User talk:Kaiwhakahaere/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Kaiwhakahaere! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mifter (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

February 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Shoob city, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Shoob city was changed by Kaiwhakahaere (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2008-02-09T23:50:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. My edit had precisely the desired effect -- an admin came along right after me and put a delete notice on it. It was nonsense.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual dishonesty[edit]

You didn't finish this AfD notice; I finished it for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your edit on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. When you made that edit, I was working on cleaning it up in preparation for nominating it as a Good Article. I think how you worded the lead is much better than what I had. Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BDORT[edit]

Hi Kaiwhakahaere, I appreciate your effort in trying to improve BDORT. Bear in mind the following as you do it:

  • Omura invented BDORT as well as the related techniques
  • BDORT as well as the related techniques are covered in the journal and seminars
  • He is "Editor in Chief", not just an editor

Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Galt[edit]

Please take another look at the Galt article since I recently added more interviews, articles, keynotes and dates. I appreciate it. Artsojourner (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Page[edit]

Not to be to unpatriotic, but HM QEII is from the United Kingdom, therefore her flag should be of the UK on the New Zealand page. Sammy2008 (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the first part, but not the second. Gadfium got it right -- flags should not be used for decoration. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I am only currently learning Cheers --Sammy2008 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chulin Culin Chunfly[edit]

Okay, what is with the constant deletion of ALL the information on the article? Your version is NOT sensible, and it lacks a lot of the information on it. I understand if you are trying to rid of unimportant information but DON'T DELETE EVERYTHING ON IT!!! El Cangri386 00:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can tell me what information I have removed. All I have done is restyle an article that looked horrendous, with scant info under subheads and repetition galore. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a promotional pamphlet. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people would rather read it like that, with information under subheads. And it did not look horrendous. And you got rid of the chart reference. It was fine at the start. We are just finding more information to include in the article regarding the single. El Cangri386 01:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence that "most people would rather read it like that". I very much doubt it. It looks like someone has plonked a large infobox beside a smaller infobox, creating a page without substance. An encyclopedia should be mainly prose, not a collection of subheads followed by a very short line, especially repetitious ones. Check out a few encyclopedias and see for yourself. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No the article is not a stub in prose form. You're just a hater picking on a new user, because of your own ego trip. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a new user and if I take the time to look I have probably been editing longer than you have. I was referring to ElCangri386 who you have been in an edit war with, that user is only trying his best to improve articles and he is still fairly new so he is still learning. I am aware it is a stub in both forms, but the form it is in now follows the same layout as other singles articles, and is the best layout to have for a popular single. Your constant reverting edits don't seem to be improving the article at all and instead you are worsening the article. If you are truly here to help as you say then don't go to articles and delete information instead try to add more information or reference any unreferenced information. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did make it clear you just didn't take the time to read carefully. And if you have been editing wikpedia for more than 5 years then you have been editing longer than me, funny though because I checked your first edit for this account and it is "02:11, 9 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Josh Griffith‎". If you do the math, this is less than half a year. So either it took you 4 years to decide to make an account, or you have been changing accounts alot for some reason.....hmmmmm, I wonder why that might be. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the best thing to do for stubs was to make them longer, or at least easier to read. Obviously more than 1 person believes that the layout for the article is the best way to keep. If the article sound repetitious to you, then figure out how to not make it sound so. But don't change the layout in a way where all you get is a paragraph. The layout is popular with singles, and you can check out other singles articles for yourself and compare. Don't just check one and assume everything else is just like that. Do some more research. Also, yes I am a new user. But I didn't sign up to vandalize, delete, or whatever. I came to be able to contribute to Wikipedia and make it more useful for people who want to learn more information. I also think I've already had enough experience to be able to do what I think is best for Wikipedia. But I admit I DO have a lot more to learn so yea not EVERYTHING I do is right, I guess. But its not like earlier edits of mine were bad, but just a little bit less experienced. El Cangri386 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do with stubs may indeed be to make them longer, but not by padding them out with repetition and subheads. You urge me not to "change the layout in a way where all you get is a paragraph." Well yes, that's what I did, because there is only enough content, information, substance for one paragraph. That's the point!!!!!!! It looks childish otherwise, but as you and someone else prefer it that way I'll leave you to it and work elsewhere in Wiki. Regarding you being a new reader, I never brought that up. Your advice was "do some more research". Snap. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Wright controversy[edit]

