract_Types_Unified_Standards
Your comments: "I suspect this will be notable, but the referencing in the history section needs to improve before it can be accepted"

I have added more references. I should also point out that ACTUS is the second of 3 sources for the OFR's work. Both the first (ISO 20022) and FIX, which was added a year after ACTUS, already have Wikipedia pages. If there is something specific you feel has not been referenced, please say so. Thank you. Yankinthebank (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I think the sources you've added are sufficient, and I see that someone else has already accepted the draft - congrats! Turnagra (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Miguel Ablóniz
Thanks for recent review of my draft article Draft:Miguel Ablóniz. Having created many dozens of articles here in the last twenty years, it's rather frustrating that it was declined on the basis of insufficient citation, considering that this simple three paragraph article contained no less than five in-line citations, which seems like it should be more than sufficient. However, we move on. You noted in particular that none of the items listed in the "selected publications" section were cited. But, indeed, they are themselves perfectly valid citations in the meaning set forth for general citations as defined in Citing sources. After all, they give the author, the name of the work, and the publishing house. But perhaps you can help me figure out how to provide a better citation format for these, and what template is most appropriately used? The issue, essentially, is that these scores are (or were - several are out-of-print) published by well-known but specialty publishing houses (e.g., Berben or Ricordi) that do not generally use ISBN identifiers, or even necessarily state the year of publication. Nevertheless, their existence is easily established from online sheet music resellers ([for example]). For some, at least, the publishers catalogue number is also available, but that is about it. What do you advise? Fawcett5 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Kia ora Fawcett5 - I can understand that it would have been frustrating given the range of articles you've created. I had that the publications mentioned could be the sources themselves for that section, so I'm happy with that, but I think my concern with the body above is still there. The entire second half of the main paragraph is uncited (everything from Milan onwards), with that section containing a few claims that I think would benefit from being backed up. Turnagra (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Tunagra - OK, I have added some additional references, and also made sure an existing reference was in the right spots. While not perfect, the spirit of Wikipedia is that other users can take a small article and grow and improve it. Having this one sit on ice any longer serves no-one. Please, let's move this out of draft so that others may contribute. Fawcett5 (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fawcett5 I'll try and have a look when I get a chance, but I've been pretty busy lately unfortunately. If you haven't already, I'd suggest resubmitting the draft if you think it's up to scratch, then another reviewer might have a chance to get to it before I do. Turnagra (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it took multiple months for anyone to even take a look last time. So, I'll wait for you, thanks.  You know, as a long-time contributor and admin here, I really do think that this review process is totally contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Articles are best improved and expanded by having a lot of eyes on them.  In my opinion, if there isn't a question about the fundamental notability of the article subject, and a stub article is evidently created in good faith and isn't basically just junk, we are all much better served by moving things to the main space earlier than later. A good article results from the efforts of many contributors.  Fawcett5 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fawcett5 apologies for the delay - I think it's fine to accept, but the script I use can't actually do all the required things unless it's submitted as a draft (and I can't both submit and accept the same draft). If you're able to submit it I'll go in and accept it.
 * I'd also say that I didn't realise your history or the history of the draft at first, before reviewing the first time. I agree that the AfC process has some issues, particularly the length of time it takes to get to articles. I'm actually surprised you're not autopatrolled, given your role and your history of articles. Turnagra (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK thank you! I've gone ahead and resubmitted. Fawcett5 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Dinmukhamet Idrisov
Hi @Turnagra, thank you for patrolling articles in drafts! I would like you to review the article, I have added links to reliable sources. Agneta 92 (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for applications for position of Wikipedian-at-Large, Aotearoa New Zealand
Kia ora! The | Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand User Group invites you to read about the call for applications for a | Wikipedian-at-Large for Aotearoa New Zealand in 2024. Group members are happy to explain the process and discuss ideas with interested editors.

