User talk:Gadfium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archived talk pages
2004 Mar-Dec
2005 Jan-Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul-Aug Sep Oct-Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar-May Jun-Jul Aug-Sep Oct-Dec
2011 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2012 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2013 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2014 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun current

Please add items to the bottom of this page. I will normally reply on this page to any conversation started here.

IP linkspammer[edit]

84.125.164.30 who you blocked back in May for linkspamming (which is all that IP does) is back to his old habits with some new but very similar URL's. Just FYI; do as you deem appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note - see also
Same provider. I have just now removed a few links. - DVdm (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've blocked the two more recent accounts. It may be worth running a check for additions of that url occasionally to catch more.-gadfium 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have the entry—and its cousin—on my sandbox page. If/when they return, I'll propose blacklisting. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

NZOFLC[edit]

Hi Gadfium. I just noticed this Special:Contributions/NZOFLC which appears from this [1] to act on behalf of the NZOFLC. I don't see anything wrong with their actual contributions but understand that organisations aren't supposed to operate corporate accounts. Could you have a quiet word with them to 'go legit' before they get blocked? Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Mt Albert Grammar School[edit]

Hi, can I ask you deal with this COI issue? You are more experienced than me with wikipedia procedures and rules (and I probably have a COI issue by being a former employee).

Estelle is the Communications Officer of the school, so is obviously paid to promote the school in a positive light. In my opinion, the sports issue is important for MAGS and Auckland schools in general because it's a widely occurring (and unethical) practice. Very few schools have been caught or punished for it, which makes this important.

However, as always, I will listen to your experience and wisdom.

Regards gmoney484 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the appropriate method for schools to deal with such reporting is to add references to how school policies have changed to avoid repeats of the problem. Unfortunately, the common response is to attempt to suppress the reporting, which may reflect a lack of policy changes.-gadfium 05:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Zealand nonsense[edit]

User talk:JonathanO Cunha (Me) was blocked by you, he seemed to have made a new account and make the same nonsensical edits on the Zealand and Danish-New Zealand relations articles: Special:Contributions/J.Ryan_O'Brien_1996_Girl. CRwikiCA talk 13:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked the new account.-gadfium 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email[edit]

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Block for User:203.167.249.114[edit]

Hey. A few months ago you blocked User:203.167.249.114 for persistent vandalism. It seems that, based on information about the IP address, it is a shared IP for Marsden Collegiate School. Unless there were other reasons, could you possibly add {{schoolblock}} to the block reason. Thanks, — Parent5446 (msg email) 18:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done that. Thanks.-gadfium 20:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Conservative Party[edit]

Christine Rankin And Callum Blair both got seats on the Upper Habour Board[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellfire424 (talkcontribs) 04:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the silly season again and party-supporters are creating articles for candidates who are clearly not notable. Latest example is Callum Blair, created by Thecrystalcicero (talk · contribs). Procedurally, what is the best thing to do? Merge the content into Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs/Callum Blair and leave a redirect behind? Or move the content without leaving a redirect? Or do we have to go through a full-blown AfD (which would hardly be sensible, as that way, the article would remain until election day)? Schwede66 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
For people who have no claim to notability other than standing as a candidate with no realistic chance of winning, nominate them for speedy deletion with {{db-bio}}.
Callum Blair does have at least some claim to notability, as a North Shore and Auckland Council politician. He will become an MP if the Conservative Party make the 5% threshold, which looks possible. This is borne out by @Mattlore:'s creation of a draft article on him. As I see it, you could either AfD the article, and withdraw it should election night figures show him to be a pending MP, or wait until after election day and decide then whether an AfD is appropriate. I wouldn't bother with a {{prod}} since that would only delay matters.-gadfium 23:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Having been a councillor for North Shore doesn't give notability, neither does membership of a local board in Auckland. Mattlore and I are the ones most active creating draft articles for potential new MPs, hence the draft sitting there does not foreshadow notability, but it's there in case the Conservatives get over 5% (which would make Blair an MP, and then he would be notable). The beef that I've got is with bios being created a week out from election day; lengthy AfD processes won't manage to get them out of mainspace until such time that the election either confirms notability or otherwise. I'll copy the material across to the politics space and try db-bio. Schwede66 00:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's your call. I will not take any action on the speedy deletion tag, either to delete the article or decline the deletion, but I have no problem with any other admin taking either action.-gadfium 01:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea[edit]

