User talk:SimonLyall

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

John McGlashan College[edit]

Hi Simon,

I have learned what you have found wrong about the articles sports section, but I believe it is unnecessary to keep deleting the Notable Alumni section. In 2012 the school logo was "revamped", so I also thought it would be necessary to update the Wikipedia page as well. With your comment "The odd win in local competitions 2-3 years back doesn't count as important (if you think it does, raise your expectations)", this shows you must have a bias against the college as many other schools have in their sports section about their previous sporting achievements in competitions. Another example of you blatant bias is your comment "Nothing special compared to other schools here", when most other school pages have "fluff" about sports, I will alliterate that I can understand your copyright point, and it has been noticed.

Best regards and hope you understand Vrjgriffiths (talk)

I'd check the copyright on the logo you uploaded, it is in line to be deleted soon. There is a magic wikipedia link for "just because we other articles have this crap then it doesn't make it right that your article does" so please don't use that arguement. I have no comment on the Notable Alumni section, that is mostly the other users deleting that. Please don't assume I have a bias against the college. Seriously a win in a 10-school competition isn't a big thing. Have a proper look though the history of the school (going back over 90 years) and find when it has won National competitions. Concentrate on putting stuff in the article that is unique to the school, not that same stuff any other school could say, eg not things like "strong belief in allowing students to reach their full potential" (not that you said that, but that sort of thing ). - SimonLyall (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The link you're thinking of is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.-gadfium 23:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok....Vrjgriffiths (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Palmerston North Boy's High School[edit]

If you read Gadfium's talk page you'll notice that we discussed this issue and it has been noted that most material on schools in general is difficult to independently source.

However, I have just managed to find a source regarding the opt-out policy so hopefully this ends the discussion.

Best regards Potzzz (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Flash drive[edit]

There is no reason not to list the alternate titles. Marcus Qwertyus 14:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For this article what we had previously (click and look) is our reason. We are not talking a couple of alternative names, we are talking dozens. As the comment states please read the old talk pages. - SimonLyall (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of those are insignificant and uncitable and would not be mentioned. Marcus Qwertyus 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Most sure, but there will still be 20 with references. Then people come along and add the name that "all their friends use". It was a nightmare. Then people say "we'll only have the 5 most important ones" and argue over which those 5 are (cause they vary from place to place and group to group). So in the end we took them all out and it's worked fairly well. Note that many other pages dont' list all alternative names, for example the car page only has a couple not the hundreds. Maybe this is a wikitionary thing. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Keeping alternative names, makes this article more user friendly. In the end, we are building a useful collection of data on Wikipedia. I have no interest in discussing the fundamental purpose of wikipedia with you here, however what you have edited out of this article has decreased its validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.236.60 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Read the old version. Read what I said above, Everybody has their own "common" name that they complain is missing. They all need references. The article is not a suitable place for it. If you want to keep such a list then do it external to wikipedia and we can link to it in the article. - SimonLyall (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing picture of Sky Tower in Auckland’s article[edit]

Ok I’ve put something else… Entropy1963 (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Slightly better I guess but I'd hope we can find something that is more unique to Auckland at some point - SimonLyall (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand[edit]

Hi Simon. I have been spamming everyone about the New Zealand article and thought I would drop you a line too. I am hoping to get it to WP:FA and could do with some help/advice. So far I have just been adding references with the odd bit of copy-editing (and some reasonably major changes that no one has objected to...yet). Should probably get consensus for some of my ideas and have left a, probably incomplete, list at the talk page. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you have started adding back photos and in your edit summary did not understand why they were removed. It was basicly to reduce text squeezing and page size. We can develop consensus at the talk page as to what photos should be used, but we can't go back to the number we had. Also some have been removed due to copyright concerns and should not be added back in at all. AIRcorn (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I see of the copyright problems and are not adding back those. However the removal of a large number of photos means that the article has several bland text-only sections which make it ugly and less informative. I am not sure you adversion to "text squeezing" but a page of nothing but plain text certainly is not more readable - SimonLyall (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree the image deletion has left some gaps that need filling, images have to be found that fit the early selections and probably the latter sections once Avenue has finish. Text squeezing was mentioned at a GA I was involved in a while back, so I am assuming it is even stricter at FA. On my small screen it certainly does look bad. Either way the article is watched by 700 odd people so hopefully we can reach a consensus realatively quickly. AIRcorn (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: November 28 Article[edit]

