User talk:122.62.226.243

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, 122.62.226.243, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Talk page messages[edit]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Stuartyeates. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ngāti Maniapoto, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Māori people. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Māori people, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Transcendence (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Moriori. I have reverted the change you made to Māori people. The info you had restored says "It is probable that the traditional Maori custom of female infanticide that was very common up to 1840 was still being practiced." That info was unsourced, and does not logically follow the previous sentence which never mentioned a reason for a high death rate. It is not for Wikipedia to say it was caused by anfanticide. Moriori (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to sailing hydrofoil. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edits regarding land confisactions in the Waikato at New Zealand land confiscations continue to be inadequately sourced. It's unclear where the claim about the return of land comes from. And the royal commission was known as the Sim royal commission, not Sims. BlackCab (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't change other people's comments, as you did on User talk:Daveosaurus. I can understand that you were annoyed by the comment, but usually it's better just to let these things go.-gadfium 21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing material[edit]

An editor as active as you are should be taking much more care with properly sourcing edits. I have changed the sourcing at Hongi Hika here, adding the proper Wikipedia citation template and also deleting a comment that seems to be your own original research. Your edits are littered with bad spelling, spacing and punctuation and wording that deviates from Wikipedia style. They are never sourced correctly. If you take any interest in improving Wikipedia and maintaining its standard, you will take the time to read and use the citation templates at WP:CT. I'll remind you of the importance of relying on reliable published sources and let you know that I'll probably revert your edits as a matter of course if you refuse to act as a collaborative editor. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agenda pushing[edit]

Your edits at Waitara, New Zealand[1] and Oakura[2] both refer to a massacre on the beach at Oakura. The attack took place on a road, not on a beach. No scholars refer to it as a massacre. Your use of the word seems to be part of your advocacy campaign relating to Maori subjects. Please stop pushing your point of view or you will be reported and possibly banned from editing. BlackCab (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Hi Blacky. Check out Waitara again and you will see I am ,as usual, 100% correct. You can't threaten to ban people for writing the truth apart from maybe in China, Zimbabwe,Iran and a few other backwoods places. Fortunately the Wikipedia "nation"is forward looking and positive. Be assured that whenever I make a mistake I will put my hand up. My agenda is accuracy and correct factual detail in articles in which I have longstanding professional expertise, or failing this, at least a balance of viewpoints .Cheers.

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits, again[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg You will continue to be reverted when you add unreferenced and POV information to Wikipedia. If you make several edits to an article, and among those there is one which is referenced, it is likely to be reverted along with the others in a single revert, because editors are not here just to check on every single edit you make. The answer is simple. Do not add material without an adequate edit summary, and a reliable reference, for each edit you make. Also, use the "Show preview" button which allows you to detect bad formatting you make.

This is an example of the things I have mentioned. Moriori (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the continuation of conduct I have already complained about. See here. The edit at Māori people is typically sloppy: too much personal opinion, utter disregard for Wikipedia style, a lack of attention to spacing and punctuation and inadequate citations.
Your statement that "However 44 other Waikato chiefs signed the Treaty demonstrating that the treaty was widely accepted in the Waikato" cites Claudia Orange's The Treaty of Waitangi with no page number. I have skimmed the sections of that book where Orange might be expected to have included that statement but can't find it. Where did she report that 44 Waikato chiefs signed the Treaty? Where did she say that this demonstrated wide acceptance of the Treaty in the Waikato? On Page 62 she says that a total of 32 signatures were obtained at the Waikato Heads in March or April, with another seven chiefs from Waikato signing at Manukau on 26 April.
Please make some attempt to be more communicative and collaborative. Put some effort in lifting the quality of your edits. Take the trouble to learn and use proper citation style. At the moment you show most of the signs of disruptive editing. You have steadfastly refused to discuss your conduct at your talk page, but if you continue like this you will be reported. BlackCab (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blackcab. I dont have the Orange book with me now so I cant give you the page reference. Your 32+7 equals pretty close to 44.I THINK the 44 numbers were from either a facsimile of the treaty or a similar at the very back of the book?? The 44 number is very well known and established now. I first came across it in the Treaty Road Show(put together by Orange for the govt) of about 10?12? years ago. The old idea that Waikato didnt sign the treaty is just balderdash. Of course great importance has been attached to the fact that Te Wherowhero didnt sign by those who have no understanding of WHY he didnt sign. Likewise there are few folks in NZ who really understand the limitations to the power of a chief -even a bloke like TE WW. Somewhere Orange wrote a full description of Te Ws refusal to sign ,including what he said at the time. Basically he said he didnt sign because his mana had been insulted by the meanness of the event and the presents compared with Waitangi celebrations. TE W saw Ngapuhi as one of his key rivals and no way was he accepting second place to the northern tribe. Even in 1860 at the Kohimaramara conference there was still rivalry and feeling between the 2 Maori powers. Dont forget that in 1863 Waka Nene of Ngapuhi offered to come and help the govt smash the King movement in Waikato. Grey wisely turned him down.

A chief only had tight control of his whanau and sometimes his hapu. Each chief jealously guarded his power and mana and while he might listen to a great war chief like Te W, he would make up his own mind what action to take. Even during war, which was the most unifying force in Maoridom, the chief of each hapu reserved the right to take his own action. This is one of the reasons why Waikato had no hope in the 1863 war -they weren't under any leader such as General Cameron in the case of the govt. If you study the war you will see that chiefs and hapu were constantly coming and going , fighting or not fighting according the whims of each chief. During the Musket wars some of which were followed closely by missionaires in an effort to stop them, hapu and their chiefs were constantly wandering off to do their own thing. The Maori power structure was not hierachical as was the British-it was horizontal and discrete to each hapu.

Dont forget that a considerable number of Waikato fought or helped the British. Even for a group such as Ngati Haua who were the main fighters at Rangiriri there were many such as Wirimu Tamihana who remained strongly against the war. Immediately after the defeat at Rangiriri he tried to surrender to the British but was prevented from doing so by his own fighters(he wasn't a very forceful guy). Hopefully soon a historian will write an accurate account of what happened based on the events of the time rather than the gross distortions that are currently written in many accounts.

I'm not here to debate the subject. Essentially what you are saying is that your edits were your take on history, based on a vague memory of what you once read in a book you no longer have. From what I have seen at other NZ articles, this is the basis of much, or most, of your editing. An encyclopedia demands a higher standard than that. It is not acceptable to add material that is your own opinion because you believe that published sources are all wrong. Wikipedia has clearly stated policies on verifiability and original research, which you can read at the pages I have just linked. Please adhere to those policies, or the content you add to pages will be removed, which would be a waste of your time. As I have explained, your conduct is something that can be reported to administrators, and if you continue doing this, I will do just that. BlackCab (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Again Blacky. No, this is not some vague memory.If you check Orange on the treaty you will see that, as usual I am right about the number .If you trawl around the net you will no doubt find many refs to the 44. Published sources are not all wrong -that is ridulous! However you do need an in depth understanding of the nuances around a subject before you can decide how good a source is in light of the current research on a particular subject. I am lucky to have numerous contacts who keep me informed of current research on a range of topics so I can go to the source to check.