I think that last adjustment of your entry in the Survey section might cause more confusion on your stance than clarity. May I suggest that you restore the post to its previous form, strike it out by putting <s> </s> tags around it and then post something definite like Support for "Jeremiah Wright controversy" or Opposed to any move either below your original post or at the bottom of the Survey section? That's how most editors seem to do it, if they change their mind during such discussions. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Fixed (I hope). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NZRFU -> NZRU[edit]

Just wondering. If it only changed names since 2000 odd (hard to tell when exactly , just looking at the annual reports) are you sure you should update items before then with their new title? Okay to oint to the new page but perhaps the wording should be the old one like New Zealand Rugby Football Union. Thoughts - SimonLyall (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simon, where there is a mention of what was then called the New Zealand Rugby Football Union, then I have left it as such, but changed the link to New Zealand Rugby Union. New Zealand Rugby Football Union, NZRFU and NZRU now all link to New Zealand Rugby Union. There were heaps of links to change, so hopefully I got em all correct. If not, please fix. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Walton[edit]

Hi, could you elaborate on which bits of this article need better sourcing? The blanket tag is not always especially helpful. Cheers Kevin (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevin. There are so many unsubstantiated claims that need sourcing, that I will need quite a bit of time to get around to it. But I will, and be back to you on your talk page. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-15[edit]

Your edit to the caption under the F-15 image makes sense to me, although I am hardly an expert of any kind on that a/c or its airframe. Therefore, please don't think the following is not in good faith. The current caption says "An F-15 with inlets in different positions.". They're not really, unless the name of that flap looking thingy on the port intake is called an "inlet". Is the caption trying to say that my flap looking thingy on the port intake is in a different position to that on the starboard intake. Obviously true, but it the flap thingy is not called an "inlet", the caption needs to be amended. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parts that are in different positions are called "ramps" or "intake ramps". On looking at the picture a second time, it is possible that the RIGHT engine (Aircraft Right or #2 engine) is about to be shut down. The Left engine (#1 engine) is shut down as the default position for the ramp is UP. It appears that the crew chief in the picture is about to catch the fuel that dumps out of the engine as it shuts down. It is proper, btw, to call the items intake ramps, not just intakes. I'll make the changes. Also, despite the name of the picture, this is a "C" model F-15 with no CFT's and the "Mod-Eagle" paint scheme. There were three paint schemes for operational F-15's, the "Ghost" which was very light, the "Mod-Eagle" phased in during the late 80's, and the "36118" color, also known as "Gunship Grey" monochrome paint on the "E" models. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McBride[edit]

You tagged Robert McBride for POV and lack of references. Previously I've removed some rabidly POV sections from this article, which has been targeted by both pro- and anti-McBride editors. He is a polarising figure, so it needs quite a bit of care. If you think it needs more work, could you give some details on Talk:Robert McBride - which parts do you think are POV and in what way? Which sections are missing references? Thanks, Zaian (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you take a look at the talk page? Most of what you tagged in the lead is referenced later in the article, which is acceptable. Could you motivate your dispute about the POV of the article? Zaian (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pākehā[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P%C4%81keh%C4%81&oldid=214142268 is all factual and therefore not silliness 125.238.36.54 (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not factual that someone coined the term 'Pākehā Justice' in 2005, and it is silly IMMHO to say so. Try Google. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic[edit]

I don't think the sentence is implying that psychic powers exists (and I've got no POV to push here, I'm a 100% sceptic). The sentence is talking about popular culture, which encompasses fiction and casual "wow, Bob, you must be psychic!" simile, and it's inaccurate to say that all references to psychic powers are intentionally describing "claims" on behalf of the possessor. But feel free to reword the lead to avoid opening with a pop-culture definition. --McGeddon (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Controversy[edit]

Hi Kaiwhakahaere,

This is IP 75 - I added Obama's resignation from the church to the lead because it is a major event in the controversy and has to be included in the summary. I will cut out the details so it blends in better with the paragraph.

