User talk:Gadfium/archive31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archived talk pages
2004 Mar-Dec
2005 Jan-Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul-Aug Sep Oct-Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar-May Jun-Jul Aug-Sep Oct-Dec
2011 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2012 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2013 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2014 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2015 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2016 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2017 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2018 current

Rugby links[edit]

Have you read my reponse ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.76.93 (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:GabrielByrne.png[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:GabrielByrne.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GabrielByrne.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GabrielByrne.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GabrielByrne.png)[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:GabrielByrne.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridin hood[edit]

Hi Gadfium, It looks like Ridin hood is actually a sockpuppet of, User:SallyForth123. SallyForth123 might still not be the original puppetmaster, but I collected the sockpuppet notices to point to SallyForth123. Sancho 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Winston Peters[edit]

Thanks for your note to me. Your point is taken re edit summary, but context comes into it as well. I reverted an edit which supplanted "....... his father being Māori and his mother Pākehā (New Zealander of European descent)" with ".........his father being Māori and his mother Scottish", made by an IP user who did not give edit summaries. Had it been changed to " his father being Māori and his mother Pākehā (New Zealander of Scottish descent " I obviously wouldn't have changed it. Regarding the cite, that too needs to be seen in context. It goes to a report of a speech where politician Peters was being politician Peters, even claiming Chinese blood. I saw the deletion of pakeha, checked the cite, and made a bold decision to revert because I do not believe that in the context of his speech Peters meant for one second that his mother was not pakeha. I have replaced European with 'Scottish which I hope improves the article. BTW, why do we need to say Peters "is of mixed ethnicity"? Isn't everyone? Moriori 06:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User: VegitaU[edit]

I am having an issue with VegitaU, as he/ she is making threats to my discussion page regarding a logo. The tag is legit, and has threatened block me. Since he/ she isn't an admin, I know this is harrassment and I need it dealt with immediately. Here's the entry:

Stop hand nuvola.svg

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Image:GoldenPark.PNG, you will be blocked from editing. Do not delete templates without satisfying their condition. If it says fair use rationale, you need to add a fair use rationale. VegitaU 15:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That goes for every other image of yours I tagged. Happy editing! -- VegitaU 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

JaMikePA 18:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page.-gadfium 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he can't block me. There are logos with the same tags, so why I am being attacked. Only an admin can block, so this kind of warning is nothing but harassment, and should be dealt with.

JaMikePA 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Award images[edit]

Re Image:New Zealand Barnstar of Merit.PNG and Image:Commonwealth of Nations Barnstar of Merit2.PNG. Any thoughts? Kahuroa 08:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominate them for WP:IFD, as orphans, and explain the background behind their creation.-gadfium 08:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the flood, but some noobs are editing my softblock request out[edit]

Could you please softblock this? This is a school network, and I would like to log on. The vandals are right next to me, should I punch them? --203.89.172.85 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already has soft blocked your school. Don't punch the vandals; it will only get you into trouble. They can't do serious damage to Wikipedia.-gadfium 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban request[edit]

Hello Gadfium, could you please ban User talk:Peterlfc for his repeated vandalism at Beca Group? Ingolfson 01:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Peterlfc has only made two edits, and received one warning. The edits were juvenile vandalism, not the sort of thing we would block for on a first offence. You could have issued a second warning, but they stopped of their own accord anyway. In a more serious case, you'd have got a more prompt response by reporting them to WP:AIV rather than to me, as I've only just logged in.
I suggest you look at WP:BLOCK for our policy on blocking. Do you realise that we are deliberately much more lenient about blocking petty vandals than you would appear to want us to be? I don't mind if you disagree with the policy, but you should know what it is, especially if you would like to become an administrator yourself someday. You should also look at the list of user warnings to get an idea of how we escalate the warnings a miscreant receives.-gadfium 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I simply feel that a user who has no other edits than two vandalism attempts (spread over a few days
Who now has made two more vandalism edits for a total of four out of four edits... Ingolfson 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that he is vandalising pages which indicate he is NOT a kid. Somebody who vandalises Opus and Beca pages is likely a competitor or employee. I consider it relatively unlikely that he will turn nice and be constructive in the future. Plus, I was not necessarily asking for a perma-block. Ingolfson 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

With two warnings now spread over a few days, he is certainly now liable to be blocked if he vandalises again. Some admins would block for a short period, some would go directly to an indefinite block as a vandalism-only account. If you see further edits, let me know, or report him to WP:AIV for more prompt action.-gadfium 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese N64 games[edit]