The reference you supplied for your recent (Scottish ancestry) addition to Margaret Mutu does not work. Do you intend to totally ignore the info at the start of this section, namely:

Stop hand nuvola.svg You will continue to be reverted when you add unreferenced and POV information to Wikipedia. If you make several edits to an article, and among those there is one which is referenced, it is likely to be reverted along with the others in a single revert, because editors are not here just to check on every single edit you make. The answer is simple. Do not add material without an adequate edit summary, and a reliable reference, for each edit you make. Also, use the "Show preview" button which allows you to detect bad formatting you make.

You are disrupting Wikipedia again, and other editors are not expected to follow you around fixing your errors. I am reverting your addition. Do not replace it unless a reference actually links to a site accessible to readers. Moriori (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wiremu Kingi. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.

Neither of the references you cited are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Wishart book is self-published, and the 1861 Journals of the House of Representatives are the opinion of a belligerent party in a war.

Please read, understand and abide by Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. If you continue to add such slanted and poorly sourced commentary, I will bring this matter to the attention of the Administrators and you may be blocked from editing. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also reverted Battle of Rangiriri again [3]. Your writing is sloppy with poor spacing and spelling, the one citation has not been added properly and there is once again unsourced speculation and comment. BlackCab (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss your edits at Wiremu Kingi before reinstating them again. You need to address the issues raised by User:Daveosaurus. In addition, your edits still fail to use the proper citation style and you are continuing to write sentences with a lack of word spacing. Given the option of tediously fixing your poor writing or just reverting to the previous version (lacking detail though it may be in some respects), editors will generally choose to revert. You need to lift your standard or you will continue to waste all your time. BlackCab (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Drmies (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello One and all. Some editors seem to think that history has just one point of view and that is the "official" sanctioned version. My professional background and my extensive reading over too many decades show that this is seldom, if ever, the case. I totally reject any any allegation of racism or anti Maori bias. This is nonsense. My history edits are to show that often commonly accepted incidents in history are factually wrong. Even the most main stream historians in the past make endless mistakes simply because they didn't have the wealth of digital information that is now available even to a student. Both Belich and King made bloopers. Belich made some big ones. King in particular had an increasingly skeptical view of Maori only sources as he matured as a writer. Some of these he wrote about but didn't print. After his death his daughter published it for us so we can see his later thinking. Most NZ history editors will know that he got offside with some Maori academics who did not want a Pakeha writing "their" history. (Despite the fact that King was a tiny bit Maori -a bit like Christian Cullen, although he didnt know this when he first started writing Maori history ) One editor said that NZ govt sources are not acceptable for wikipedia as they were an interested party in NZ history. This is just complete and utter nonsense. On this basis you cannot have any Maori source for NZ history either as they are interested parties! What I am looking for is factually accurate history with a balance of points of view where there are different points of view (as their clearly are!). It seems some editors who undo my efforts are not historians or researchers and delete information for what I consider highly technical reasons ie they would prefer an inaccurate, lop-sided account of an historical incident although it reads like something out of the 1950s. It is interesting that one editor has it in for I Wishart. Remember that M. King began as a teacher and journalist. At times Mr King was dreadfully sick and drank quite heavily by his own account. I note that no one has pointed out any errors or falsehoods in Mr Wishart's work. On the contrary his work has been praised for its thorough research. For example Wishart has gone into enormous depths to show the background to Wiremu Kingi's war in Taranaki, which was the immediate background to the NZ land wars. His research is first rate and 100% accurate. It blows away many of the wrong misconceptions that kiwis commonly hold about their history. As part of my professional work I have developed a keen nose for censorship. Do I detect a whiff wafting through? Some editors seem wedded to a particular conservative point of view of NZ history that I would call dated and partial, in view of all the new information that daily flows out into the digital world. It seems strange but every day we know more about what really happened hundreds(sometimes thousands) of years ago. I note some editors have put their hands up to being cranky and impatient. They seem to delight in hitting the delete button as it is so easy to do. Patience is a virtue, possess it if you can. Thank you to the editor who went into bat for me regarding Maori being Stone Age and historically violent. I think both these minor points are well accepted now, almost self evident if you read the Musket Wars and Maori Culture. My apologies if my edits are not always 100% technically correct as I have eye problems which are slowly being rectified. I always endeavour to improve. Seasons Greeting and happy holidays to all.C.

I've copied this to the Admin noticeboard thread.-gadfium 07:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou gadfium.

Hello, I'm Sue Rangell. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Bucklands Beach, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Sue Rangell 02:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Parihaka[edit]

I have added a section at Talk:Parihaka explaining why I reverted your recent edit at that article. I find it difficult to believe that someone would add a quote about "chinks and niggers" from someone who is apparently unknown without having an ulterior motive. Please leave your comments at that page. BlackCab (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wharenui[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Rudolph89talk 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Māori culture, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not add your own commentary or analysis to articles. As this regularly results in your contributions being reverted, I strongly suggest that in future you do not add a single word to an article that is not backed up by a reliable source, and that you cite that source as a reference. Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  —Darkwind (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I have listed a number of issues with your revert at Talk:Invasion of Waikato#Unsupported claims. Can you please respond to them there. You are persisting with adding unsourced opinion and I will report you to the admins if you do not adequately explain your behaviour or fix those edits. BlackCab (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding NPOV, OR issues. The thread is IP user flagrantly ignores WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you. —BlackCab (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted again because they push an extreme point of view. Do not add them again without gaining consensus at the talk page of the article, otherwise an uninvolved Administrator may block you again. Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to New Zealand Wars, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive and negative.I was mid way through entering sources when you reverted.Just stop and think PLEASE!You are being unreasonable.
Look, why don't you add the sources before you again add this material. It is interesting, but will not survive without adequate sourcing. Moriori (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Create a Wikipedia user account, then use a subpage to create the content with sources. When it's done, upload it. See WP:SUB. I am not being disruptive. The problem is you are a repeat offender for creating content that is unsourced and original research. It is not for other users to exercise patience waiting for you to get around to provide sources. Unsourced material can be removed at any time. BlackCab (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In this case you were highly disruptive! Perhaps not intentionally but the effect was the same. The material was researched over many weeks.I was focusing initially on adding info in a clear and factual manner. Far more detail to come when I have time. You seem to take delight in being intensely negative while I am being very positive in adding new data to wiki on a regular basis. Enough ! Time to go to work!.