Take care, IP 75

What's up with you?[edit]

Hey :) I just wanted to ask, is everything okay? Until the past couple of days I've always considered you one of the most thoughtful and level headed editors of Miss Universe 2008, someone I could rely on to help with the barrage of unsourced and badly formated information. However, I have been both surprised and disappointed by your pugnatious tone and almost uncivil behaviour both at Talk:Miss Universe 2008 and in the edit summaries on the main page. I'm hoping everything's okay, that you might have just got out of bed on the wrong side this week, and that you'll be back to your usual disposition soon. Cheers PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's "pugnacious", not "pugnatious". Contrary to what you might believe, you don't actually own this article. Also, if readers of enWiki cannot read what a reference actually says because it is not in English, then it must go. And if that leaves an item without a reference, then the item must go too. Rather fundamental actually. Regarding my "almost uncivil behaviour ", is that because I correctly identified you as being insufferably arrogant? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not own this article. I do, however, feel somewhat responsible for sheparding it in the right direction and keeping it accurate -- and the only way that can be achieved is by implementing Wikipedia's policies as closely as possible. You appear to have strong personal opinions but are clearly ignoring some of Wikipedia's policies and I strongly suggest you take a look at them. In regards to Iceland, as there is currently no English reference available, the Icelandic reference is acceptable per WP:VUE. This is a formal warning that you are in danger of violating the assume good faith and civility policies and if you continue I will take the issue further. This is also a formal warning that you are in danger of violating the three revert rule. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more arrogance. There was a completely adequate ref for this article which YOU decided couldn't be used, so you substituted a foreign language ref which an English-only speaker can not read to check the veracity of the entry. Such arrogance prompted me to fight the good fight for reason over silliness. Take the issue further if you wish. Such irrationality as you are insisting on might deserve wider dissemination anyway. Also, it's "shepherding", not "sheparding". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Global Beauties is not a reliable source. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation[edit]

Please be advised that you have been reported for your 3RR violation to Miss Universe 2008. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Scarian. You have volunteered yourself to be my sysop to approach when I see 3RR in action. Actually, while it was unarguably 3RR, I didn't realise I was over 3 edits. No probs. Anyway, could you have a look at Jane Bunford where User:KJP200876‎ is reverting to non wiki style. What happens now? Do I just walk away and let it happen? Will you look after it? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion[edit]

Hi, please !vote on the language in my article Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language
  • You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice about the recent 3RR debacle[edit]

(I copied this from my comments to you on the ANI noticeboard)

While I would have liked to see you initiate a little more discussion on the talk page of Miss Universe 2008, I agree this was a pretty strict application of the 3RR rule and I can understand why you are frustrated. In my mind, what happened to you is sort of like getting a speeding ticket for being 5mph over the speed limit. Yeah, you were breaking the rule, and yeah you probably shouldn't be driving so fast/edit warring like that. But it still feels like a raw deal, because 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't have been noticed and nothing would have happened.

My advice to you is to try and keep things in perspective. It's only a 24 hour block, and it's not meant as a critique of you as a person -- or necessarily, even as a Wikipedia editor. I can't recall the details offhand, but I have heard of cases where very well-established and well-respected editors have been given short blocks for 3RR when they were acting completely in good faith, but got a little overzealous with the undo button. There are important reasons why 3RR is enforced so stricly: Edit warring is highly corrosive to the process of consensus-building. If everyone started undoing each other's changes without discussion, the project would rapidly collapse. Hence, the 3RR rule -- which prohibits edit warring even if you are correct.

Don't feel bad that you got a 3RR block. It's quite possible you were doing the right thing, with a slightly wrong method. This kind of thing happens, and it's a necessary cost to keep the focus on consensus in an environment where anyone with an internet connection is invited to participate. It sucks you got dinged by it, but the best thing to do is shrug it off and keep plugging away. Best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaiwhakahaere/Archive_1&oldid=1142471104"