First off, I'd like to apologize. When I read the guidelines for date articles, I missed the line about TV shows and movies. You are right, it does apply. Having not seen that rule, and seeing that my edit was removed with no listed reason, I assumed that it was an edit in error.

Now then, I still would argue that there is place for a mention of the show's premiere. You explained that exceptions are granted for TV shows of extreme magnitude. I'd argue that the Funday PawPet Show is the internet equivalent of such a show. As far as I can tell, there simply is no other original-content internet broadcast that a) has been airing as long, or b) has a viewerbase as large (reaching over 400 people while live, and with many more downloading the recording later). I'm a bit curious whether or not this could have any bearing on the guideline or not.

FancySkunk (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

seriously 400 people is nothing. The smallest TV show is going to reach 100 times as many. 1000s of blogs are read by more people and plenty of video shows on youtube etc. I'd be pretty happy with having the wikipedia entry - SimonLyall (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I just wanted some thoughts on that. FancySkunk (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Master Game[edit]

Thanks for the tidy-up. Appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokeround (talkcontribs) 08:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Simon,

I gather you have reverted much of the editing I have done on the Dept of Corrections page. You left this note. (rv to version as of 22:15, 8 October 2011. Changes since then highly NPOV. Some corrections need to be forwarded ported.)

What does 'forwarded ported' mean? I have spent hours and hours adding information to the version you have reverted to - which is simply a copy of information taken from the Depatment of Corrections website. The Department has a very biased POV and strong COI. Most of what is on that page is inaccurate. I would like to return it to the latest version of mine. If you have concerns about particular edits please inform me rather that just arbitrarily deleting weeks of work.Offender9000 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Department of Corrections (New Zealand)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Department of Corrections (New Zealand), in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Department of Corrections (New Zealand), so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Discussion has begun here. See you soon, Xavexgoem (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents can be summarised in two URLs [1] and [2] (that last is a specially crafted persistent URL, most URLs on that site aren't persistent). Stuartyeates (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

perpuates :) . I'm not 100% sure what you mean - SimonLyall (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to say is that inserting the URL http://www.flyingblind.co.nz/ (which is an ad for a book not a book) would be completely out of the question, even if the book were a WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points[edit]

(a) The source given for "Ombudsmen's own-motion investigation of Department of Corrections" should be the original [3], not the version hosted by a partisan advocacy group. This is a common issue throughout many edits, with stuff and nzherald ref'd when hansard and others should be used. (b) The "so-called" in "Similarly for the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust." is another example of systematic overlooking of day-to-day neutrality. (c) Lack of understanding of WP:ATTACK. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

dispute resolution[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Department of Corrections (New Zealand)". Thank you.


RFC discussion of User:Offender9000[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Offender9000 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000. -- Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Eden Park[edit]

Hi Simon - just leaving a message here regards the Eden Park page you reverted. I work at Eden Park and have been asked to keep any eye on the Wiki page and update it etc. The chronology you deleted is indeed from a book written by our park historian. We don't have any problems with it coming from the book, it's all factual and with a timeline there's no other way we can see to do it. I am brand new to Wikipedia so please bear with me while we make some changes. We will also be adding some updated photos and will bring some things up to date, it's something we'll be working on as time permits. I have also left a reply on my talk page but thought I'd send this off to you on your page, still a bit of confusion my end as to how to do things. Cheers (Omahu (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Hi again Simon - appreciated your feedback thanks.Today I just put a couple of things into the present tense (or past) regarding the redevelopment. You have written it so well it didn't need any alteration as such. Thanks! Just so you know! cheers (Omahu (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC))