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't recall making the comment you refer to, and I have no strong feelings on the matter, so I won't comment at the AfD.-gadfium 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Hi Gad, would you be able to delete Image:Secale cereale.jpg for me? I've reuploaded it to Commons and only link is intended for the one there under the same name, not this one. A bot seems to have placed a tag on it though, so I'm not sure if it is still shown as needing deletion. Richard001 08:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. The situation is obviously too complex for bots to deal with.-gadfium 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Auckland[edit]

Im not trying to argue here but can you explain why you mad so many reverts to the Auckland article, i have a feeling you have some kind of vendetta against me, every article I've contributed to, you have come along and revert every single change. How are Auckland City and Auckland different?! I would say that only Auckland and Auckland Region were different. (♠Taifarious1♠) 04:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted to your talk page with an explanation about the same time as you posted here.-gadfium 05:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
And for the record, I hadn't realised who you were until I posted to your talk page - after the changes I made to Auckland.-gadfium 05:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah i saw that but my question still stands, there is no discernable difference between Auckland and Auckland City and if anything, they should be merged, look at any other city article on Wikipedia, such as NYC or Tokyo and you would find that i had laid out the Auckland article in the same fashion. (♠Taifarious1♠) 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference in local government - Auckland City Council only governs a part of the urban area. Sister cities follow local government boundaries. The main article is for the urban area because most people think of the greater area when they talk of Auckland, but there's certainly a place for the Auckland City article too.

It's more open to interpretation whether there should be listings of things like time zone for the area. Since there is only one time zone for the whole country, I see little point in adding such information. For Australian and US cities, the time zone may be more relevant, since those countries have multiple time zones. The New Zealand flag is largely a filler; it adds very little information to the article.

Be honest; isn't what I've written about Universities and Colleges - while still incomplete - more useful than what was there before? What you added was valuable, and I improved it. You're welcome to improve it further.-gadfium 05:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Then instead of REMOVING the WHOLE section about the governance of Auckland you could have just change it to Auckland Regional Council.
Also, The gallery i had of the Colleges and Universities in Auckland was well suited to the section, just look at Los Angeles, and under education, they have the same thing. so why then, is it not suitable fot the auckland article? I think that my improvements to the article were very well done.
Moreover, the gallery was suitable for the article, seeing as it lacked in information and visual aid. So you removing it was just bringing it back down to nomal, visually unexciting level. It also showed Aucklands geographical and architectual premise, and your "improvements" to the Colleges and Universtiy section is just adding more information without support of visual aids, again, which my edits had. (♠Taifarious1♠) 05:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain. The existing section of the infobox on Territorial Authorities links to the ARC. Are you suggesting I should have modified the section you added on the ACC to link to the ARC again rather than removing it?

The text about Universities and Colleges in LA is much more useful than the image gallery. In particular, I can't quite tell what the picture of CSULA is.

I also don't understand your point about the gallery. The article is already well illustrated. How does adding a gallery of photos help? Or are you arguing that there were too many images in the article, which is the usual reason for moving to a gallery?-gadfium 05:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The way I had laid it out was the important and a simple change from "Auckland City COuncil" to Auckland regional Council" was sufficient. and not the total removal of the section.
The galler of colleges in LA was a supplement to the text, so then if you are adding text to the Auckland college section then why cant you have accompanying pictures, furthermore, You can have the Pictures AND captions so you can READ what the picture is about rather than guess because you cant understand it.
And no, I was saying how the article ISNT well illustrated, has very limited pictures and even less information and that edits I made were there to improve the article and you when ahead and changed them back to before I started, essentially removing hours of work i did on the article. (♠Taifarious1♠) 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Just jumping in here, I agree with Gadfium that the article is well-supplied with images. Maybe a single image could be added for education, but a gallery is certainly the wrong way to go at it. Galleries are a controversial thing anyway - I feel they have very limited place on Wikipedia - but certainly on an article like this one, which has multitudes of images already, they are the wrong thing. Wikipedia should keep the TEXT dominant.
If you'd like to use more images - hey, why not write an article Education in Auckland? I have in the past written articles myself just to use images I had taken ;-) As long as the article itself is good and notable, there's no reason why you shouldn't! Ingolfson 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Estimating milestone dates[edit]

I've (finally) replied to your question at Wikipedia talk:Milestone statistics#Commons. - dcljr (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Wingate[edit]

Why have you changed the entries I did ? The facts were correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WingateChristopher (talkcontribs)

I removed the material from most of the articles you added it to because it wasn't sufficiently relevant to those articles, and it isn't appropriate to add substantially the same large block of material to many different articles. I did not remove any material from the major article, Christopher Wingate, but I did nominate it for deletion, and you can see my reasoning if you follow the link I put at the top of the article. Another editor has since removed almost all the content, because you failed to provide any sources for the material.
You should read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and also our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines.-gadfium 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by WingateChristopher (talkcontribs) 23:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I appear to under some attack and seek your assistance in order to build an editing contribution. The information I have entered is correct. Perhaps my problem is adding to sites in a way I should'nt have. My apologies. However all statements are correct and should be given life on Wikipedia. Cheers Christopher Wingate —Preceding unsigned comment added by WingateChristopher (talkcontribs) 23:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just noted another attempt to attack Arklow. I draw your attention to the following.

