User talk:Gadfium

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

Email

Hello, Gadfium. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tom Newnham

@ Gadfium Page about Tom Newnham The 3 photos are from the daughter of Tom Newnham for use in wikipedia. Please let give you a permission from the daughter Anne Newnham <anewnham@orcon.net.nz>, for you it is a shorter way and my English is very bad. Kind Regards

Gerd Hartmann, M.D., Germany

For answer please write me an E-Mail. I haven`t found a E-Mail from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gerd Hartmann (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to email the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I have no special rights at commons, so I cannot sort this out for you.-gadfium 08:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I write an E-Mail to Anne and hope that she can give fast the permission to the address. I have again done the third photo in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gerd Hartmann (talk • contribs) 08:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Newnham has sent about 20 hours ago an E-Mail with permission for the 3 photos to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Kind Regards Gerd Hartmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gerd Hartmann (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone at commons should soon change the tags on the images, or get back to you or her if there's still something wrong.-gadfium 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good person for you to talk to would be commons:User_talk:Quedel, who is a German-speaker and has posted to your talk page on Commons. He may not have realised that you would prefer to communicate in German.-gadfium 00:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ein anderer deutschsprachiger Administrator ist commons:User talk:Martin H.. Schwede66 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic topic

Hi Gadfium,

Thank you for contacting me on my talk page. I edit a wide range of articles, so I don't monitor article or template talk pages unless a conversation is ongoing. I responded to your question on the template talk page; I would be grateful if you would again leave a note on my talk page if you have further concerns.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Europeans

Hi There,

Thanks for clearing up my confusion about including the Maori in the 'related ethnic' section for white New Zealanders. Your correct, I included them as I assumed due to the fact that there are New Zealanders of mixed ethnic ancestry the groups are related in this way, hence I originally included them. Also, I would like to ask your opinion as to whether the 'Anglo-Celtic Australian' group should remain in the related section as this group is, I estimate, more of a socio-cultural rather than an ethnic group. There is is also the fact that they are ultimately descended from the British Isles as well therefore the link is unnecessary. Interested to hear your opinion.

TerritorialWaters (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opinion on whether Anglo-Celtic Australians should be listed as being related to New Zealand Europeans. However, they share ancestors in common only a few generations back, so it seems like a reasonable link.-gadfium 03:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New block evasion of DavidYork71

Daffydavid (talk · contribs) may be another block evasion of DavidYork71. See this edit. I tried to resolve the issue here, but to no avail. I think that New Age should be semi-protected indefinitely to avoid these problems; they go back to Wednesday Next. Sock puppetry research is not my forte. All is One (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As was said at AIV, this is more appropriate for WP:AN/I or perhaps WP:SSP. Sock puppet research is not my forte either, and I have no involvement with the New Age article. However, my experience with DavidYork71 is that he makes reasonable edits at first, but pretty quickly goes off the deep end. He also goes back to the same few articles and reverts them to his preferred version. I don't see this behaviour in DaffyDavid, at least on New Age.-gadfium 23:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Islands

As you're the major contributor to Cook Islands, I was wondering if you could take a look at Netball in the Cook Islands and leave some feedback on the talk page on how to improve the article? Thanks! --LauraHale (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Mount Eden"

The anecdote is on a piece of paper amongst the effects of my mother, Betty Clay. It was annotated to the effect that the facts had been checked. She subsequently accompanied them one year in the 1980s. I used the story in my response to the unveiling of a Blue Plaque to O.B-P in Chesterfield on Thinking Day 2011. I tried to verify it beforehand by writing to the NZ Guides, but have still not had a reply. RobinClay (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need some published source covering the celebration of Thinking Day on Mount Eden. A newspaper report would be fine, but self-published material such as a blog or forum post will not usually be appropriate. See our guideline on reliable sources.-gadfium 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sign of the Kiwi

Hi there Gadfium, I hope you are enjoying your holidays. I see that Sign of the Kiwi got deleted in 2008 under A7 (No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion). It's listed as a Category I heritage building by the NZHPT and that alone makes it notable. Could you please have a look whether it's worth restoring what used to be there? Schwede66 07:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article. Please add a source for the Category I heritage listing, and make any other improvements you see fit. If you decide not to make any changes to the article, let me know and I'll delete it again.-gadfium 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have done some quick additions to establish notability. Thanks! Schwede66 01:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm finished with it. Does it look notable enough? :) Schwede66 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks notable enough to me. It should include a link to Sign of the Takahe. I don't know if Sign of the Bellbird and Sign of the Packhorse are as notable, but an article on the Summit Road would probably be appropriate.-gadfium 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, had overlooked that the Takahe wasn't linked. Have done this now, but there should be some prose added, too. Yes, Summit Road is a redlink; that one is definitely notable. I can't see the Bellbird (ruins) or the Packhorse (a tramping hut) as being notable. Schwede66 01:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mt ALbert Grammar School Alumni