Pecha Kucha revert[edit]

FYI.[4] The orthographic question is independent of the issue I raise on the talk page, but still nettlesome, since there are two trademark filings - one covers "PechaKuchaNight", the other "Pecha Kucha Night" -- while the popular press (and as you point out, the organization's own website) haven't exactly been orthographically consistent over the years. Worse, "PechaKucha" and "PechaKucha Night" appear to be independently notable topics. Still, the current official rendering appears to be "PechaKucha"; the question is how to respect that. Yakushima (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Hello Simon. May I know, how did you find use of WP:ROLLBACK valid here? --SMS Talk 06:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lightning talk – Date correction[edit]

Hello Simon, thanks for the date correction. --Kai-Hendrik (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN credit[edit]

--Ks0stm (TCGE) 12:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • It's pretty busy there! Thanks for creating it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

rv of "Powered by PechaKucha" passage[edit]

Re your [5] -- could you explain the term "T&C", how one sentence is somehow the "full T&C", and why (in terms of current guidelines and policies) this kind of thing isn't allowed on Wikipedia? Yakushima (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Terms and conditions. Under negotiated terms, a series of presentations in PechaKucha format may be held at events other than PechaKucha Nights if described as "Powered by PechaKucha" just sounds like marketing fluff and doesn't add anything to the article (which is already a bit top-heavy with details of the ownership and licensing). Oh and your reference link was broken too - SimonLyall (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
PechaKucha is a registered tradename. It's not "marketing fluff" to point out that use of the term must be negotiated with its owners. It's not "fluff" at all, much less "marketing" fluff. It's a legal requirement. And deleting a passage in part because a link is broken isn't constructive. Fixing the link would be. Yakushima (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

NZ On Air[edit]

Hey Simon. It's Robyn Gallagher. As a knowledgable NZ Wikipedian, I'd like your opinion on something.

There's a person (Nzindie) who has been adding a lot of stuff to the NZ On Air article, specifically to do with "controversies". I don't know exactly who this person is, but it seems they are highly critical of NZ On Air and have added so much to the article about the supposed controversies that it's making up the most of the article.

I've tried discussing this on the person's talk page, and we've had a bit of a chat. I've given him links about Wikipedia style, but he seems highly suspicious of my motives and has accused me of trying to "sanitise" the content and of writing a "puff piece". And he's just mentioned Hitler in our talk page chat, so I feel like I can't have a reasonable conversation with him.

A lot of his content seems to be a referenced to opinion pieces and speculation (including a comment I left on my own blog!) and seems to only be controversial to him. The article is becoming pretty cumbersome at the moment but I'm not sure how to pull it back on track. It's not quite an edit war, but I fear it's getting messy (and I don't want things to get to a Satellite Spies level of nuttery).