I have cleaned up that section and deleted some excessive detail that is out of scope of the article. I have deleted two sources you cited: one was a dead link and the other was not a source that meets Wikipedia criteria as a reliable source. Can you also please add the page numbers of the book you cite. BlackCab (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You are continuing to add unsuitable material. Stowers' book is self-published (of the two editions on Amazon, one cites himself as publisher and the other is printed by Createspace, a print-on-demand outfit) and the link at www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz.docs/Paerata/pdf/pae/1001.pdf is dead (I have also tried www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/docs/Paerata/pdf/pae/1001.pdf which seems more likely as a link but that doesn't work either). Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability which is a core policy of Wikipedia. Your contributions today fail that policy. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your sourcing remains inadequate at Kūpapa and you simply cannot write statements such as "Fortuneately their numbers were low and their war fighting ability was very low as they believed that chanting hau hau, barking like dogs and holding up a hand would make them bullet proof", which present an editorial opinion. Stop reverting material that has been flagged as failing to meet basic Wikipedia policies. BlackCab (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Pukete Bridge, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Adabow (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2013[edit]

Please do not use the word "minor" in your edit summary unless you are making only superficial changes. Your edit to Invasion of Waikato here is very clearly not minor: you are adding an unsourced and quite inaccurate claim about the reason for the invasion ("an attack by Rewi Maniapoto on the Maori Trade school at Te Awamutu") and other material. Please read WP:MINOR. BlackCab (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Blackcob.It really is a minor point in the context of the whole war. Of course it wasn't called Te Awamutu in 1863.I think the attack on the CMS missionaries,the attempt to murder Gorst and the trade school attack and the subsequent kidnapping of the settlers children is mentioned in nearly every history book I have ever read about the war. Maybe the kidnapping of the children is not quite so well known as events in the rebels attack on Auckland unfolded so quickly and were so horrendous that some info was overlooked. It is interesting that the recent translation of the French missionary reports from the Waikato reveal that they were considered friends of the rebels and did not have to pay the rebel tax. This dovetails nicely with the French meddling in the Bay of Plenty and further East.

Wikipedia is not the place to insert your opinions. Read WP:MINOR. BlackCab (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dieppe pinch theory. Need for citations[edit]

Hi there. You keep attempting to add a large portion of uncited text into the pinch theory section. I have been removing it on the basis of uncited text may be challenged and removed. I am open-minded about the idea, so I have no axe to grind, but as a general WP user as well as editor, I would like to see trackable reliable citation(s) to further my personal knowledge. Please can you cite this information, or others may well remove it on the above grounds. I dont wish to fall foul of the 3 R rule or unintentional edit warring, when I believe we are actually not, certainly at this stage. Cheers Irondome (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)The information provide already is all I have,I believe the TV programme has received wide international coverage . Debate about the information has been extensive with points made for and against. The trouble is that the Dieppe raid page had no info at all about the debate details of the pinch raid and why or why not it is likely to be a key or the key to the whole reason for the raid. The most valid point against is why would the allies tell the Germans that they understood their enigma machine code system by taking the latest model? The answer may be that they hoped to destroy so much of the dock area (where the naval HW was that the Germans would just think the enigma 4 wheel model just got destroyed in the general mayhem-ie they would not be aware that the British had it or could actually use it. German intelligence was deeply divided and compartmentalized so they may well have continued to use them. Another factor not mentioned is that Churchill was well aware from enigma intercepts that the position he was attacking had been recently strengthened.If the attack did not go ahead would the Germans get suspicious about the reason behind the change of mind??

Judith Binney[edit]

You might like to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Te_Kooti, Ringatū and the reliability of works by Judith Binney.-gadfium 22:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up Gadfium.C.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Judith Binney, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Thankyou

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Judith Binney, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Education in New Zealand. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.Good idea!

Sourcing[edit]

Your edits will continue to be deleted so long as you continue to provide inadequate sourcing. Citations need page numbers. Clearly identify the book, the author, the date, and the publisher. For a change, why not try using the citation templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Why not start to show some pride in your contributions to Wikipedia? Your efforts continue to be slapdash and bring the project down. BlackCab (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Doing my best to improve but it takes along time to backtrack and find the pages.Patience is a virtue.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Rugby union positions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Winkelvi (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Rugby union positions, you may be blocked from editing. Winkelvi (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Seems to be several editors using this address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)

I have also removed the essay you wrote at Demographics of New Zealand.[4] It is unclear how much of this is original research. Your attempts at sourcing are patently inadequate for the material you have added. Use the citation templates to provide proper book titles, authors, publishers and date of publication and cite page numbers. BlackCab (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources added -a few more to come yet -limitations of time. Lots more detail on Maori demographics to come as there is almost no information on wiki on the important subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 127.0.0.1 (talk)

I have explained many times that your sourcing is completely inadequate. Gather your sources first and add them with your edit. Do it properly. If you continue with this disruptive behavior I will seek to have your access to Wikipedia editing blocked. BlackCab (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert warning[edit]

Your recent editing history at Demographics of New Zealand shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. BlackCab (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Flat bar road bike, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Pai Mārire#Correct name on the terminology that should be used in the article. You need to discuss this issue first before simply reverting and adding statements that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. In addition, I removed a dubious statement at Parihaka that has been flagged for citations since last year. You have reverted it with the edit summary, "source to come".[5] The statement should be reinstated only when there is a source cited. BlackCab (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing this when you reverted!!! How can I put in sources if you practice this kind of bureaucratic vandalism! Please stop!Basically if the founder of the cult,Te Ua, says his followers are called Hau Hau who am I to argue with him? There is absolutely no doubt that hau hau were rebelling against the government. Their creed was to implement to Te Ua's vision revealed to him by the archangel Michael( the arc angel of war!!-the same angel that had regular talks with Te Kooti)that the Europeans were to be driven into the sea to implement the arrival of the new Israelites (Maori)in the land of Canaan( New Zealand). Simple really. This is basic 101 NZ history!!

It is not bureaucratic vandalism to insist on proper sourcing for an encyclopedia. You need to to go to the article talk page and address the issue there. I have set out my reasons, so reply with yours. BlackCab (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The source of the information and a slightly expanded information on the process called Takoha has been added to the article for which a source was requested -unless of course you have removed or reverted it. I have just realised that you are an Australian man. That explains a lot! You should stick to editing articles which you are knowledgeable about as clearly you dont have much understanding of NZ history. What you do know seems to be from circa 1950s !!FYI Belich is not considered a really reliable source. You seem to lean heavily on him in many edits. He has had many arguement with NZ Historians-some more polite than others!. Chis Pugsly (very polite)demolished most of Belich's frankly silly statements about Maori military capability. Belich was just out of his depth. Some lady historians(go girls!) have been very critical of Belich's lack of understanding of early Maori culture, especially as it relates to contact with the outside western world. You should be aware that he is considered to be an extremist interpreter of history rather than a historian per se. You might be interested to read about the significant Australian to the victory by the NZ government over the Kingitanga rebels. Without the Aussies the victory would not have been so quick or so decisive. This extensive help should be recognized on Anzac day dont you think?

I am still waiting to see the page numbers cited from Michael King's Moriori that support your recent edit at Parihaka. ([6]) I have left the request at Talk:Parihaka#Squatters. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a library book, now returned, so it may be some time before I can retrieve it. I believe it was in the chapter about Ngati Mutanga's recent aggressive attitude towards the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal where they claimed the right to invade other lands ,kill and eat people, enslave the survivors and take over their economy. You may be interested that they referred to the white Australian's harsh treatment of Aborigines as evidence that this sort of genocide was perfectly acceptable in the European world. Not surprisingly the tribunal sided with the Moriori. It seems Ngati Mutanga make a habit of poor judgement,which is now legendary in NZ.

