User talk:Gadfium

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Could you take a look at the Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld edit history again? I believe 118 may be using possible sockpuppet "Stevedore2010". This person first deleted referenced content, then when that was reverted, came back recently and placed 'discussion' with possible threats against wiki directly in the viewable article, instead of on the 'discussion' page. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see enough similarity of edits between Jackjit/118 and Stevedore. I suggest you follow the steps in Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings with Stevedore.-gadfium 06:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Thanks. I've added a note there with other names he's used.-gadfium 04:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Quite the active one! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidpilot92 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are evading your block. Any edits you make are likely to be removed, regardless of their merits.-gadfium 04:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Miniter

I nominated his page for deletion and gave reasons on the talk page - feel free to weigh in. 217.136.87.133 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

nethui & barcamp auckland

are you attending nethui this week (Wed - Fri)? http://nethui.org.nz If you wish to attend and cost is a factor, let me know. If you have simon lyall's email, email him so he can forward it to me. Barcamp Auckland: http://bca.geek.nz/ if you wish to go we can give you a ride there. Linnah (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about nethui, but I'm now waitlisted for it without great expectations that I'll get in. I've registered for Barcamp too. I can provide my own transport. Thanks for letting me know.-gadfium 21:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

nethui are looking for someone to help with mic assistance. Ie passing aruond the mike during sessions. if you're willing the entry is free and I hear so is lunch. Interested? contact Richard wood. his contact details are http://nethui.org.nz/contact-us tell him I asked you to contact him about it. hope that helps. Linnah (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but not my cup of tea.-gadfium 06:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

that's ok. If you make it, come say hi. I don't think the creative commons session on Thurs evening is limited to nethui attendees. check http://nethui.org.nz/events#CreativeCommons and RSVP if it interests you. Linnah (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of us are meeting for dinner tonight 30 June 2011 at 7:30pm at Raviz on Hobson St. Location. you're welcome to join us. Bill is split evenly among all attendees. Linnah (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but not this time. I'm enjoying the nethui hugely.-gadfium 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IF ppl want a talk at barcamp about wikipedia, would you be willing to join Simon to do a quick talk? Just rememebered thre was some interest last year. not sure if there's one this year but I could ask. can do it without outing you as admin. ps off line till late evening so don't worry if no reply. Linnah (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not this time. Since I don't like public speaking at all, I would want to be very well prepared. I would consider it for next year.-gadfium 00:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldest primary school

Hi Gadfium, Wakefield School claims to be the oldest NZ primary school. I've been trying to find an independent source for that, but have drawn a blank. Any ideas where to look? I've been working on Edward Baigent and apparently his wife set up the school in 1843. Schwede66 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any suitable reference work. I see no problem with simply reporting the claim in Wikipedia, as "WS claims to be...". Alternatively, you can look for a school with a plausible counter claim. I've looked in Google and not found such a claim. Nelson Central School claims to be the oldest school still operating on its original site, but is considerably later than 1843. Several websites claim Christ's College, founded 1851, is the oldest school,[2] but this probably means the oldest secondary school. Ranzau School claims to originate in 1848, as another example of a primary school predating this.[3] Sorry I can't be of more help.-gadfium 05:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, found something on Prow (good website with reliable historic info; don't know who's behind it). Have added it to the Baigent article. Thanks for looking - much appreciated. Schwede66 05:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Jackjit/118 vandalizing again

He's back again. Vandalizing using his old 118 IP again, which had been blocked. The exact same vandalism of removing the same well sourced content he was removing over a month ago. Thanks! --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible viral infection of Saccharomyces?

I teach microbiology, and have my students perform a plate count to determine the number of cells in a package. This week, while most students got excellent colonies (NA +4% glucose) two students got tiny colonies. Looking at them under the microscope, the cells appeared more round, and there were a number of what I presume to be "ghosts" from yeast cells which have been killed. Does this sound like the yeast viruses you have written about? You may contact me directly at fankhadb@uc.edu. My web page on yeast plate count is:

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Labs/Microbiology/Yeast_Plate_Count/Yeast_Plate_Count.htm

Regards, David Fankhauser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fankhadb (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not an expert on the subject. I wrote an assignment some years ago on killer yeasts during a second-year university microbiology paper, which I later adapted into an article, but microbiology was just a paper I needed to take to satisfy my university's diversity of research requirements and I have done no related study since.-gadfium 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

long time for sure

yes I might start editing again - not sure yet. Been a bit of a hibernation rather than break for me. I wonder if they have a template for that? :-) Shudde ^talk 08:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned User Jackjit/118 now shopping around looking for others to do his editing

