User talk:Dramatic/Archive4

Irish Rugby flag

You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion (WP:RUIRLFLAG). There are two ongoing discussions which may interest you here and here GnevinAWB (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New articles (New Zealand)

Thanks for all the good work on this list. I've noticed that the bot doesn't pick up articles that I create, possibly because I always create them in my userspace before shifting them into mainspace. If you wish, you could help yourself to my articles, which are listed on the linked page in chronological order. I myself am not fussed as to whether they are listed or not, but since you seem to be looking after this list so diligently, I thought I'd bring this to your attention.

Keep up the good work. Schwede66 07:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreffed blips

Hi. Happy to do the deed on New Zealanders. Perhaps you could do the same on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Unreferenced BLPs, which is the WP:Cricket equivalent. I just spotted that you'd done Ben Yock, which is one of ours still to do!. KR. Johnlp (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anne Firth Murray

Hi, shouldn't the demonym here be New Zealander, for someone who is from New Zealand, but does not live there? Blinglee (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New Zealander is only ever used as a noun, never as an adjective - regardless of residence. If you want a reference beyond 45 years of using New Zealand english, I'd have to search. dramatic (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Isaac Worthington

Can you please give me a reason why this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclovinst (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

List of New Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally

Tables and charts I totally agree with your assessment of this article, but I only made it because of this discussion. You are correct that it should be expanded with the information that you suggested in order to be useful, but I have neither the expertise nor the interest to do that. If you want to add to it, you are of course free to do as much, or if you want to recruit help to do that, you can post on related WikiPortals (Template:WikiProject_Music/Related_WikiProjects should help you navigate them; Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music is good at collaboration.) If you really want me to help, I suppose I could, but I have other priorities on Wikipedia and in real life, and I have nothing really to add at the moment. If you'd like to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources Exactly. All I have to go on is the simple fact that they were in the category in the first place. The listify and delete process churns out these unsourced articles all the time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Benjamin Koons

Done Chris (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WPNZ template

I've tried to start a discussion on the WPNZ template with respect to the governments project, but this hasn't attracted any contributions. Given that you sometimes contribute to pages on politics, I thought you might be interested in this. Schwede66 22:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

LOMOcean Design

Hello, This is a response to your nomination of my articles for deletion. I would like to start by saying that I understand your choice to delete these articles, but I would like to convey my side of the story. Firstly, I do not have any conflict of interest and the way that my articles are written may appear to be written in an advertorial style, but that is unintentional. I guess that is just how I write. I am therefore going to go through the articles now and start to try to make them purely factual. You also questioned my motives, saying that I would not create this series of articles unless I had some sort of ulterior motive. You based this on the writing style, for which I have already addressed, and on the fact that these articles are the only articles I have made. I would like to note that they are the only articles that I have done so far as I have not yet had the time to do any other articles. I do plan to continue to create articles about the marine industry, especially in New Zealand. These articles just happen to be where I started. I also find it interesting that you have nominated the 148m Moonset Trimaran article to be deleted, but not the Planet Solar article. The way I see it, they are both written with a similar style and both have a similar number of resources. You have noted that it is not apparent whether the 148m Moonset Trimaran has been launched yet. It hasn't been launched and I should have included that in the article. Even though it has not been launched, that does not mean that it is not notable. You also questioned the resources that I have used and I can see your point. The main issue is that many of the boats have appeared in magazines, both in New Zealand and overseas which are not accessable over the internet, or you need a subscription to the magazine to see them. You finished by saying that I should merge the articles and (as you can probably see) I am pretty new to this and would like to seek you advice, or some help on what to do. For example, by merging the articles, does that mean that there would be one big article under the LOMOcean name that has a short description of each boat? Assuming that is the case, would the articles that have been nominated for deletion be included in the new article(assuming that I have managed to edit them in a way that sounds neutral), or would they still be excluded for a lack of references? I am sorry for the very long message and thankyou for any help that you can give me, Mwin044 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

Firstly, thanks for responding. I hope that you will repeat some of this at the deletion discussion. Usually if I tag an article for conflict of interest, there is some quite clear evidence (in this case, say, if your username had been LOMocean). Here, there was merely circumstantial evidence - in many cases where a new editor writes about a very specific topic (sometimes called a Single-purpose account) in an advertorial manner it turns out that the person is associated with the article subject - or being paid to promote the subject. However, one of our guidelines is to Assume good faith, and I'm happy to accept your statement that you are neutral.