Hi Gadfium, heres a reference for football players. I can guarantee the validity, even though I haven't heard of a few of them.

http://www.mags.school.nz/Section?Action=View&Section_id=500

Can you revert? Cheers, Gmoney484

Thanks. I've reverted, but I'm confused about Dave Mulligan. His article says he joined NZ under-17 in 1997, but played for English teams the following year and for some time after, before playing for NZ again. Could there be some confusion between two players of the same name?-gadfium 05:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into that - See what I can hunt out. I don't believe they're really notable and the section is getting excessively long and cumbersome, but.... Gmoney484 (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harding

Hi Gadfium, In your opinion, do any of the vandalistic edits to Sam Harding (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Harding&oldid=377447641 was the last of a succession) meet criteria 2 or 3 for Revision Deletion? dramatic (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It meets criteria 2, as "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". However, the box above the criteria says "A certain low degree of inappropriate or disruptive posting is normal within a large community", and I think this sort of juvenile vandalism can also be regarded as being covered by that. My usual inclination is to revert such material (and deal with the poster) but not to remove it from the edit history, because I doubt that anyone who looks through the edit history is likely to be misled into believing that the edits are correct. Of course, if the person involved complains, the material should be revision deleted or oversighted, and if someone continually reverts to an objectionable version, then revision deletion is one of the tools to make that more difficult.-gadfium 07:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Wikipedia Meetup

Hey. We're having an Auckland Wikipedia meetup on April 9. Details are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland. Would love to see you there. :) --LauraHale (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you too

It was nice to meet you too. I'll try to get in touch with the guy in Wellington when I have a more firm date on when I will be there. I'll also poke WM-AU to see what can be done on that front and who they've already talked to. --LauraHale (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete contriibutions of other people just because they contributed things you didn't know. Thanks!

Hello, I added a contribution about MAO inhibitors in the Parkinson disease article. The fact that tobacco smoke contains MAO inhibitors has been well-known for decades. Just make a google search and you get flooded with results of reputable institutions like the NIH.

In fact, your revert was vandalismus, good that others undid it. So, please in future just google a bit before you delete contributions you do not know about.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.100.245 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is essential that additions to medical articles have suitable sources. Please do not contribute to these articles if you are not prepared to find such sources.-gadfium 20:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Red links"/Creation of Stubs

Apologies for deletion of "red links" on the Music of NZ page. I am fairly new to this and was planning to create the stubs on the topics and then replace the links. I am aware now that this is not the correct procedure. I have however created stubs for the New Zealand String Quartet and the Karlheinz Company. I have a particular interest in NZ music of the "classical" genre and taonga puoro and hope to be making further contributions in these areas.(Ewooll (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Those two articles look good. It's always nice to see Wikipedia's coverage extended, although I don't personally have much interest in NZ music.-gadfium 05:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Shanks

Considering that the number of articles in the local media that were written about her comments, and the relative absence of anything else in the media about her - i think the complete omission of the section is an over-reaction. I would propose that there is some reference to it, would you not agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisejgreaves (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that you think almost as much coverage should go into this incident as goes into the rest of her parliamentary career. I am aware that you wrote much of the existing content, but I suggest it needs to be expanded significantly before such mention of this would not be undue weight.

A similar situation exists on the Stuart Nash article, where I (and others) have been reverting the addition of a trivial incident which would make up a similar proportion of the article.

Wikipedia needs to treat all politicians fairly and not overemphasise the occasional gaffe they may make. It does tend to focus more on recent events than their overall historical significance might warrant, and this is recognised as a problem - see WP:RECENT.

If you want opinions from other parties, I suggest you ask for them at the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard, or at third opinion.-gadfium 04:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the other sections, and I agree with your comments in general, but this was exactly the intention: expanding the content. How can one update someone when they struggle to find anything on them in the public record, and then when there is something in the public record, any mention of it is in effect prohibited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisejgreaves (talk • contribs) 05:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try a one-line addition, eg "Shanks was criticised for calling all filesharing illegal during the debate on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill.[1]". This seems to be the most significant criticism. I am a little worried that it doesn't actually appear to be substantiated by the quotes from Shanks you included in the article. The quote about "little boxes" is a simplistic explanation of bittorrent, but it doesn't itself say she regards this as illegal. Presumably it is justified by other parts of her speech.