What do you reckon? Robyn2000 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a bunch of the minor ones. I'll let some other people know to keep an eye on the article too. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Ï¿½. I noticed that you recently removed some content from NZ On Air without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ï¿½ (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Simon. Thanks for taking an interest in the NZ on Air page. There is no conflict of interest on my part as all my entries are strictly from music policy and political commentators. I have made efforts to summarize the content of the articles linked to but will attempt to do it in a way that holds no comment from myself. The controversy of NZ on Air is a big part of their legacy as the large number of articles discussing it demonstrate, (and interestingly very few articles discussing the positives but I'm happy to see what ever is present and not a press release linked into the picture for balance). To exclude it from this page or over sanitize the issues presents a false picture of the organisation and its activities which is not in the interests of the wiki page reader. It is what it is and I take on board your advice of how to present this material. I would happily accept some wording suggestions. sometimes it's not a matter of the information, but how it is presented. I've made a few changes as per your comments and hope they're going in the right direction. It's an interesting and complex topic with a lot of underlying implications for govt and social impact. Nzindie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest refers to you personally. Eg are you a person who interacts with NZ On Air in real life? Are you critical of them in other forums? Generally editors should avoid editing articles in areas they have strong views on. We already have an editor in the NZ area editing articles to reflect his political opinions by putting every piece of negative information about a subject he can find in an article. This isn't something we want - SimonLyall (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, don't interact with the organisation at all in real life. I am merely an observe, and I go to lengths to keep it that way. My interest is in the political aspects of it. There is a huge amount of debate about the organisation and its activities. I've tried to bring this to the article and have provided links to many many articles on the subject. I do find it disconcerting that the 'editors' complain that there is no rebuttal article linked but fail to do a quick google themselves to include it. instead they just delete. Robyn actually works with them and interacts with them to get her information for her site, so I'm assuming she has some sort of conflict of interest. I'm not sure how to explain her enthusiasm for removing unfavorable light from the article. The reality of NZ on Air is very much shades of grey, and it's really interesting to watch it develop. Who knows what we'll think of the events of the last 5 years in 20 years time but for now they're relevant and n 20 years time we can delete them if they become unimportant.

And yeah, I've got access to screeds of photos, work with me and I might work with you.Nzindie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am not comfortable with tilting an article on the promise of providing content. That is not what wikipedia is about. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. You've happily stepped into the nz on air article for a friend, without researching the topic. I'm asking you to research the topic and understand the content before putting your muscle behind someone's personal bias . That is what wiki is about. Correct? Work with me means create a good article, not destroy it. Nzindie (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Robyn alerted me to the article, I'm certainly not tilting it as a favour to her. Please note that you seem to be on one side of this but all the other editors are on this another, this would normally be a red light. As for COI, well if I google what I suspect your name is and "NZ On Air" I get back a lot of hits so please don't pretend you are neutral on this. - 06:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am neutral. I do not interact with in any context this organisation. I don't apply for grants, I don't consult, I don't write for them, I don't do websites about them. I have a lot of information about them which I share here and obviously I have an opinion based on what I've read. As far as all the editors, there's you pulled in by robyn, and another guy. The guy at the top of this post pulled you up on your editing without justifying what you did, and that's pretty much just today. So that's 3 people on the chop team. Maybe there are other people who care about how this page is shaped who will get involved, the more the merrier. But regardless of that I'm interested in this article showing all sides of the situation. Can you contribute to that? I personally think NZ on Air has been responsible for some very good things. like the new audioculture site and some impressive funding through most of the 90s. It's also been responsible for some disturbing stuff. So if someone was to use Wiki for something like research on an article don't you think it would be useful to have access to all this information? If they want the glowing stuff they can get that on the NZ on air website. I'm doing my best to link in stuff that is backed by informed journalism. I think I've done that. I'd like to see you add something to the page instead of taking it away. Go on, google something Nzindie (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not having a financial relationship with an entity doesn't preclude an inability to follow NPOV. Certainly from where I'm standing your edits imply a strongly held POV on NZOA, I'm completely with SimonLyall on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The same could be said of Robyn2000 then. Does she have a NPOV? Does knowledge of a subject exclude you from having a NPOV? it get's tricky doesn't it? Nzindie (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Lets put it this way. We are editing the article because we care about wikipedia. You are editing the article because you care about getting the "truth" about NZOA in there. Your knowledge and resources would be put to much better use updating various other articles (on NZ music for instance). I'm sure there are many other articles you could edit and have no problems keeping within NPOV. However what will probably happen is you will keep trying to change the NZOA article to reflect your viewpoint and if it doesn't you'll get discouraged and leave wikipedia (and the NZOA article will reflect a lot less of your views that it would have if you'd worked with others) Net loss to everybody but your decision if you want to have a long term impact here or not - SimonLyall (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're editing the article because you care about wikipedia but the same comments you've made about my motivation can just as easily be leveled at Robyn2000, who was the original 'editor' of the content, not because she cared about accuracy in wikipedia but because she was concerned some of the content could be viewed as unfavorable to the organisation, even though it was all backed up with links to legitimate media. I'm uncertain why she's got such a heart on for them other than she seems to have a relationship of some kind with them (COI, right?) They're just another govt body blowing tax payer money but by all means cover up their mis steps if you feel its appropriate. As far as your suggestion I get cracking on other articles, everyone's an editor no one's a contributor. You guys should knuckle down yourselves and write some stuff for other people to edit. My level of academic expertise is in this subject, I'm somewhat of an authority on it, I even get asked to give lectures on the subject, (really), not because my opinion is biased as you infer but because it is well informed. But because you have stepped in at the request of your friend to back her in her quest to make it all 'rosie round there' (her request is right up there above this bit, but you did read her edits didn't you, she fabricated a quote from the PM for some unknown reason and quickly deleted it when I pointed it out) your going to deprive people of this information. That doesn't really make sense to me at all. You make it sound like I'm making this shit up but I haven't linked to a single opinion or comment from myself. These are not my views, they are the views of informed journalists, all of whom work for major newspapers and are considered authorities on their subjects. I do share some of their opinions, do you? Does that matter when you're referencing the original articles? That may be uncomfortable for Robyn or the organisation to embrace but there it is in pixel on screen, and it's totally relevant to the NZ on Air story, which you're absolutely welcome to read up on and contribute to. There's plenty of stuff in the history section to wade through and understand. Nzindie (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Eventfinda page[edit]