As to notability: It seems that most merchant and naval ships are deemed notable, and many have articles (and that there is a tradition of books documenting them). There has to be a cutoff point somewhere (a lower limit on size), and I doubt if many pleasure craft would be notable. We might compare boats with cars or aircraft, except that individual (or very short-run) design is much more common in watercraft than for land- or air-craft, and the companies producing them tend to be much smaller. A mass-produced design would probably be notable, but its article should read similarly to a typical aircraft or car model article. I guess 500 units might count as mass-produced given the nature of the industry. A good guideline for neutral sources is that the primary intent of the source is not to sell the boats. There is nothing wrong with print sources - a reputable, large-run print source is actually a better source than a website, as it usually has a longer archival life. (stuff on websites vanishes or can be edited with no indication). Of course we are wary of small-run, privately published print sources. We will usually assume good faith when someone uses print sources (please follow citation guidelines that make it easy for a person with access to a copy/library to trace the source).

For those specific cases - Planet solar is being built for a specific high-profile purpose, much as Earthrace was, and being the first solar-powered powerboat to circumnavigate the globe (or even cross one ocean) will certainly be notable (although WP:CRYSTAL says we should avoid writing about things until they happen). On the other hand, moonset seems destined to be a private superyacht, and unless it is well documented as setting meaningful records, it isn't inherently notable. (The same applies to the smaller one-off designs, too). dramatic (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thankyou for the response, it has been very helpful. I just have one more question regarding your idea that the articles be merged in to one article under the LOMOcean Design heading. I think that this is a good idea and was therefore thinking that I would merge them (assuming that the sepparate articles are deleted). My question is whether I would be able to include a small description from those articles that have been tagged as not being notable in the new, merged page. To be more precise, I am asking whether articles that are not notable enough for their own page can be included under the larger heading of the company. Thanks Mwin044 (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to add a basic 1-3 sentence description such as "a 15m monohull pleasure craft designed for inshore use" (that's out of thin air and doesn't refer to any of the designs!) plus any noteworthy points about the design, with references. (Including number produced, if possible).dramatic (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like what I was planning to do. Good to see we are on the same page! Thanks a lot for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwin044 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Demoware

I have nominated Demoware, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demoware. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fleet Command (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ladyhawke category

I understand the reasoning behind adding Category:Lesbian musicians to the Ladyhawke article, but I don't think it's appropriate to do so until she has clearly described her own sexuality. I have nothing against adding a "LGBT x" category to her article – that is fairly obvious from the source available –, but making a distinction between "lesbian" and "bi-sexual" requires additional information and is in violation with the BLP policy otherwise, I believe. Do you disagree? —Quibik (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Granted, I hadn't thought about the fact that the category requires distinction between L and B. dramatic (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Auckland Rugby Football Union

Would you mind checking my edits to that article - it was as you say a sea of hyberbole, but I'm no expert on rugby.Kahuroa (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Politics article assessment

Hello Dramatic, I see that you are currently assessing articles that fall within the scope of the politics taskforce. Would you mind including the relevant parameters in your assessment while you are at it? Wikipedia:NZP#Assessment has the background. Please reply on the taskforce's talk page if you have any queries / comments / thoughts. Thanks!

And whilst I'm at it, I might as well invite you to become a member. Schwede66 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This user wants you to join WikiProject NZ politics.