Sent by on behalf of  using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

LEN Euro Cup 2022–23
Hi. I have finished editing the rest of the 2022–23 LEN Euro Cup. I have also put in more third party sources. Can it finally be approved? Or is the review already going on? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Super Rugby Americas
Also, the Super Rugby Americas 2023 article has more third party sources than before. Can it be approved yet? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out
URL to a relevant and verifiable article for the comparison in eruptive volume is Table 1 in Directed blasts and blast-generated pyroclastic density currents: a comparison of the Bezymianny 1956, Mount St Helens 1980, and Soufrière Hills, Montserrat 1997 eruptions and deposits. There may be something in Glikens monograph. Over to you to decide if comparison still relevant as for readers under 40 the comparison has little meaning ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @ChaseKiwi thanks- I suspect based on the comments from the reviewer that it'd need to be a source directly comparing Mt Tarawera to something for it to be usable, but you're right in that it's probably a less relevant comparison these days anyway.
 * Also, having said that I would be happy to handle the bulk of the work it seems the comments are a bit more substantial- if you felt like lending a hand at some point to help get it up to scratch that could be useful, but obviously no obligation! Turnagra (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Will certainly look at article when time. Noted the reviewers comments which I found informative as to general style, especially as I have got into the habit of putting references into the introduction of articles. I find it very difficult myself to agree with the reviewers opinion that original sources could be usefully amalgamated or removed to reduce number of sources...while often useful...the opinions of difference academic groups need to also be fact based and I noted a glaring example of justified challenge in my view from a geologist recently who had actually done field work in New Britain/New Ireland to an academic groups view from afar in a recent attempt to tidy up some articles ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can use GNS copyright images on wikipedia. Certainly you need their explicate permission to do so for each image that contains even a little bit of image that is copyright. No expert in copyright law but best to revert Rotomahana page for moment. While NZ copyright law at 50 years is better than what one jurisdiction I work in would have 95 years it still seems clear enough ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera
The article 1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera for comments about the article, and Talk:1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Turnagra thanks for your work on bringing this!up to scratch - great article on a significant topic! ITBF (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I remember finding the article in its old state and being shocked at how sparse it was, so glad I was able to help bring it to where it should be! Just need to do the Pink & White Terraces now... Turnagra (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for 1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Douglas River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas Glacier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Turnagra:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Alex Kuch
Kia ora Turangra! Thank you for looking over the draft for Draft:Alex Kuch. I have gone ahead and removed all the School and University sources. Now containing independent sources and one about the awards but about Alex and not a list. Note I found Romanian sources too which are about his talks in Parliament which are independent. Thank you for checking and reviewing! DanNZ17 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Request on 04:17:54, 8 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Lightoil
I believe I have added a better source compared to the previous review. So I would prefer a better explanation.

Lightoil (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Kia ora Lightoil - that source seems helpful, but KQ Entertainment is only discussed in a portion of the article and it doesn't do enough to move the company over the notability threshold in my view. Please see WP:NCORP and try to find some solid reliable sources that discuss the company in detail before re-submitting. Turnagra (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias against Atharis
The article Draft:List of Atharis is literally written in a similar form to List of Ash'aris and List of Maturidis. It even has sufficient citations, and the two articles I mentioned don't even have sufficient information and may be confusing for the reader to read. You should remove those two articles as well, since they are of the same content length and matter. Boredom889 (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics.  Schwede 66  09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Bummer. Sorry to hear that real life takes up too much time. I had been looking forward to meeting you in person. Maybe in Auckland?  Schwede 66  22:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks - yeah, it's a shame, I haven't been up to that part of the country beyond Nelson in well over a decade so it would have been cool. I unfortunately already have family commitments that weekend, but do sing out if you ever make it to the capital! Turnagra (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for feedback on two drafts
I have two drafts that I would like your feedback on


 * Draft:Owari clan
 * Draft:Yamato no Kuni no Miyatsuko

I feel both are currently in a good state but might need some improvement. I am planning on taking a break rather soon and hope I can get them through quickly before itImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Immanuelle sorry for the delay, but it looks like both of those have now been approved - good job! Just one question, are these drafts translated from the Japanese articles or do you write them yourself? Turnagra (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra I write them myself. I used to translate articles from Japanese but they didn’t turn out very well.
 * If you look at the Japanese articles they are actually quite different in structure, and imo quite inferior with very few sources. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Immanuelle That's good to know, thank you! Do you have any further drafts in the work before your break which you think might be near the level for acceptance? Turnagra (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra I have this one Draft:History of religion in China but it is a split proposal rather than a proper new article, and Draft:Amabe clan which I tried to fix the tone of. I will look over a couple more, but I think I am mostly done. I will tag you with other ones Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra Yes Draft:Nunasokonakatsu-hime but otherwise it seems every other draft will require a lot of work. So pretty close to good for a break. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Immanuelle - I'll take a look at Amabe in more detail, but I feel like the one on the Empress could do with a fair bit more prose rather than a couple sentence description and the family tree. I'm also not sure whether a draft is the best approach for the split as it could usurp those other discussions so I might leave that one for a more experienced editor. Turnagra (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra I found one more that I think is good for submission Draft:Tagata Shrine Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent review
Hello Turnagra, just letting you know that I left you a note at Draft talk:Faria Abdullah, after having transferred the templates and message from my TP to that pages, so that the main contributors can understand what's happening. Thank you again for your time. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  21:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Herzberger Quader
Hello Turnagra, even though it was negative, thank you for your review. I understand that it is difficult when all the sources are in German. But the main change I made was not the source 5, but the source 2!