Thank you for your response. I have found the reference in the Moriori book to Parihaka, on page 133-134. I will respond to this at the talk page, which is the appropriate place for discussion on the content of that article. BlackCab (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OK no problems.

Please stop reverting material in the Parihaka article. You are restoring the wrong name of a book, reinstating material you can clearly NOT support with reliable sources and adding material that in some cases is irrelevant to the article and in other cases patently false. You need to discuss your issues at the article talk page, not engage in edit-warring, or you will be reported to administrators. BlackCab (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC) No intelligent information found on this page. I am not surprised wiki is concerned at your on going vandalism and lack of knowledge on many(most?) of the topics you edit. Please do some serious reading to bring yourself up to date . Relying on extreme and largely discredited accounts of NZ history is just not acceptable in 2013.

Edit warring at Parihaka[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Parihaka shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. BlackCab (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Drmies (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

What is going on here???I don't make many edits but I suddenly find I cant make any at all??Huh??I just wanted to correct some obvious mistakes in an article.

Ditto. How many editors are using this address? It seems to me there are at least 5 individuals maybe more judging by the material being edited. What can we do about this?

Kgpg new.svg To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may use this form to request a username. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of either form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

My apologies to other editors who have been inconvenienced by the blocking. It seems the cause of this is continued reversion by Blackcob, not myself. I wrote the original edits and he reverted them.

The material I entered was all referenced to a variety (at least 4 from memory) different sources. It is clear from Blackcob's previous behaviour that he is a wiki predator, in particular reverting NZ history edits that don't conform to his limited understanding of the subject. It is evident that his base knowledge comes from simplistic history he learnt in the 50s or 60s that is now regarded as frankly ridiculous. Based on what he has previously written Blackcob mainly uses 1 only single historical source from the 1980s that has been consistently shown to be unreliable in matters relating to military history and early Maori culture. In general that author is characterized as a left wing revisionist interpreter of NZ history. His most well known book is an embarrassment to NZ historians ,especially as it was widely known in populist televised docudrama with all its mistakes for the world to see. He has now left New Zealand. Blackcob uses this flawed source to reinforce his own antiquated version of events.

Until quite recently the entire Parihaka historical episode has been surrounded by myths and stories. Since about 1995ish a range of well researched factual information has been written that casts Parihaka in a quite different light. I have been attempting to add a limited ammount of this information (all sourced)that relates to the type of people who were at Parihaka. The information shows that amongst the inhabitants who were squatting of government owned land, was a large group from one of the most murderous iwi (tribes )in New Zealand,the Ngati Mutunga, who were responsible for a cold, calculated invasion of the Chatham Island, which resulted in ferocious Nazi style violence-mass murder of the inhabitants the Moriori,rape of many women,repeated torture over many years ,enslavement of the survivors and a cold inhumane degradation of the Moriori people and culture, including refusing them the right to worship, to marry or have children. It is now a very well documented genocide thanks to the work of historian ,the late Michael King. At Parihaka there was also a murderer being sheltered ,an expert in guerilla warfare and a number of blood thirsty Hau hau from the other side of NZ. Hau hau was a"religion " started by a Maori mystic Te Ua ,widely regarded as a lunatic , who taught his followers that if they chanted a Maori phrase which sounded like dogs barking, they would be bullet proof when attacking Europeans. The "religion "was essentially a front for a violent xenophobic philosophy-the key point of which was to kill Europeans and drive them out of NZ. The Hau Hau movement had been widespread in the central North Island and caused widespread death and destruction. They specialized in eating body parts of their victims. The day after the ringleaders were arrested a very large number of firearms were found at Parihaka. I have added this detail here as most of it does not appear on the Parihaka article. The government had set aside huge areas of coastal Taranaki for local iwi(tribes) to live and work but they refused to allow dangerous outsiders with a raft of appalling violence to their credit to establish a threatening community on Government land. One key strategy of the Hau hau was to appear peaceful and tranquil and then, when the authorities let their guard down, to violently rise up.

One editor said an edit was unencyclopedic without actually saying what their specific issue was. If you delete something it makes it hard to actually improve the quality,which sometimes might take a little time. If you have a specific skill it would make sense to me to use it to improve the sentence or whatever is in question. It seems that some editors are very quick on the revert button simply as it is so easy to do! Please consider thinking for a minute. My edits to articles are based on lengthy, time consuming research sometimes taking days or even weeks of hard work. I focus on modern research material, combined with original sources material where available, to present the most well rounded, accurate account of events. As an experienced researcher I know and understand the sources and their relative merits. I correspond with well known historians to keep informed on these matters. I keep a log of my history sources - 37 and counting in the history area. Hello Drmies! Where are you in ether land? Can you respond please?. I have no idea what a ANEW is. If it relates to the note to me by Blackcob regarding his removal of my recent edits-he did refer me to to a page where he said a discussion was taking place re something?? However on the page there was a very wide variety of material in geek talk but nothing apparently related to the edits in question and certainly no discussion that I could find.

Nec minit bingo-blocked for 2 weeks. Very arbitrary and unreasonable behaviour in my book. If someone can give Drmies a prod to respond I would be grateful.Thankyou.

I've notified Drmies for you.-gadfium 23:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Gadfium, you are a true kiwi scholar and a gentleman. I nominate you for PM. I suspect Drmies is busy with his finger in a dyke( or is that dike?) To sweeten him up I offer a large plate of Ritter Sport Puur Hazel nuut. He seems to have enough pussies already.

Insulting him is not going to make him more sympathetic to your case. Attempting to flatter me doesn't work either (although I did once accept a bottle of whiskey from an editor who wanted me to hear his tale of woe; I planned to declare it if I took any related action but in the event no action was required). Since Drmies is probably not very familiar with New Zealand idiom, it would help if you avoided terms such as Nek minnit.-gadfium 03:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Page stalker here. I have had a run in over the Dieppe raid article in the past with one of you. The one that goes on and on. It is like dealing with a bizarre cluster of multiple personalities. Luckily I never got involved with the ongoing NZ-related pages chaos that appears to be going from bad to worse in absurdity. I watch the related fall-out a bit. Tip. Why dont some of you take responsibility for your statements and contributions by signing in properly. Then you will be taken seriously, and not as a bizarre babble. What is the most scary is that you may actually be just one individual. Oh the horror!. We are all allowed at least one nervous breakdown per life, and you may be having yours if you are one person. No worries, couple of months or whenever then sign in properly. The slate will be clean then mate. One of you might have the makings of a good editor :) Good luck Irondome (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree. There's a long history of warnings on this talk page (and many more reversions that didn't result in warnings) so none of this blocking happened out of the blue. Creating one account per person would easily resolve this. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence to support the user's claim that this IP address is used by several people. All edits coming from this IP address seem to display the same peculiarities of writing style (spacing, spelling, use of numerals instead of words) and all show the same disregard for sourcing, the same derisive view of NZ historians (and an insistence that he/she knows better), a failure to sign comments and a disinclination to engage in reasonable discussion with other editors to achieve a consensus. A two-week block seems reasonable and I see no reason to show any leniency. I would hope there is an improvement once the block expires, but there's a long history of this behaviour. BlackCab (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Dyke fingerer here. I appreciate the Ritter Sport, and as it happens hazelnut is my favorite. I once left my bicycle outside and did some recreational drugs. Next minute, bike gone. I explained my reasons for the block; the long prose narrative on why the editor's edits were right doesn't make me change my mind. ANEW refers to the Edit Warring Notice Board. The editor is free to make a formal unblock request, and perhaps the next admin feels differently, though I don't see why. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Goededag Drmies. I see your English is MUCH better than Gadfium gives you credit for!Even Kiwi English humour! Thank god an editor with a sense of humour-often sadly missing on wiki. My work contract clashes with having an individualized account. Have you considered migrating to NZ Drmies? Lots of your countrymen here.The best growing climate in the world.Green.Space.Hills.Mountains.Clean air .No traffic jambs.Lots of biking.Lots of cheese. No Rollmops.