I have no objection to your changing the spelling back to Br./Australian spelling at Papua New Guinea. I just thought I'd mention that "enterprizes" -- "manually restored" by Jaguar -- is not even correct American spelling; it is spelled "enterprises", the same as Br./Australian spelling. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamilton Boys High School Copyright Thing[edit]

How does Wikipedia make sure that the content is not copyrighted? And how can copyrighted information from somewhere be agreed on by Hamilton Boys High School?

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The school's web page says at the bottom that it's copyrighted. Even if it didn't make that explicit, there's an implicit copyright on everything published. It would only be usable on Wikipedia if it has a copyright message compatible with our own (ie Creative Commons BY SA 3.0), or the claim of copyright was bogus (which is not the case here). If you represent the school and want to place the information under a suitable copyright for Wikipedia, see the link I put on your talk page.-gadfium 06:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand women's national softball team Proposed Move[edit]

Hi, this may be of interest to you. Bogger (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


Cameron Slater page edit confusion[edit]

Hi, I'm a little confused here. I edited the Cameron Slater page because I felt it was bias, then it was changed back to the original because my edits where thought to be bias? I may see where you're coming from but I have no affiliation with Cameron Slater or any person involved with him. I made a few minor adjustments to a couple of sentences, for example "In 2014 his reputation was tarnished by revelations in Nicky Hager's book Dirty Politics that demonstrated his close ties to Justice Minister Judith Collins and Prime Minister John Key and that he had been paid to write attack articles on public figures who were opposed to the National party." I feel these are biased, please correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't "his reputation was tarnished" not be included in an article with a neutral standpoint? After all it's a matter of opinion (some may say his reputation was tarnished, others may not) so to fix this shouldn't it be more like "allegations where made". Also "he had been paid to write attack articles on public figures" should include the word alleged, like when writing a news article because the book by Nicky Hager is not a reputable source of information, unless the information has been proven or confessed, like a man can't be guilty without proof or confession?

Anyway thanks for your time, I hope you consider my argument knowing your or anyone's opinion should not affect the outcome of articles on this website. Whether you change it or not is entirely up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CameronDV (talkcontribs) 04:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are not Cameron Slater, then you picked your user name and choice of article to edit rather poorly. In general, we regard published books as reliable sources. What is the basis for you believing that Dirty Politics is not a reputable source of information?-gadfium 04:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My name just happens to be Cameron, and is very common. I didn't say dirty politics is not a reputable source of information, what I said is I don't think articles in Wikipedia should use any information as a source without providing evidence of it's truth. You can write about Nicky Hager's book as an event in Cameron Slater's life, but what shouldn't happen is posting information suggesting an opinion, such as having his book tarnish his reputation without specifying that this is an opinion and is not fact. I also said that Wikipedia shouldn't indicate something is true without evidence (sources) proving as such, like above where I claimed "he had been paid to write attack articles on public figures" is not a proven fact and has not been proven to come from a reliable source (hacker) and so the word alleged be used is all I ask. I just feel the lines I speak of where opinionative, rather than just a recollection of an event. Also, should published books really be a source of information when the book itself was specifically biased and targeted in itself? I understand maybe a nature book talking about the biology of plants but this is not one, this is a targeted and biased book. CameronDV (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that his reputation was damaged. You can use the article talk page to highlight other concerns you may have.-gadfium 23:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry if this was the wrong area to voice my concerns, I'm just new to the Wikipedia behind the scenes. CameronDV (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sue Bradford[edit]

Hi there,

You seem to have reversed my edit it the page regarding Sue Bradford. While I admit that I may have gone too far, I think it is reasonable to say that the Anti-smacking bill *is* an anti-smacking bill. It isn't "depicted" to be one, it is. Are you willing to compromise?

Thanks, Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.129.124 (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to suggest modifications to the article on its talk page. Please include suggested sources to back up your changes. The appropriate article may be Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 which deals with the law change in more detail rather than Sue Bradford.-gadfium 08:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)