Wikipedia chat- Legal disputes are to be strictly avoided. Picture for a moment, a minor celebrity (we'll say an author) decides to Google him or herself just to find a few reviews of their work. Wikipedia is often in the initial ten Google results. So they click on the link to find some misinformation that could have been added with innocent intentions. The author is unaware of guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:NLT, and complains on the talk page, making a legal threat. Wikipedia has just lost an author, someone who could greatly contribute to Wikipedia, and could possibly (though not likely) face some form of legal action.

Note the Arklow litigation involves $3.43b. To date the defendants have tried everything. If I have to take legal action against someone I will do that for either reason; The person is ignorant and has no right to interfere, or may be working for some other interest group and so litigation against them will expose either.

The information on Arklow is correct. It is not bias, in fact it does not even cover the fraud of evidence, the murder of one of my witnesses New Zealand Herald Story - Island mourns young leader of vision Saturday July 10, 1999 By Rosaleen MacBrayne. Arklow is a complex legal issue and is open to review by any of the 40 strong legal team for the 17 defendants. It has already been looked at by Professor Rick Bigwood of Auckland University. If there were any problems they would appear on the talk page. Any unwarranted attack I promise will lead to an immediate writ being served to uncover the thinking and motive behind the attack. --WingateChristopher 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For these threats of legal action, I have blocked you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Please see WP:NLT.-gadfium 02:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Helen Clark[edit]

Yea, i can agree with that, although i got the info off th 6pm news, i get that you need a reference though. (♠Taifarious1♠) 06:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Cobham Intermediate School[edit]

In response to your reverting my edits,

Many of the teachers at Cobham ARE communists and Mrs Buchanan is their leader, so saying that there is a communist movement is justified; although I do believe that because I have no references you had every right to revert my edits, when I am able to locate some sources I will revert your edits of my edits.


Yours sincerely, Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.254.30 (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had not bothered reading your edits in that much detail. Your edits were obvious nonsense.-gadfium 08:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


They are obviously not nonsense, if you take the time to visit the school you will find that the students are being trained up to lead a revolt against the world (in cahoots with Medbury School) and take over the planet, just to reduce the amount of time required to get to school! I bet you work at Cobham and are trying to silence the people who know the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.254.30 (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hey dude, thanks for changing the harold laborde page to harold la borde. I wasn't sure how.

Doctorrob1234 14:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Hugh Ellis[edit]

Hi, I noticed several project ratings now displayed on the Ellis talk page.

I'm actually very irritated by these. Having been inside Wiki for a year or more it is perfectly obvious, at least to my judgement, that the article is far from start class. To rate it so is a joke. What is going on here? is it because the article subject matter is controversial? - It should be noted that no dispute of factual accuracy within the article has arisen in over a year.

I suspect people/Wiki are/is frightened to assess it in a rational manner. or plain lazy.

Regards, Richard RichardJ Christie 11:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I propose to remove the banner and/or alter the categorisation of the article unless realistic assessments are forthcoming. RichardJ Christie 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can see the quality scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale. I agree, the article is certainly better than start class. It should probably be "B" class, but I am not experienced in rating of articles. The article should not be rated by those who have written it. The appropriate action is to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment, and if you are not happy with the rating that results, discuss it with whoever replies.-gadfium 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gangs[edit]

Sure, because you asked so nicely I'll get onto it. But I'm not sure how can include grey power into it?! ;) Mathmo Talk 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Not quite a hoax, but..[edit]

Any suggestions on how to deal with Maori 5 elements? Looks very like new age drivel to me, and certainly cannot be referencing any genuine traditional material; if it even represented the beliefs of certain Māori who are into new age stuff, it would not qualify for the epithet Māori. Kahuroa 04:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Put it up for AfD with the same comments you expressed here, or possibly with some more polite substitute for the word "drivel". Point out that it's unsourced. It will then improve in a hurry or be deleted.-gadfium 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, will do. Kahuroa 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks suspiciously like the work of the Planeteers, also known as Maori. The links to Captain Planet are unmistakeable. --222.155.54.75 10:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:WingateChristopher[edit]

Hey... You blocked User:WingateChristopher, for legal threats, which it seems the user has decided to retract [1]. Would you have any other objections, if I unblocked this user? SQLQuery me! 01:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've unblocked WingateChristopher accordingly.-gadfium 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Anthems[edit]

The National and Royal Anthem of all Common Wealth Nations is "God save the King" and not "God Save the Queen"

During a change of Monarch, the anthem name does not change. That is why I am changing it, seems some people have changed it back, but regardless of the gender of the Monarch of the Commonwealth, the anthem is still called God Save The King although the words in the Anthem change.