  • I wouldn't mind, dear editor. What I've seen of your country is beautiful, and I'm all about the biking (flat handlebars or not). Drmies (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Goedemorgan Drmies. Check out the Migrate to NZ Expos in London ,Newcastle and Birmingham all coming up in July. Big drive on at the moment to increase the number of European migrants with the right skills for New Zealand. Many professional skills will be needed in Christchurch to help rebuild after the earthquakes 3 years ago. Reconstruction of CBD well under way. $35 billion NZ to be spent. You would be right at home in Chch -New Zealand's only large flat city. Our biggest cycling city too-bonus! Chch climate is quite similar to Hollands. Lots of work to be done and lots of cafes to relax. Excellent coffee... Excellent beer....Great Bacon...mmmm

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Ngāti Toa, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I have reverted your edit, because the tone was unencyclopedic; the punctuation mangled; and I very much doubt source says "centuries", but page number is missing from the ref, so i can't check. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

NCEA[edit]

Regarding this edit, could you please cite some reliable sources to back up what the text says? In my opinion, discussing National Standards is irrelevant and is more likely to confuse readers than have the opposite effect. Adabow (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)The section was written after reading a newspaper article in which the reporter was clearly confused between the 2 systems -this would be many months? a years ago? Since then I have read public comments that show that some parents and seems especially Maori parents are confused between the 2 systems. Not everyone is up to speed. The more clarification the better I say. I dear say the MOE and NZQA has mountains of documents about the differences but I doubt the public would read them or even comprehend them.

June 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Stuartyeates. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Timeline of New Zealand history, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

About March? 2013 A group of researcher working in the South Island released information that Moa had died out within 100 years of the first arrivals-apart from maybe some isolated pockets. Im not sure where they were from I will try to find a reference. I believe they were using C14 technology.

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Māori culture, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)There is no orginal research-this is from Polynesian Society Journal as per ref.

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Te Kooti. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Amaury (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Historian Judith Binney is considered the most reliable ref for Te Kooti,especially her tour de force, Redemption Songs. Nothing controversial in the book.If anything it is a rather conservative book, although a few NZ historians have said that she was rather too gentle in interpreting Te Kooti's character after his return from the Chathams. I have expanded the refs a bit to avoid confusion with her other books.

Signing posts on talk pages[edit]

This is not difficult, all you have to do is add four tildes after post, like this: ~~~~ DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Te Kooti, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Ngāti Toa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Disruption[edit]

Anyone reading this talk page will clearly see you have a history of being disruptive, despite other editors attempting to get you to edit collegially. See the first paragraph in WP:DISRUPT. OK, so how do you want to handle this?

1. You can acknowledge your uncooperative behaviour, pledge to not do it again, and then actually edit cooperatively.

or

2. I can block you from editing the next time you disrupt the project, and you will remain blocked until you agree to discontinue with your conduct.

Which is it? Your choice. Moriori (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Moriori. Im not sure what exactly you are referring too above as it is so vague. Your nasty and aggressive statement to me is just plain bullying and Im sure is just not acceptable on wiki. I usually manage to get back and fix any errors in an edit if others have not done it for me already,or if someone raises a problem. You seem to be adopting a very belligerent stance for some reason? I am a very reasonable lady. I dont have a history of being disruptive. I try to make my contributions positive (unlike some!) and informative. I dont have a huge ammount of spare time for wiki minutae. I just try and get the basics right. My job prevents me monitoring wiki edits constantly like some editors seem to do. Currently I am having a very agreeable and positive intermittent discussion with several editors about Judith Binney on Te Kooti. Is this what you are talking about? Or was it the amendment and extra reference on Ngati Toa you are talking about. In either case I cant see what your problem is. Please try and be positive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talkcontribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 28 June 2013
Stop hand nuvola.svg OK, you are in denial, and you choose No 2 as indicated by that edit (and others since) - poor formatting and no sig or timestamp - that someone else had to fix.
I already said above that anyone reading this talk page will clearly see you have a history of being disruptive, despite other editors attempting to get you to edit collegially. Read the comments on the page yourself, and the vagueness will disappear. You make numerous edits which other editors have to clean up, and they too don't "have a huge ammount of spare time for wiki minutae". I already mentioned WP:DISRUPT but here's another excerpt from it which is relevant to the current situation.
"Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed."
Particularly note the last sentence. It should help you understand why you are now blocked from editing for one month to prevent further disruption of the project. That is twice the length of time you were last blocked (for your third time). If you believe you can justify your disruptive editing you can contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}. If when you resume editing at the end of the block you continue to be disruptive, you will undoubtedly be blocked again, for a longer period. Moriori (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Moriori (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Te Kooti. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page edit war, as you did with this edit to Te Kooti. Bradshaws1 (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Firstly, just a quick note to apologise for any offence caused. In hindsight, I'll admit that I did use the wrong warning message.
Secondly, however, it is important that all article contributions have a neutral point of view. This means, for example, that opinions should not be stated as if they were facts. For instance, instead of writing something like "John X is the best footballer in the world", it is better to say, "John X has been described by Bob Y as the best footballer in the world". This ensures opinions are clearly shown to be such, and not written as if they were facts. For more information on this, see WP:NPOV.
I don't know very much about Te Kooti, or the sources in question, so I can't comment on the reliability of the sources, but you may want to read these pages on Wikipedia policy:
WP:NPOV
WP:Verifiability
WP:Identifying reliable sources
--Bradshaws1 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WoooW!! I have just spent the last few hours trying to comply with all the conflicting demands of various editors. I have addressed the request to talk about the edits and have done so at length but all that happens is that I get shut down!!As I said I didnt revert the Te Kooti edit so that an experienced editor-Gadfium- could look at the issue and give advice but before that could even happen -bingo -wiped out! This is crazy! Let me say I am not the one edit warring or being disruptive .I have given very full reasons for edits. It seems that 1 pr 2 editors just like target shooting! Absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talkcontribs)