He's shopping around for help to make his edits (and is succeeding), just as his LONG history shows he has done many times in his past when he can't get his way on an article. Please look at his unfair mischief here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Red_Eye_w.2F_Greg_Gutfeld

Jackjit has apparently changed to a new Internet Service Provider after his most recent block on his shared 118 IP and is now using the fixed IP 118.93.220.21 and is again making the exact same kind of vandalism and edits to Conservative/Repulican type of articles using this fixed IP. This new fixed IP should be easy to block, no? --RedEyedCajun (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is totally discouraging to me as I have done my very best to improve this place called Wiki. If this shopping around for others by so-called banned/blocked user is allowed to stand, then the Wiki community can count me out as an editor and it really saddens me to say that because for the most part, I have really enjoyed being here and learning/helping to create a better Wiki for all. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The address given above appears just to be part of his usual 118 range. He's probably already onto a new IP address. Changing IP within this range is simply a matter of resetting one's router, and a block of the entire range would be difficult, as it's one of the largest ISPs in New Zealand. Just keep reverting and reporting him, and pointing to the sockpuppet investigation rather than putting too much effort into debating with him.-gadfium 20:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the counsel, but it's difficult when he goes shopping around for "proxies" to do "his" edits and promote "his" ideas with lies. I do understand "don't feed the trolls", but I never imagined when I started editing on Wiki that this kind of unprofessional behavior would happen or be so hard to stop. I really do appreciate your help, time and counsel, as I am relatively new to Wiki and I don't want to become a bother. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Long-term sockpuppetry violates Internet Service Porviders' "Terms of Service"

I have been around here long enough now to see the countless hours put into chasing sockpuppets and their dynamic IP addresses. As you know, Internet Service Providers have strict "Terms of Use/Service" agreements with their customers. In these TOS agreements, it clearly states that if the customer uses the ISP services to damage or destroy websites, or for other harassing type of behavior on the Internet, then their service will be terminated. So, after years of chasing some of these "banned users" here on Wikipedia, I think a good case could be presented to an Internet Service Provider that one of their customers is doing great damage harassing the Wikipedia project and wasting the resources of Wikipedia. All you would have to show is a history of damage/harassment done by the sockpuppet/dynamic IP and the exact times the IP made those edits identified as vandalism, then the ISP could trace it back to a particular customer and terminate their service. Obviously this would only be used in extreme cases which have gone on for many months or years. I'm certain someone at Wiki must have thought of this before, so what is the problem with implementing this as policy on Wiki? --RedEyedCajun (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you for sharing

Next time, you might want to do some investigation before you race to the aid of a fellow Admin. I'm sorry you don't know the difference between a personal attack and a strong (and justified) criticism of someone's actions, but that's not my problem. It's Wikipedia's. Kiwigov (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I did investigate. If you wish to resume editing, please file an unblock appeal, stating that you will avoid such behaviour in the future.-gadfium 02:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello, Gadfium! I hope you enjoy this tasty treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yummy. Thank you.-gadfium 05:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Praise for anons

Why do you think that it is acceptable to remove praise for anons from their talkpages? There is no Wikipedia policy that explictly prohibits this, so I don't see what basis you are doing this on. It may be your personal view that such praise is not appropriate, but it is not disruptive, causes no-one any harm and does not break any of the rules. Wikipedia is not your personal fiefdom; you can't just remove comments if you disagree with them. If I am mistaken, then please cite to me the exact policy that prohibits this. Otherwise, please apologise and refrain from such acts of content removal. --85.210.77.185 (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Praise for vandals is obviously disruptive. So is trolling.-gadfium 20:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how it can be considered "obviously disruptive". What is so obvious about it? Do you consider compliments to be disruptive? Are anons not worthy of praise? Such activities do not have any affect on users such as yourself or Wikipedia as a whole; they are gestures of thanks. I fail to see how they cause any harm. It may be "obvious" to you, but it is not to me as my actions were not by their nature harmful, so I would like to you to explain yourself further. I am new to Wikipedia and I am still trying to get to know the site, so I would appreciate it if you could clarify your reasoning for me. Furthermore, I refute your accusation that I am a "troll". Trolling is an act of intentional disruption; I did not want to get involved in this argument, but I feel that I am being unfairly treated, given that all I did wrong was to pay someone a simple compliment. How can that be such a bad thing? I apologise if I have offended you in any way, I just want an explanation as to what I have done so wrong. --79.68.111.22 (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)