"'God Save The King' became known as the National Anthem from the beginning of the nineteenth century. The words and tune are anonymous, and may date back to the seventeenth century. The song was first publicly performed in London in 1745.

In September 1745 the 'Young Pretender' to the British Throne, Prince Charles Edward Stuart, defeated the army of King George II at Prestonpans, near Edinburgh.

After news of the victory had reached London, the leader of the band at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, arranged 'God Save The King' to be played after the performance. It was a tremendous success and wasrepeated nightly thereafter.

This practice soon spread to other theatres, and the custom of greeting the Monarch with the song as he or she entered a place of public entertainment was established."[2]


Thank you Sammy Jay 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hi! Nice to be back, or at least it was. I'm fresh out of ideas for new articles, so I wrote one about this new R/C model I bought. It was promptly deleted as advertising. I mean within milliseconds. I've run it up on the deletion review page and one user is just savage about it. I told these people that I'd written it on another wiki and was in the process of adding the sources and taking out the "adspeak" when it was clobbered. I've seen blatant band vanity get more consideration. Unless I have a mountain of "third party sources" about the doggoned thing, it doesn't stand a chance.  :( Another article I did on a historic Palm Springs toy store got run through AfD. It survived, but once again, it was tagged within milliseconds. I always tried to give other editors with long histories the benefit of the doubt to at least finish what they start and I always gave that same courtesy to other authors who asked for it. I don't know any of these people who've clobbered me. Anyway, take a peek at the deletion logs at HobbyZone Millennium PTU to see what I mean. It is REALLY great to hear from you!!  :)) --PMDrive1061 15:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link[edit]

(reply to post on my talk page) Thanks for the revert pointer. I WAS under the impression that one version at a time was the only way to do it without some script (puff, pant.) Jackollie 00:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm outta here[edit]

Almost forgot: I've rtired, this time for good. I've never been treated so shamefully on a volunteer project as Wikipedia has treated me. The individual who nominated my article for deletion has now tagged each of the examples I cited as ads. Worse, some of the comments from the deletion reversal discussion are missing. No more for me. Please pass onmy best to User:Gogo Dodo for me. Signimg off. Hope we meet again. Regards, --PMDrive1061 03:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I only realised that you had returned as you were on your way out. You could stay and fight, but I realise that there's no fun to be had in that. There are some areas of Wikipedia I no longer bother to contribute to myself.-gadfium 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Re your message: Sigh. Thanks for passing that on. It's unfortunate to see him go again. -- Gogo Dodo 05:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • thanks again. I had to run last night; it seems that I managed to get some sap from a pencil cactus in my eyes. By the time I logged off, I was nearly blinded. Stuff works slowly but very fine. After a night in the emergency room, I'm OK. The comments on that deletion discussion are just amazing. I've never seen more inflexible and uncaring users like the ones in this new crop. I managed to las a whole month this time. I think I've learned my lesson; Wikipedia is not for me. God bless you down there in Oz. Best, --PMDrive1061 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've rather enjoyed working in a smaller wiki recently. The wiki covers just Waiheke Island, a community of a few thousand people a ferry ride away from Auckland. I'm part of Wikipedia for the long haul though.-gadfium 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

help![edit]

please! someone reply a message to me, why was my edit on a page reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoyruhyorin (talkcontribs) 09:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you twice added a seventh group to Auckland International College, but their web page shows only six groups. I used the edit summary to firstly ask for your source, and then to point out the contradiction.-gadfium 17:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cancún, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hem, never mind that. Guess our reverts of the vandalism crossed eachother somehow, as the version you created last contained no vandalism at all... Weird. --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Aw shucks![edit]

Hate it when that happens (reverting to vandalism on James Cook). Thanks for fixing. The earlier editor 03:15 (UTC) 31 October 2007

WNN - Women News Network Discussion[edit]

A discussion about WNN - Women News Network is on this page where you left your input. Thank you for your interest and for your discussion about important topics. Link here to User talk:Lys Anzia to see the response to your discussion. All thanks. --Lysanzia 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)