Thankyou to Bradshaw1(?) for the apology about using the wrong notice re the Te Kooti page,I cant communicate with you on your talk page as someone has blocked me so I hope you see this here or someone will draw it to your attention. I am still at a loss as to why I ( and other who use this .243number) cant edit for a month. Just a response to your "reminder" about opinion. It seems to be a common thread that opinions expressed in an edit are "mine" whereas in fact all the "opinion "is in fact of the source stated. In the TK article all the "opinion" is Judith Binneys by far the most authoritative source on anything to do with Te Kooti, Tuhoe and that Rohe and era of Nz's history. One editor seems to have taken a super extreme position on Binney ie that anything she wrote is unreliable!This is just patent nonsense. The implication of Stuarts' comments is that Binney somehow favoured Te kooti or went easy on him YET he removed a well sourced edit from Binney that can be seen as quite critical of Te Kootis behaviour as a youth. If wiki allows this then there is not an author in the world who is safe from being "struck out". This is complete nonsense! It is even more ludicrous when you see that Binney got a lot of her info on TK from the man's own writings! This seems like a very catch 22 situation. You will notice that I tried to work with other editors on the TK talk page but was just banned!! No attempt to actually deal with the real issue at hand at all-its very easy to "take over" a page by excluding an editor altogether which is what has happened here. It rather repulsive when I think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talkcontribs)

Where to go from here[edit]

Clearly you are a motivated and knowledgable editor. I (and I believe other editors) will welcome you back to wikipedia if you can learn to work within the WP:NPOV guidelines. If you decide not to return to the English language wikipedia, you may be welcome at the Māori Language wikipedia, which is certainly a good match for your apparent knowledge, but I don't know whether you speak te reo Māori. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stuart. My te reo is limited!I can only follow the general trend of a paper conversation but nowhere near good enough for wiki.Yes, I am extremely knowledgeable about history in general and since I came to NZ have read everything I can get my hands on so I now know all the dark corners of this new nation. My professional job now allows me time to indulge more deeply as I can access a wide range of materials. One thing I have noted is that many kiwis have very old fashioned notions of history.(Or perhaps its just a wiki/editor age thing?) I have made it my business to get to know the writers as well as what they write. Unfortunately our good friend Judith Binney has gone to meet her maker so I cant ask her what she makes of your opinion of her. Ive had a few quiet chuckles with other history friends about things that appear on wiki from time to time.I must say most treat wiki as a bit of a joke compared to their professional work but it is probably of more use to the general public rather than of any serious academic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talkcontribs)
When you say "any serious academic value" you hit the nail on the head. Wikipedia is not meant to be a serious academic thing, it's an encyclopedia, and because of that has a different set of priorities and requires quite a different approach. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless wiki should try to be accurate and up to date so that the vast bulk of people have access to a reliable sources of information on the widest range of topics. I'm informed by friends working in secondary and tertiary education that student learning would nearly grind to a halt in some schools of learning without wiki!They now have to set assignments etc that stipulate that wiki cannot be the only source of information. It is clear to me from listening to their conversations that wiki is far far more than an old fashioned paper encyclopedia. Perhaps they should invent a new word that encompasses the electronic and interactive or reactive aspects of wiki.~~c.243~~
We should try to be complete, but trying to be up-to-date rather than cover the full range of points of view is a serious problem for wikipedia, (see Wikipedia:Recentism). Already there is far better coverage of recent events, living people and contemporary organisations than there is of historic events, long-dead people and defunct organsiations; this leads to a seriously distorted view of history. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see what that page is getting at but I think it is best to have the latest research on any topic provided it is not mickey mouse research. In the case of TK there was virtually no modern, rounded information available before Binney. She exposed modern day "students" to all sides of TKs life, character and influence at the same time tied together the two quite opposed views of TK held in NZ. Quite a contribution!It was incidental that her research helped Tuhoe gain what the treaty tribunal says is equity. The other really important point is that wiki is the one stop shop in this instant world. I suspect this is why students under time pressure go to wiki first to gain an overview,before doing more specific research. I know one youngish lawyer who claimed she would not have got 1st class honours without wiki. I agree that modern research changes long held views of history-but usually this is a good thing! People often hold seriously wacky views of history based on old, inaccurate information-Im sure you will agree-a couple of NZ examples;firstly the Moriori myth that most kiwis apparently learnt from school journals back in the 50s and 60s. Secondly the great fleet myth which has a bunch of polynesian boats landing heroically on our shores in 1350 led by kupe- an image probably not helped by wonderfully dramatic, speculative and evocative pictures. You can probably think of lots of other cases. I cant think of a logistical reason for restricting content quantity provided it is organized. The collaborative wiki approach is revolutionary. Ive noted that it attracts a lot of experts from a wide range of fields which is great.~~c.243~~

Hi Claudia. I am disappointed to see that, after your last block was lifted, you had gone straight back to the behaviour that got you blocked in the first place. I suggest that after this current block expires, you improve your spelling, grammar, punctuation and avoid adding your own commentary or the use of unreliable sources. A couple of suggestions would be:

  • Don't write anything based on your memory of sources - have your source open in front of you and note down exactly what page the content that you are summarising is to be found.
  • Don't add any personal commentary to your content - that isn't what Wikipedia is for. If you want to air your views about mainstream NZ history then get yourself a blog - try somewhere like http://wordpress.com/.

You've got a few more weeks free so I suggest you borrow some sources from the library and work on content on your own computer until you are again free to edit. Otherwise you really should consider creating an account at Wikipedia. I notice you comment about conflicts between work and Wikipedia. What you might not realise is that any edits you make anonymously, have your IP address (that string of numbers you are identified with here) logged which anyone can use to track down your internet provider, and if they wish to, subpoena them for your identity. If you create an account, nobody but Wikipedia administrators (and maybe only certain administrators, at that - this isn't something I've paid much attention to) would have access to your IP address. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrators (such as myself) can't see a logged in user's IP address. It takes a checkuser, who goes through additional scrutiny and has to reveal their real-life identify to the WikiMedia Foundation, to see that.-gadfium 09:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that at the time of being blocked by Moriori I was in the middle of a constructive conversation trying to sort out an issue with another editor ie not Moriori. How am I supposed to sort out an issue if another editor (who is not involved at all in the discussion ) suddenly chops off the communications? It seems that Moriori has a problem with doing this sort of thing in the past.ie Being quite unneccesarily aggressive. A little more time and the issue could have been sorted quite amicably I believe. Thankyou gadfium for your information -it seems that old Dave was wrong again. As I have already said (above)"opinion" writings are of the named author, not mine. Another issue -unresolved- is that Stuart can "decide " that Binney is an unreliable source despite her academic reputation and on the basis of a couple of comments re her. I had a toot toodle around and found that the Binney is still quoted as a"reliable" source on many articles. It seems the only time she is unreliable is when I used her as a reference. It is obvious to me that Binney is as reliable as any other historian-more so than a few well known "names"ie she explained that she was going to include the Maori ( especially tuhoe) view of the world but using the modern academic approach. When she gave a "Maori view" she sometimes immediately put in an explanation of how and why the view point differed.i.e. she was not hiding anything. In this sense she is acceptionally reliable. More than one one known historian had a"secret" that may have influenced their writings. Another well known "popular" NZ historian just made many dumb mistakes and has been roundly and rightly criticized by all and sundry. He continues to be treated as a reliable source although I note that gradually his frequent errors are being slowly replaced by more specialist historians who actually know what they are talking about.~~c.243~~