I would like to give you some more explanations. Schulze collected a lot of (and invented some) mathematical games in 1982-1984. He created an exhibition that moved from place to place in 10 years (1984-1994). In this time almost all publications that one can find where about the exhibition and some notes about the content including the Herzberger Quader. I have found a note that there was a complete book about the whole exhibition in preparation. After Schulze's death the book was abandoned, but finally a real article about the Herzberger Quader was published. I found it a few weeks ago, and now this is source 2.

And this is my problem: I have no doubt that the Herzberger Quader is notable. In Germany today, almost all publications on recreational mathematics that mention the Soma Cube also mention the Herzberger Quader. But that is the situation in Germany. It's very hard to find anything about the Herzberger Quader in English, and even the best site about it (fam-bundgaard.dk) is a private site and therefore not a reliable source for my article. How can an article about the Herzberger Quader be published in the English encyclopedia? --Rainer Gutsche (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Hinemoatū / Howard River. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Comments like "this ridiculous crusade against dual names has gone on long enough. As pointed out in multiple past move requests whenever you rail against dual place names"; you've made similar comments many times in the past, and I've even had to raise this before at and.

I understand you disagree with my preference for the WP:COMMONNAME, but that doesn't make my preference a behavioral issue - and even if it did, the appropriate place to raise that is not article talk pages but my talk page.

As a general rule, comment in content, not contributors - please strike or remove the aspects of the comments you have made against that general rule.'' BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Describing a pattern of behaviour is not a personal attack, nor is calling such move requests ridiculous. I have been remarkably restrained in my comments on your move requests, as I have not once brought in my views on you as an individual, nor have I highlighted your repeat WP:BADGER or WP:SEALIONing, or my views that you are fundamentally WP:NOTHERE for the betterment of Wikipedia. I'm well aware of how to behave on Wikipedia, and I don't believe my comment broke any of the guidelines. So, with respect, I will not be editing my comment. Turnagra (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether you see it as a personal attack it isn't appropriate to raise on the talk page; as WP:PA says, Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you want to comment on the contributor's pattern of behaviour bring it to their talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft Tech Herfrica
Hello and Thank You for your insight as regards your recent review on Draft: Tech Herfrica they were very helpful. I have made adjustment to the writing style and made corrections to the context of the article where necessary backed by reliable independent references. Do give it a look to see that it now meets the criteria for the article to be moved to main space. I would also appreciate your advice accordingly in more ways of making it better. Samlodias (talk) 11:49, 30 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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Faria Abdullah
An article being deleted so many times doesn't make an article not notable. She was not notable in 2021 and 2022, fine. In 2023 and now, she passes WP:NACTOR without a doubt. Three lead roles: Jathi Ratnalu (a song dedicated to her character reached 100 million views), Like, Share & Subscribe, and The Jengaburu Curse (first billing). Given these 3 roles, why can't she have an article? DareshMohan (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Total Commitment (Del Shannon album)
where's the feedback, please highlight thanks Samchristie05 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Kia ora Samchristie05 - have another look at the reasons why other users have declined the draft, and the comments which they have left. This should be at the top of the draft and hopefully gives you a place to start. Sing out if you're having difficulty and I'll try to make it clearer. Turnagra (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Request on 22:50:25, 6 December 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by SunCamper
Hi there

I'm just a newby and really need some help with this new entry for Cliff Tait. He's featured in a big Museum in New Zealand and I've referenced information from there. Some of what I've put in has come from Cliff Tait's books, two books, now also held in the Museum, and oral history at the Museum. The books are out of print, I'm not sure how I can reference those books? I've mentioned the books and the oral history at the Museum. There are articles. It's all really old so I'm not sure how to do this.