To join the New Zealand politics taskforce, please place the following on your user page:
{{User WikiProject New Zealand/politics}}

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Puddings

Hey, I just wanted to tell you that the article was speedy deleted per G3 so I performed an non-admin closure on the Afd. Just thought I'd advise you that if there is no evidence whatsoever, then tag for speedy. Keep up the good work :). Best, Treylander 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Review article please

Hi there,

I see you've added the scope/project tag to the article List of Christian organisations in New Zealand. If you've reviewed the article could you please remove the 'new unreviewed article' tag? ThanksSbmackay (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

NNZ

I will do 7 + 8 June entries for Wikipedia:New articles (New Zealand) (unless you've started, then please ping my talk page). Adabow (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reform government article

As far as I can remember I cribbed all the election stuff from the pre-existing pages on those elections, and the rest of it was from memory. At that point I was just trying to get all the government pages started up so that everyone could fill them in a bit more. --Helenalex (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Conversions

Hi there. I notice you're fixing up the formatting of some of the areas in the former local authorities article. Thought I'd better warn you that some of the areas I entered, I had already converted from square miles to square kilometres, so conversion back into square miles might introduce rounding errors. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a better idea than me which ones those are. Feel free to replace them with {{convert|x.xx|sqmi|km2}} - where x.xx is the original area in square miles. I guess that could make the list inconsistent, but we could add a footnote explaining that areas given in sources come first. dramatic (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just thought of another problem with that: the areas are normally as at 1952 (I think - whenever my White's atlas was published, anyway). Will have a go at them some time though. Might not be a for a while - am snowed under with other work to do and as far as Wikipedia goes only really keep an eye on vandalism and typos at the moment. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

—fetch·comms 18:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio blanking FYI

When you blank part of an article for being a possible copyvio as you did with Simon Prast, it's appreciated if you follow the directions on the blanking and leave a notice on the contributor's talk page and place a link to the page on the daily WP:CP. I have taken care of it in this instance. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Dramatic. You have new messages at Imzadi1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imzadi 1979 → 22:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

[1] is not an appropriate use of rollback. If you do this again, you may lose your rollback abilities. --Rschen7754 05:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

oops, that was meant to be an undo. Slip of the mouse. Self-reverted.dramatic (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Hi Dramatic, Thanks for your help. I am always keen to learn from the more experienced of my peers. Re SPC alumni, ONZ honours are just for interest and I certainly agree that they do not in any way contribute to notablility in Wiki terms. Thanks very much again. Rick570 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you once placed a COI template on Jono Naylor. There's been some discussion on the article on Gadfium's talk page. I've removed the template and documented my reasons why on the article's talk page, so this is a courtesy message to give you a chance to participate in this in case you disagree with that action. Schwede66 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Former counties

Hello, Dramatic. You have new messages at TakakaCounty's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- TakakaCounty (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is TakakaCounty on your watchlist? You should have a look what's going on there. Schwede66 02:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re;Soccer articles

G'day Dramatic... actually, those articles are referenced - the external link is under the table. I'll add more though. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

NZ National soccer league

Thanks for going round and assessing and proofreading all the soccer league articles I've been doing! My typing skills aren't brilliant at the best of times, and my cat has discovered that my lap is the warmest place to be while I'm working on the computer, making my typing even less accurate than normal. Thankfully the book I'm using as the source for the articles only goes up to 1990, so I'll be slowing down making them soon (though I'd like to get all the redlinks on the template filled if I can, as stubs if nothing more). Grutness...wha? 05:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cook Islands electorate map?

I noticed you did a very useful map of NZ electorates for the New Zealand general election, 2008. I'm wondering if you'd be able to put together a blank equivalent for the Cook Islands to illustrate the pages on their elections (and particularly, Cook Islands general election, 2010 and Cook Islands general election, 2006).

There are public domain maps of boundaries on commons here. The best base would I think be this one; use the left half to illustrate the location of electorates, with circles or coloured text for the outer-island constituencies, and the right half to display the larger islands with multiple constituencies (Rarotonga, Atiu, Aitutaki and Mangaia). Interested? --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a scout around for information or maps on the electoral boundaries, but couldn't find anything. Also, are there accepted colours for the political parties in the Cooks? dramatic (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Electorates are either whole islands (those labelled "outer islands") or follow district boundaries. There are already maps of Rarotonga electorates and Aitutaki electorates. For the others, there's Atiu, which is split into the electorates of Teenui-Mapumai and Tengatangi-Areora-Ngatiarua along the relevant district boundaries; and Mangaia, which is split into Tamarua (the district of the same name), Ivirua (Ivirua and Karanga), and Oneroa (everything else).