I would also suggest that you consider updating and expanding Copyright in New Zealand with details of the new law, including the reactions to it. I think you could go into much greater detail there. The Stuff article linked above says that the only MP not criticised over the bill was Gareth Hughes. Presumably then, we could be having this debate about every other MPs article. (I realise that there will not be reliable sources for the criticism of most MPs, and the stuff article may be slightly exaggerated).-gadfium 05:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is helpful, will start work on an update to the Copyright page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisejgreaves (talk • contribs) 07:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for restoring the Peter Jackson picture. Who knows if the IP was messing around or, perhaps, they have only ever seen his pics from his LOtR days he was rounder. I do have to say that the first time I saw that pic that I thought it looked a bit like Dominic Monaghan when he was performing as Merry Brandybuck. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. I compared the picture to many others, and it did seem to be the same person although with significant weight loss from earlier pictures. The clincher was finding another picture taken wearing the same clothes.-gadfium 21:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J.Williams (singer)

Not sure if you've seen it or not, but skim through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive118#J.Williams (singer). Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. The article wasn't on my watchlist until I realised that it was subject to frequent vandalism and added it a couple of days ago.-gadfium 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. 118.whatever blocked from Red Eye w/greg gutfeld

I see you finally had enough of the vandalism and did a one month block on IP 118.---.---.---. I have a question: since this 118.whatever is a shared/revolving IP address, will all the revolving 118.whatevers be blocked as well? I would think not, so I anticipate continued vandalism from his/her past behavior ignoring reasonable explanations. I posted yet another explanation to him right under your 'blocked notice' on 118's talk page. Oye! --RedEyedCajun (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

118 has edited as Jackjit (talk · contribs) and Tarheal (talk · contribs), and has a history of adding false information to articles with references which do not support the material. I don't think it is practical to block the entire range of his ISP, which is one of the largest in New Zealand. Instead, I will block his IP address whenever I see his activity. He is welcome to appeal the block using one of his named accounts.-gadfium 23:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how an IP address can change/revolve, like these shared IP addresses do, and still be traceable back to one particular person. I wasn't aware of IP 118's past vandal history, so he does appear to be consistant, if nothing else. Thanks for helping out on guard duty. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address changes, but the person behind them repeats the same edits on the same articles. It's known as the duck test.-gadfium 06:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood by using logic a Wiki administrator could easily determine it's the same person. I was really pondering how e-mail could be correctly sent to an shared IP address that is always changing, or how other authorities can trace back a shared IP address to a particular person. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Network address translation allows many computers on a private network to use a single public IP address, and e-mail is normally pulled by the client (you query the e-mail server for new messages). XLerate (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The police or similar authority can ask an ISP who was using a particular IP address at a given instant. As XKerate says, many computers may use a given IP address at one time, but normally the person/institution/company behind that address has a knowledge of who the users are. An internet cafe might not know. If you have an insecure wireless network, you may try to claim you don't know who was using it at the time, but we're getting into the realm of legal advice, which I am not qualified to provide.

While I comment in the section below that NZ-based editors might be liable under NZ suppression orders, my concern on Wikipedia is verifiability in reliable sources, as Wikipedia is not directly affected by such orders.

As an example, 10-15 years ago there was a Cleveland-based person of note who entered NZ with an amount of an illicit substance. He was convicted by the NZ court, but his name was suppressed (he paid a substantial donation to some charity as part of the deal). His name was circulated on the internet, but Wikipedia could not have used that. However, the Cleveland Plain Dealer published details of the case, because it was not liable to the NZ suppression order, and we could have used their report as a source.-gadfium 20:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have some revisions on certain pages been blocked

I thought you might be able to tell me about the recent phenomenon of blocking the ability to view historical page revisions on certain pages. It seems to be related to WP enforcing New Zealand name suppression laws. Can you tell me if this is the case and if so when this was done and if there is an official decision I can read somewhere? Example Ian Ewen-Street 118.90.37.97 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions to that article of January 2010 have been oversighted, which means I cannot see them either. However, they will have been removed not because of NZ suppression laws, which do not apply directly to Wikipedia, as it is based in the US (but editors operating in NZ may be liable), but because the material added to the article is not supported by any reliable source. In short, if the New Zealand Herald or a similar source publishes the material, then it may be appropriate to add to Wikipedia. However, undue weight guidelines will still apply.-gadfium 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red eye W/ greg gutfeld

I have noted the you have blocked the past user for what ever reasons but the edit that was reversed by you was not correct, if you had read before this was already noted on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Eye_w/_Greg_Gutfeld&oldid=424739375.

It is a biased POV from which is stated when it says 'Obama made another Political attack" and considering no other media picked up the story, it's hardly relevant to this page as a controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therapy98 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand's Next Top Model

Regarding the NZNTM article, I guess we'll see whether that particular forum post is "reliable" or not. :P

Ethan203.211.103.70 (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be correct. However, a forum does not meet Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources.-gadfium 09:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackjit

Since you seem to have tracked down the previous case, I thought I should let you know it popped up again: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derty Sesh

Now was my Derty Sesh page deleted? This had references backing up all the information on there and showed no signs of false information or Vandalism, I have nothing to do with any past vandalism in my last posts so it is only fair that the page is kept, if anyone is willing to help build it, I am gladly looking to work with them but this was unjustified.