I did not decide that Binney is not a reliable source and agree that Binney is a reliable source. However I believe that Binney is not an independent reliable source for Tuhoe, Te Kooti and etc. I took that belief to a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the consensus was against Binney's independence. If you wish to use Binney as a source for emotive or interpretative content, you're welcome to open a discussion on the topic and get that looked at again. Once your block expires, go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and click on the text that says 'Click here to start a new discussion'. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
In one of your previous comments, you said that people seem to think the opinions in the article are yours.
Well, here's the thing: it doesn't matter whose opinion is written about in an article, whether it's yours or Judith Binney's or John Smith's. The point is that all opinions, regardless of who they belong to, must be attributed to a person.
For example, instead of "Te Kooti was a very disturbed boy", we could write "In her book, Judith Binney describes Te Kooti as being a very disturbed boy."
Or maybe, "...describes Te Kooti as having a very disturbed childhood", as this sounds more encyclopedic.
Or, if you would prefer to quote her, you could write "...describes Te Kooti as "a very disturbed boy".", with the quote in quotation marks.
--Bradshaws1 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bradshaw for this insight!!! Wiki seems to have more rules than the UN but this actually makes sense. I would have done this happily if Moriori had not chopped my communication dead. In the case mentioned Binney was reporting Te Kooti's own word(translated into English of course) with added comments from several other locals. So the article would go something like this: Binney wrote that Te Kooti's own accounts say he was a maladjusted person in his youth and this included multiple cases of stealing,theft, having an affair with the wife of a senior whanua member and repeated drunken behaviour over many years that resulted in his hapu Te Aitanga a Mahaki conducting a taua against him and driving him the rohe. She reported that Te Kooti said he had been deliberately buried alive by his father when young.(It strikes me that the reason thee are 2 versions is that TK was very young and could not be absolutely sure himself what the digging was all about).

I'm confused about Stuart has written. What is the difference between being a reliable source and an independent reliable source ?? Seems like splitting hairs to me since Binney is the only source which gives a full, accurate,modern coverage of TK. This point has already been made. When she wrote her books she was not being paid by Tuhoe-that would have made her partial. She was giving information based on her independent research. Maybe we should wait until Prof Moon writes a book about TK? Opps I forgot, I think it was old Dave who said he was unreliable too!!Michael King-nahh dead. The great revisionist? Nahh gone to greener pastures. Perhaps Bradshaw can give a simple explanation? I presume that Binney was treated as a reliable witness by the treaty tribunal when appearing before them re the Tuhoe case. She must have been, as the government is passing over large amounts of ca$h and koha to Tuhoe based largely on her detailed studies. Its not her fault if the tribunal didn't ask questions about who "owned "the Ureweras before Tuhoe and how Tuhoe came to claim "ownership". Belgrave has pointed out that the tribunal has "rewritten" history by accepting some viewpoints but rejecting others that don't fit its "lets get this settled " goal. I admire the goal as its gone on far too long but a lot of historians are starting to think about the implications for accurate NZ history. Going to be conferencing/sunbathing on the GC very soon so I'll leave you boys to sort it out and I still have a paper to write. ~~c.243~~

OK, so the opinion about being "a disturbed boy" was Te Kooti's opinion, not Binney's, am I correct? In that case, you could say something like: "Te Kooti described his childhood as being very disturbed", and then cite Binney's book as your source (using <ref> tags). This is fine, because you have mentioned that the opinion belongs to Te Kooti, so it is attributed to a person. So you don't always have to mention about Binney's book, because in this case, Te Kooti is the person with the opinion, and Binney's book is the source that you cite.
This sidesteps the question of whether her book is a reliable source or not, but that's for another day...
I wouldn't really be able to help you with that question anyway, being as I haven't actually looked at any of these books. In fact, I'd never heard of Te Kooti until last week. One of the advantages of being a Wikipedian is that you collect random knowledge as you go about your editing business Smile.png
Finally, I know that Wikipedia policy is infinitely subtle and complex, and it is very difficult to understand and interpret it correctly. Figuring out how to apply these guidelines to the actual content of an article is more difficult still, and very often you just have to take a judgement call, using your editor's instincts. The only way to hone these kinds of instincts is through experience. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


OK, now on to reliable sources:
A reliable source is a published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
Reliable sources include:
  • academic publications that have been peer-reviewed by the academic community, such as in history, medicine and science. (These are the best sources.)
  • university-level textbooks
  • books published by respected publishing houses
  • magazines
  • journals
  • mainstream newspapers
  • etc.
Independent reliable sources are when the author of the source does not have a financial, legal, personal, or other relationship with the subject of the article. This relationship can be either positive (in support of the subject) or negative (against the subject).
Below are two examples of non-independent sources.
An example of a non-independent source with a positive relationship:
  • Company A wants to promote their product, so they publish an article that describes it in an excessively positive light.
An example of a non-independent source with a negative relationship:
  • A rival company writes an article about Company A's product, describing it in an excessively negative light.
--Bradshaws1 (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wellington Wars may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and not the [[natives]], which further enraged the colonists within New Zealand. [[Wairau Affray]](Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:55:46 a.m. Accessed: 22/05/2011<ref>King, M. (2007). The Penguin History

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Nicholas Searancke may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • nicholas |work=Encyclopedia of New Zealand |accessdate=30 October 2012}}</ref> In 1858 he was a[[[aoibted District Commissioner in the Land Purchase Department in Wellington. He was sent to the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

New pattern of obstructive and provocative behaviour[edit]

I pointed out at Talk:Māori King Movement#Maori bank the problems with your edits regarding Tawhiao's alleged misuse of funds from the Maori bank. Wikipedia is structured on collaboration and discussion; you have provided a long-winded reply that fails to address the central question of reliability, and then added much the same material -- in an expanded, NPOV form, at King Country. See [7]. You then reinstated it after I removed it. [8] This is clearly obstructive and tendentious editing. You are still not signing your posts. Please stop this or you will be reported yet again. BlackCab (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Hello Blackcab. I am to find out why you find the edit information "dubious"- you have not said what part of the edit or the references you find dubious. Can you please expand. These are your words" alleged misuse of funds"not mine. They are not in the edit at all.I am not being obstructive in any way shape or form. Your responses have been very limited -I am merely trying to see your point of view and collaborate. I tried to expand of the information to show why I believe it should be included. I am trying to have a"conversation" with you regard the edit. You may have missed that I added several new references that all say more or less the same thing. Far from being tendentious I am trying to find out what happened based on a whole range of resources that all report more or less the same thing. Can we agree: that:1 Tawhaio went with 5 others to England with the main idea of seeing the Queen regarding land sales which he believed were dubious 2 He took with him 4000 pounds 3 He did not have an invitation from the Queen, nor did he see her 4 He spent several months in England -mainly in London 5 He and the group made use of the time to see a very wide range of London's attraction.