Colourwise, there are colours in the election box metadata for the Cook Islands Party and Democratic Party (Cook Islands), but those are fairly arbitrary. There is good data on who won what for the 2004 and 2006 elections. I've been meaning to dig back further, but that's a longer-term project.

Thanks for the interest. --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar, my first. Mattlore (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

super rugby

Hello, i would like to inform of a discussion on in the WikiProject Rugby Union discussion page about the format to be used through the season articles of the super 12, super 14 and super rugby seasons. Please click the link below and have your opinion, thank you. JaFa 01 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Link: Discussion

Te Rewa Rewa Bridge

Hello, if you happen to have a good photo of Te Rewa Rewa Bridge, could you please review this item for some suggested action? Thanks! Schwede66 05:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Onenewslarge.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Onenewslarge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Have fixed it - it now links again to the article. Schwede66 06:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was still figuring out why I got this message, but I see that I reduced the image resolution to comply with fair use guidelines. dramatic (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Paphies

Hello Dramatic, nice to meet you. Actually Paphies is a clam genus, so these are all bivalves, not gastropods (snails). The articles were created by a user who was blocked early in 2009 for massive and unrepentant wholesale verbatim copying from the source listed (Powell, 1979). Because these are bivalve taxa, no-one from our project has looked at the articles or cleaned them up since then. But in any case, yes, you are quite right, I think that for the time being, the Paphies subtriangulata subtriangulata article should simply be moved to become the Paphies subtriangulata article, and the three subspecies should simply be listed in that article. The first one you mention is the nominate subspecies, in other words it is the one that defines the species, and therefore it does not require an article of its own. The other two articles can perhaps be deleted for the time being, that is until someone is inspired to create a proper article for them, if that ever happens. Invertzoo (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice note, and thanks for doing the work to clean up that group of articles. I was the one who first spotted the overall copyright issue and blew the whistle, but WikiProject Copyright members did most of the hard work from that point onwards. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope what I've done makes sense - wording could probably be tightened a bit. On a related note, Reflectopallium papillatum is a GrahamBould article which seems to have escaped the copyright cleanup - is it known to be "clean"?dramatic (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What you did looks fine as far as I can tell, it's certainly an improvement on how it was! As for the Reflectopallium papillatum article, yes you are right it slipped by the CopyVio team! And yes, I can pretty much guarantee that the text under "Description" was copied verbatim from Powell. You or I should tag the talk page and remove the offending text. You may possibly find others like this, so keep your eyes open as you go along. Many thanks for your hard work, Invertzoo (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Turbo smaragdus

Hi again Dramatic, Yes I believe that the entire description section (except for the expression of the measurements) is copied verbatim from Powell and we should remove it. The text under Distribution is also copied from Powell I think. I don't actually have a copy of Powell myself; if you are in NZ, there might possibly be a copy in your local library as a reference book that you could look at. Can you work out who in the edit history reinserted both description sections? Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I just now removed the parts I thought were suspect, and tagged the talk page with the copyvio explanation. If you do by any chance have access to a copy of Powell, that would be very helpful when checking these things. Invertzoo (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Papakuralogo.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Papakuralogo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dual names DYK nom

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I've nominated List of dual place names in New Zealand for the "Did you know ..." section of the main page. --Avenue (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! dramatic (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of dual place names in New Zealand

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WPNZ assessment

Hi there Dramatic, just a suggestion that when you assess an article as anything other than stub class (e.g. Genetic engineering in New Zealand), can you please remove any stub tags that an article might have? I guess it's easy to overlook. Schwede66 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall try to remember. dramatic (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ten

Earlier today in the Wikimedia Australia committee meeting I somewhat flippantly suggested that it would be cool to have "the wikipedia logo in fireworks" to celebrate Wikipedia "Ten". (see Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebration for discussion by your fellow countryman's) Then in my travels on an unrelated matter, I see you're one of the few Wikipedians who might be able to organise something like this. If the entire logo can't be done, can the 'W' piece be put in the sky? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh - I created that userbox, which is a good reason for only two people having it. I'm not clear whether you are talking about a display in Australia or New Zealand - you will need to find someone certified for the country of the display. I am basically a regional agent for Firework Professionals in Christchurch, NZ - they do the planning and organisation on any job that I do. In NZ, a 2 week lead time is considered the minimum.