Hi Simon thanks for cleaning up the links I'd placed to the Eventfinda article. Stuartyeates has since alerted me to the COI requirements which I'm now familiarising myself with. Jamesmcglinn (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Coastline[edit]

Hi, can you hop over here and justify how the coastline length is not a meaningless number? Cheers, Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Spam Links[edit]

Hi Simon, just a little bit confused as to why you removed my reference from this article, referring to it as spam? I've reinstated the reference and would be grateful if you could justify that for me.

The citation in question was to this article and occurred in the second line of the second paragraph of the 'Racing history' section of the page.

Thanks WilliamF1two (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't provide a ref for the 3news.co.nz spam thing on my edit. While they are a legit news source they also publish AP/reuters articles. Somebody at their company is going though and putting these into high-profile articles that have nothign to do with New Zealand (where they might have original reporting). See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand#3News_link_spam, they have had over 20 accounts blocked sicne this started. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

RE Noel Hilliam[edit]

Hi, I am familiar with his unusual take on history but in this case he is not the author. The author appears to be a genuine scientist though I could not see much about him.I think the fact that 2 separate streams of evidence support the same conclusion take this out of the realms of a history rave into main stream. Journals of this calibre don't accept contributions unless they are kosher. Note that in a public discussion at Dargaville recently the two disagreed on the origin of the ship despite the fact that the evidence strongly supports (at this early stage) it being a Dutch ship. When (if) they finally get around to digging it out (Time Team where are you?)it will be easy to prove one way or the other, as Dutch ships of that era had a unique construction method. RC Dating is now quite accurate so I think the date is settled, which in term of history just about rules out the Portuguese,although Spanish ships are in some cases, identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your blanking[edit]