I'm not much of an editor and just trying to do the best I can, so any help or tidying up would really be appreciated. This man is in museums, articles, books, I'm not sure how else I can prove this. He's about the only adventurer of his standard that I can't see on Wikipedia so he must deserve an entry!

I can let you know the names of the books and they are easily found on google, and on entries in the Museum, but they are too old have text online.

SunCamper (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Mōrena SunCamper (and welcome)! More than happy to help out with this where I can. To answer a few of your questions:
 * It's absolutely fine to cite a book that's out of print and not available online, so long as you've got the information for it. The article editing bit has tools which can help make citing easy, and there's also WP:Referencing for beginners which might be useful.
 * Oral history is a bit trickier, as we generally prefer independent secondary sources. Have a look at WP:42 for some info on what sort of stuff we'd need in the sources.
 * The other thing I'd say is that biographies of living people have stricter requirements for referencing than most articles, and generally need each statement needs to be cited to a reliable source. I'll take a proper look over the weekend and chuck in some notes on where citations would be useful, but hopefully this gives you enough to go off for now! Turnagra (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Faria Abdullah
Hello, You had mentioned last month that you would talk to another user to have a second look at that draft. Any chance you received a reply from them? Thank you very much. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  08:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I got sidetracked and forgot to raise it. I'd suggest that you either ask for input at the AfC help desk or submit the draft again if you think that it's demonstrating that WP:NACTOR is met. Turnagra (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!


– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message. – robertsky (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Cameron's Crossing railway station
Hi there. Leaving a message here so it doesn't disappear when the article gets deleted - I did a quick Papers Past search for potential references to it and found absolutely nothing in the Kaikohe area... but the exact same name was in use for a few months in 1875 as the name for a station somewhere near the later Makarewa Junction station (the site of which in 1875 was not yet a junction...) at the opposite end of the country. Go figure. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Fraser Island (K'gari) Name Change.
Hey buddy, the name change for Fraser Island/K'gari only happened last year. It is local knowledge around Australia that the island is still referred to it as Fraser Island regardless of whether it is its official name or not. This will happen for the better part of several years (at minimum). You'd be hard-pressed to find legitimate sources that have local knowledge. That's why I have none, which does not make my statement any less true. Additionally, you might want to look up Edit warring, because right now you're engaging in it, which can lead to sanctions. Please do not delete my comment; it just makes you look intellectually dishonest. Ash.david (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Kia ora Ash.david - I would encourage you to read the comments of the other editor whom you sent a similar message to about the same topic. I also note that other editors have warned you about the content you have added to the article in the past for said content pushing a particular point of view. Wikipedia relies on having references to back up content, particularly when it's a comment that could be seen as pushing a point of view, and a lack of reliable sources to back up a comment such as that generally means it shouldn't be in an article.
 * Generally, Wikipedia follows a process called Bold, revert, discuss. You made a bold edit, which is totally fine and encouraged. However, other editors have disagreed with the edit and have reverted it. Rather than adding it back, as you have done, you should follow Twotwos' helpful recommendation and discuss the edit you would like to see on the article's talk page to come to a consensus on whether or not it should be added. Continuing to add content in without a discussion after multiple editors have reverted it can be seen as disruptive behaviour, and can lead to action being taken. Turnagra (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Or, you could instead of being disruptive yourself, help find sources for my comment. Otherwise, deleting it is edit warring, and is dishonest. Ash.david (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you feel it merits inclusion, the burden of proof is on you to find justification for its inclusion. There is nothing dishonest about it. I would note that the other user you messaged did try to find sources, and came up empty. Turnagra (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mate, the burden of proof is on people who disagree with the statement. Ask a local from Queensland, ask any local, it's Fraser Island. You don't need an academic source for that. Ash.david (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, for Wikipedia, you do. Turnagra (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If, people did try to find reputable sources for something that is common local knowledge, then it would be a miracle to find it. I would say, it's best to just leave it how it is. If some people wish to call it K'gari, let them. They win no awards for doing so, same with others who refer to it as Fraser. Just leave it be. Ash.david (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of dogmatically trying to push your point of view on the name, you could devote your energy to constructive expansion of the article's content? Turnagra (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of trying to remove valuable local information about the island up to date, you could try doing the same. Try and add citations to my statement if you can but please don't remove it. Thank you. Ash.david (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we can't cite it, the content can't be kept. Otherwise everyone would be free to add their own points of view and just say "trust me bro" instead of backing it up. Turnagra (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're not willing to help compile valuable information for the page then you're actually being disruptive and you should leave. Otherwise, if you're willing to help find your blessed sources that you need so badly then happy days. I would encourage you to do the latter. Some people still refer to it as Fraser, no amount of deletage or editing will change that. Ash.david (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have looked, and as expected I've found nothing that meets our reliability criteria. Now please stop lobbing accusations at me and read up on some of the policies around sources and adding information. Turnagra (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting, all those wiki achievements on your profile and nothing to show for it. Not good for much when you can't find things are you? Please stop deleting things that are actually informative and truthful. Thank you. Ash.david (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Abusing other editors is not how you get them to help you. Now, as a section has been opened in the proper place, I'm going to close this discussion. Turnagra (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at administrators' noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming Event in Auckland
You might be interested in an upcoming event in Auckland. Wikimedia Aotearoa is having a WikiCon! WikiCon Aotearoa 2024 is the annual gathering for all new and experienced editors of Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikisource projects. Anyone interested in editing is welcome to attend. This conference is organized by Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ). It aims to provide training to new editors, to encourage editors to learn new skills, to grow the Wiki community in Auckland and to ensure that we have a fun weekend. Food and refreshments provided.