"In the sky" is really difficult - you are basically talking about a custom shaped starshell - something requiring development and testing by a pyrotechnics manufacturer. Also, chances are that it will only look like a W (or whatever) from one direction, and that direction is relatively random. The common means of creating logos etc, is as lancework signs, e.g. [2] which are ground-based and burn for about 1 minute. By itself, it doesn't make much of a display, but I have seen an event which basically had a big sign, a few multishot mines and a lot of crackers. dramatic (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd love it to be in Australia, of course, but doubt we could arrange it in time. Maybe a simple 'Wikipedia' is possible.

It would be much better if the Wikipedia W logo could be done, even if it has to be in NZ. ;-) While it would be great for the locals wherever it happens, the 'value' will be in the digital image which I suspect will get a lot of international media interest. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Māori task force assessment criteria

I notice that you do a lot of assessments. I would value your input on a discussion on Māori task force assessment criteria and scope. cheers Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Just curious

Hello, Dramatic. You have new messages at Grutness's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Good article review help: Netball and Netball in the Cook Islands

Hi. I nominated Netball and Netball in the Cook Islands for a good article. As you're part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Netball, I was wondering if you could help review the article. If not, could you do the assessment for article as part of the project, level of importance and if it is at least worth a B? Thanks! --LauraHale (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Otamatea River (Hawke's Bay)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Otamatea River (Hawke's Bay), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Otamatea River. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Man that was fast! dramatic (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rangaunu Harbour

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment of Tennis New Zealand

Hi, as you're from WP New Zealand; could you please assess the Tennis New Zealand article. I'm from WP Tennis, so i assessed it for Tennis project, but WP New Zealand doesn't come under my scope.Bill william compton^Talk 07:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dramatic. You have new messages at Talk:Tennis New Zealand.
Message added 13:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm looking forward to work with you on this article. What you've to do just sort out necessary points and amendments you think there should be, and i'll try my best to restructure it accordingly. Bill william compton^Talk 13:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand place names

Hi Dramatic, I made a start on some of the issues you mentioned at the Talk:New Zealand place names/GA1. Sorry about the delay. I hope you continue with the review. Most people seem to transclude the checklist and pass, fail or hold on each of criteria (You have started on #3 already). They also tend to add comments or point out outstanding issues in each section. Unfortunately I don't think there is a good article on a similar topic that you can compare this to. Since it is your first review it may be a good idea to get a second opinion. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if you want to continue with the review. The problem is that once you start one everyone else who looks at the reviews will assume someone is doing it. I am not fussed either way, but if you just wanted to leave the comment about the content it would be good to either let me know here or even leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. That way we can get someone else to review it. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Most of the time it is up to single reviewer, unlike the FAC process. I will leave a message at GA talk page. Feel free to chime in with any improvements either at the review or to the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ashburton River (New Zealand)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiraumea River (Tasman)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Tiraumea River (Tasman), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Tiraumea River. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Braeburn Range

Hello! Your submission of Braeburn Range at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Braeburn Range

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, excellent work on Braeburn Range. I have added a modified hook to the Portal:Gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:NZTerritorialAuthorities.png

Hi. Unfortunately, the file in question was made before I had properly migrated to using layered images and so forth, so my "master file" (such as it is) is just a plain, ordinary Windows bitmap version of what's uploaded here. As such, I'm afraid don't really have anything to send you. Sorry I can't be more help. -- Vardion (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statistics NZ maintains the files and publishes them here (LINZ refers to this page also[3]). The file contains several datasets including regions and territorial authorities, and are very high definition, you can tell which roads, rivers etc the boundary follows. I think it would pay to run this by WP:MCQ before making maps from it, to ensure the results are ok for copyright. XLerate (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:National_parks_of_New_Zealand]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Category:National_parks_of_New_Zealand. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)