You blanked a notability section, questioning the notability of the people. The people listed are notable by wp standards. And frankly, calling a Prime Minister and an Olympic athlete non-notable is absurd, by any stretch of the imagination. They all have wp articles. And such a section is typical in similar articles across our vast project. I've edited thousands of such sections.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page. You appear to have picked some random ones out of the hat, certainly not ones that would normally be ranked towards the top. Take it to the talk page for the article.. - SimonLyall (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to still not get it. You just wrote to me in your edit summary to my last message on this page that you reverted my "poor edit twice" and that I "refsued to take this to the talk page of the article".
First of all, my add was not a poor edit. As I've told you many times now, your continued deletions of, for example, a Prime Minister and an Olympic and World champion on the absurd assertion that they "are pretty minor" and are "some random ones out of the hat" is unacceptable. Especially since you were communicated with in two edit summaries, and on your talkpage above, and still continued to delete. It was your deletions that were improper, not the adds.
And as to all such additions to such a list, the page that reflects our notability policy for lists of people is WP:LISTPEOPLE, and a person may be included in a list of people if all the requirements in WP:LISTPEOPLE are met, which was the case here.
Furthermore, I of course did communicate with you. Not just in two edit summaries. But also on this talk page. And despite that, you still again deleted the entire list. Including the Prime Minister. And including the World Champion/Olympic Champion. Despite them meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE criteria.
And the reason that I warned you, is that despite my communications with you continued to delete them all on the assertion that the Prime Minister, Olympic Champion/World Champion, etc. were "pretty minor" and "random". That sort of editing behavior requires a warning when talk page discussion fails, and if all else fails does require a block.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Adding a list of six people, and then two people, as being (implicitly) the only notable people from a major city is at least controversial. We've had this discussion at Talk:Christchurch. SimonLyall is not acting improperly in removing this list. I note that this has led to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, which is more appropriate than issuing warnings about blocks.-gadfium 09:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand that you two work together on New Zealand articles. But this isn't an "editors who edit New Zealand articles together" issue, but rather a wp:listpeople issue.
Your comment stunned me. Lists of notable people from city X are never, ever implicitly the only notable people from a major city. How can you possibly think that or say that, if you've edited such lists at wikipedia. Or even looked at them. There are a great number of such embedded lists, of course, as this one, but even look at the longer stand-alone lists here. Zero of them are "exhaustive". Nothing of the sort is implied -- because it's never the case.
There are country lists as well -- for most countries, I would expect. The same holds for all of them. They won't be exhaustive.
Furthermore, as you know -- I've no problem with people adding to the list. Just the opposite. Feel free to yourself add to this one -- as long as your add comports with the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE. That's precisely how such lists on wikipedia grow -- look at the history of any of them, they've grown iteratively over time through the additions of others.
But deletion of an appropriate list, which meets WP:LISTPEOPLE, because IDONTLIKEIT, is completely unacceptable. No editor (or editors working on articles from country X) are entitled to delete material that meets WP:LISTPEOPLE on the assertions that a Prime Minister is "pretty minor." That an Olympic and World Champion is "pretty minor." Wholly absurd. Disruptive. And doing it the second time, after having been communicated with three times, but still sticking to the "oh, they're just random minor individuals" ridiculous assertion is certainly disruptive blanking. And we have had people blocked for continued blanking without credible reason -- and they need not violate 3RR to be disruptive. But I had not yet reported it because even after the revert following the three communications (one on this talk page), and even after that last revert maintained the same "pretty minor" empty explanation, I chose to first warn. Warnings are meant to address the issue before it rises to the level of requiring Admin action, and I left a very long explanation with the warning as to why it was being given.Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
In each case their connection to the city is "pretty minor" IMHO. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
First of all -- the "pretty minor" assertion of course related to the notability of the individuals ("The people listed are pretty minor"), saying that the Prime Minister was pretty minor, and the Olympic and World Champion was pretty minor, not to their connection to the city. Second of all, being born in a city (or a country, for that matter) is usually seen as sufficient nexus, and sufficiently relevant, if the RSs have reported it.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Category:People_from_Auckland and it's immediate sub cats have 1000 members, you seriously want 1000 people listed there? Stuartyeates (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Stuart -- Did I add 1,000? I added 6. But, as you might expect, we have more people in many larger cities, for which we have hundreds of stand-alone lists, and probably tens of thousands of embedded lists. And we have many more lists of people, as you can see at Category:Lists of people. For those lists, we follow wp:listpeople. What we don't do is delete the list of six people. Including a Prime Minister. And an Olympic and World Champion. On the assertion that they are "pretty minor" people. I made that point three times to Simon, and he kept deleting on that same basis.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)