When: Saturday 23 March - Sunday 24 March 2024

Where: Auckland University of Technology - Sir Paul Reeves Building - WG Building 2 Governor Fitzroy Place, Auckland.

Cost: $10, fully catered, sponsorship / registration fee waiver available

We are offering full scholarships (registration, travel & accommodation) to attend - please email info at wikimedia.nz for more information.

To see the full programme as it develops check out the Wikipedia Event page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCon_Aotearoa/Auckland_2024

To register: https://events.humanitix.com/wikicon-aotearoa-2024 CopperAlchemy CopperAlchemy (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming Event in Auckland
You might be interested in an upcoming event in Auckland. Wikimedia Aotearoa is having a WikiCon! WikiCon Aotearoa 2024 is the annual gathering for all new and experienced editors of Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikisource projects. Anyone interested in editing is welcome to attend. This conference is organized by Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ). It aims to provide training to new editors, to encourage editors to learn new skills, to grow the Wiki community in Auckland and to ensure that we have a fun weekend. Food and refreshments provided.

When: Saturday 23 March - Sunday 24 March 2024

Where: Auckland University of Technology - Sir Paul Reeves Building - WG Building 2 Governor Fitzroy Place, Auckland.

Cost: $10, fully catered, sponsorship / registration fee waiver available

We are offering full scholarships (registration, travel & accommodation) to attend - please contact [mailto:info@wikimedia.nz info@wikimedia.nz] for more information.

To see the full programme as it develops check out the Wikipedia Event page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCon_Aotearoa/Auckland_2024

To register: https://events.humanitix.com/wikicon-aotearoa-2024 CopperAlchemy (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

West Coast
Hey there, sorry to take so long to reply to your message on my Talk page. I'm in Christchurch now, and I don't think Development West Coast is planning any more West Coast Wikipedian projects. But I'm still keen to support work on the National Parks project, especially Aoraki / Mt Cook. I'm running regular meetups in Christchurch now should you ever happen to be in the city—drop me a line if so. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * All good, thanks for getting back to me in the end! Good to know about the West Coast work, but would obviously still love for you to be involved wherever you'd like - perhaps the CHCH group would like to take point on Arthur's Pass too? I'm actually down in CHCH fairly often as my family are all down there, so I'll be sure to reach out sometime or perhaps come along if the timing lines up. Turnagra (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Māori Intertribal Wharekauri conflict
I resubmitted the article. I did that today. I51iM (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone else is gonna review since I submitted another article earlier about Moriori Enslavement and the original person who reviewed that said it was sent to another person to review it. I51iM (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming Edit-a-thon Event in Wellington
Te Papa is hosting an edit-a-thon on Saturday 13 July 2024 between 10am and 4pm. Lunch will be provided. The theme of the edit-a-thon is Te Papa Expeditions and editors will be working on updating wikipedia articles and wikidata on expeditions, people, places, ships, and species. Come along to learn more. It’s free and lunch will be provided. Register here: https://tepapamuseum.rezdy.com/652753/expeditions-editathon More information on this event page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington/Expeditions_Edit-a-thon_13_July_2024 We hope to see you there. Einebillion (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)