6 The trip arose from a meeting many chiefs had in Auckland in 1882. The initial plan was to send a large delegation of chiefs but this proved too expensive .

Rather than have nothing about the source of the money- have a statement along the lines : That it is not clear where the finance came from. It may have come from either direct gifts such as the 300 pounds mentioned (from Napier?)and /or from the bank. I see one source only that say the bank was set up in 1886, most say earlier without providing much detail. The other aspect is the reaction to the trip -would Pei Te Hurinui Jones have included this if it was dubious or reflected badly on his people? What do you say? It might be easier for me to get hold of a copy of Tainui than you in Melbourne,so I will do so in the next day or so and recheck what he actually said. Thanks Claudia.

I have copied your comments to Talk:Māori King Movement and replied to them there. BlackCab (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Paragraphs[edit]

Please remember the importance of paragraphs in your edits. Material you added in several articles has included huge masses of material in one paragraph, which makes it all but unreadable. A recent example (which has still not been fixed) is at Bucklands Beach. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs. I have also made numerous fixes to your edits at Duncan Alexander Cameron after you left no spaces between words, capitalised words that needed no capitalisation (and vice-versa) and left spaces between the ends of sentences and the full point. Much of your work looks rushed; it is certainly careless and shows little regard for the quality of Wikipedia articles. There is no point in adding material if you leave it in an almost unreadable state. BlackCab (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at James Belich (historian)[edit]

Information icon Please stop using talk pages such as James Belich (historian) for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. I have removed a sequence of personal attacks and derogatory comments you have made about Belich on that article's talk page. They are completely unnecessary. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abel Tasman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Proceeding north and then east, he stopped to gather water, but his cockboat was rammed by [[Māori people|Māori]in a catamaran and four of his men were attacked and murdered by blows from

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Early naval vessels of New Zealand[edit]

Thank you for your additions to Early naval vessels of New Zealand. Would you please provide the page references to the sources you cited. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Pai Mārire[edit]

You left a space out between "Census 2006." and "Statics NZ." Did you mean "Statistics"? Would you please fix this? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits here and here return to an issue that was discussed at the Pai Marire talk page. Your comment on one of those edits said "this group are referred to by Binney ,King and Mair (as well as other historians) as Hau hau.It is Hau hau who are associated with the violent actions on the Chathams not Pai maire(Good and peacefull."
That's just not true. Binney, in "Encircled Lands" refers to them as Pai Marire (see p.96). Some historians call them "Hauhau" (but make plain this was the name used by the Europeans); the only writer I can find who used the term "Hau hau" is Keith Sinclair. Most give them their correct name, Pai Marire. The prisoners taken to the Chathams, as far as I can tell, were simply any of the "rebel" Maori taken prisoner in the East Coast wars.
In any case, this encyclopedia should stick to the name used by the majority of historians and the name used in the Wikipedia article. BlackCab (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To quote M King (from memory)"If Te Kooti wasn't a Hau hau before (ie when fighting on the East coast) he was when he escaped back to Nz". The name Pai marire (good and peaceful) ) is a extremely misleading and biased term. Its incorrect use is calculated to give a totally wrong and misleading view of the beliefs and the actual behaviour and practices of its historic followers -over a very long period of time. For much of the time Te Kooti's band roamed around the north island causing mayhem their identity was Hau hau.It pointless saying that they were called Pai maire as not only is that very misleading but it was not a term used or understood by the media or government at the time."Good and peaceful people" do not murder innocent people including women and children -they are not cannibals or torturers or try to re start the NZ wars! Claudia

Your views on the appropriateness of the name are irrelevant. The list of sources I provided at the Pai Marire talk page showed that King used the term "Pai Marire" in 1977, as well as in major books in 2000 and 2003. There are multiple sources that say that although Europeans called them Hauhau (a derogatory term) the proper name was Pai Marire, and this is what an encyclopedia should use. Get with the program. Hauhau much more persuasion do you need? BlackCab (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
King does indeed use the term Hauhau in the Moriori book, as you (almost approximately) quote him. He too, though, uses the Pai Marire name in a footnote on p.106. For the sake of consistency that name should be used. BlackCab (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying you have a preference for using the extremely misleading and biased term in preference to the term most commonly in use in contemporary 19th century NZ? It is only you who is saying that Hauhau is derogatory. The contemporary explanation was that it was a descriptive term. The quote used by me originally was in relation to what King said in regard to the return of Te Kooti after his group murdered guards on Chatham Islands to make his escape. The reference is 100% correct. You cant just go changing quotes because it doesnt suit your POV.Claudia

Talk page behaviour[edit]

Information icon Please stop using talk pages such as Musket Wars for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The information added on talk page was directly related to several edits concerning likely reasons behind the great violence that broke out in the far north in 1805 and continued for 40 years. Specifically it was related to Mr Belich's comments in the article relating food supply to the violence. This was not a general discussion but a reference to the fact that there is now scientific evidence to back his idea. Genetically there is very little difference between primates and man. Goodall's studies show that to some considerable extent this applies to basic social behaviours such as group behaviour and relationships as well.Claudia

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Suzuki Bandit series, you may be blocked from editing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2014 POV edits[edit]

Re this edit at the Māori culture article: Your wording "Although it is now argued that some of the court decisions were unfair to all Maori, it is notable that ... is clearly not a neutral point of view. You are trying to make a point, which is not acceptable in an encyclopedia article. BlackCab (TALK) 05:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Korotangi Paki[edit]

Hi Claudia, I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Korotangi Paki.-gadfium 06:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

While the discussion is continuing, please stop reinstating this material to the article. You are edit-warring and if you continue you will be blocked. BlackCab (TALK) 02:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The information added was new and was from the king himself. While it did refer to the court case that was not the key point and was only added so the king's comments made sense. All the information was accurate and referenced. This is NOT edit warring. See my comments about "good news"/censorship in the discussion.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) I see that there was so much hostile reaction to the judge's decision that stuff Nz had to pull its comments page before the server crashed.Claudia

Two different polls re the judges sentencing of the kings son in the last few days:First poll 95% said she got it wrong. 2nd Poll 97% said she got it wrong.Claudia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Māori King Movement. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BlackCab (TALK) 01:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Mount Tarawera[edit]

Hi, I removed your addition because it did not read well but it's also uncited, and I don't know if you noticed, but the article has been tagged as needing additional sources for more than four years. I think that's a good reason not to add any additional uncited material. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 14:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up Dawn Seeker. I have various books on the subject including recent ones so when I have time I can add to the article. However it should be noted that because of the small, fairly sparse population the effect was limited as noted. Although the eruption was extremely dramatic, the effects were fairly localized and short lived.Claudia

Tuheitia Paki[edit]

I reverted your edit to Tuheitia Paki. We don't report on on-going legal cases except in exceptional circumstances, and when we do, we use better refs than that. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)