User talk:Gadfium/archive62

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 current

Charles Chauvel[edit]

You have left a comment removing the edit on Payday and fringe lender reform citing that Chauvel's speeches are not quoted elsewhere, yet in an earlier section of the article, Chauvel's maiden statement is quoted and referenced. This deletion appears inconsistent with the precedent already set earlier in the article. As there appears to be nothing wrong with the validity of the reference used, and the portion of that speech appears to me to be the only part of that speech that would not be covered by what has already been written in that section of the article, then I would suggest that the quote stand. --Louisejgreaves (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

His maiden statement (or at least the bit quoted) is very much about his background and opinions. The bit I removed is about a possible association of another MP with a loan company. It would appear to be intended to tarnish the reputation of that MP rather than to provide biographical information about Chauvel.-gadfium 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if that were the case, then perhaps that should have been written in the edit as the reason to delete that portion. I'm not as experienced as you, but I would have thought that the reason for a change has to be accurate (otherwise, the editor can be accused of the same bias they are trying to avoid). Also, can you show me the specific rule about damaging comments regarding third parties on these wikis, i would like to know in future what to avoid. --Louisejgreaves (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The policy you are looking for is Biographies of living people. If the same material was placed on Craig Foss, it would probably also be considered as undue weight, as was a similar item on John Banks recently. However, you seem to be missing the point that any material placed in an article must be relevant to that article topic. My edit summary was quite clear that I didn't see the quote as providing useful information about Chauvel. Do I need to go looking for a policy statement about relevance for you?-gadfium 19:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Hmmmmm. You think those vandals are still a problem? (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the answer. (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Gadfium! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,867 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Bruce Logan - Find sources: "Bruce Logan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pōtatau Te Wherowhero[edit]

I don't know much about NZ history, but I noticed an edit by (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that seemed suspicious to me because of the many typos it introduced, and because it was unsourced POV.[1] So I checked that user's next edit[2], and saw that you reverted to that same version (when you reverted some intermediate obvious vandalism,[3]), so now that user's version has become yours. Is that a version you can indeed endorse? If I can ask you a favour, it would also be great if you could look at that user's third contribution[4] (labelled "Accarate (sic!) details ..."), since you know more about the subject than I do. Thank you! — Sebastian 01:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a user I am well aware of, who has been editing with a dynamic IP for many months, mostly on Fairfield College, Bucklands Beach and 19th century New Zealand history. Their edits all show erratic punctuation and frequent typos, and despite repeated requests they have never adequately sourced their material, although they sometimes include their sources in angle brackets. Some of their edits I have reverted, particularly those dealing with living people; some I have cleaned up; and some I have left for those with greater knowledge of the subject matter or more time to clean up. As far as I know, the anon's edits have always been factual but may have POV issues, and they do not necessarily understand the idea of undue weight.
The last half dozen edits to Invasion of Waikato are all from this editor. I have no reason to believe they are not correct. Certainly they need to be edited for spelling and grammar, and the references converted to use Wikipedia <ref> formats, but once this is done the article, which has always lacked adequate sourcing, will be of higher quality than it was originally. That copyediting can be done by anyone; it does not require detailed knowledge of the subject.-gadfium 02:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Well, yes, copyediting can be done by anyone (even by me [5]), but that's not the problem. To the contrary, I regard it a good thing that bad editors make such obvious mistakes - those are a clue that we need to look further in a certain text. The bigger problem is the message of an article. If one editor writes non-factual text, and another just copyedits it without understanding the background, then that clue gets lost, and it will take much longer until the non-factual content gets fixed. — Sebastian 02:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have raised this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#19th century New Zealand history.-gadfium 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Gadfium, Thanks for the deletion. So I think I found a suitable place to put PTE, I also include a reference to prove that(, please check, if it's not suitable, please let me know. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdenzColleges (talkcontribs) 04:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is a suitable place to list it. I suggest you might like to fill out the list with the many other such establishments, using the MoE site as a reference, but including a few extra details for each one, such as the city of its main campus and the area of education it specialises in. This would help to reduce suspicion that you are not here solely to promote your own institution.-gadfium 04:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gadfium, Thanks for that. I just checked the MoE site, I found a few PTE were already closed down (within last few months).So I will ask MoE for a updated one and will put it up on wiki. Thanks~(UTC)
That's good. I was going to warn you not to just copy their website, as they have copyright over the contents, but the present list is just names of institutions and their own tracking number, and I doubt anyone can claim copyright over such a list. Adding extra information, as I suggested above, or ordering the list by region rather than simply alphabetically, would be good. You seem to have a good knowledge of the industry, so you could probably add these details with very little additional effort.-gadfium 00:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mount Everest...[edit] not commonly known as Chomolangma in English. The article is currently protected. Please visit the article talk page and give us your assurance you won't try to resume the edit war when it gets unprotected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. A single reversal by you of an edit is being counted as edit warring. Seems a little over the top to me. Schwede66 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
More of an edit skirmish. Be that as it may, consensus now is to leave the lead alone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


RE:Demographics Hi, I understand where you are coming from...but clearly mentioning that someone claims something doesn't infringe CIA findings? Thanks Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a marginal case, since the material you added was suitably worded to make it a claim only rather than fact; the figure is not outrageous, and the CIA figures are not necessarily more than an estimate. I'm a bit twitchy over similar incidents where a different church, in other Pacific Island nations (Samoa and Tonga), claimed a much larger proportion of the population than other sources gave. I've restored your edit.-gadfium 19:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Color Blindness[edit]

In response to your question regarding why the website i have added is worth having, I would appreciate if you take a detailed look at the website relative to the others linked before passing such hasty judgement on it. I made that website as an individual that is color blind and interested in sharing and informing the remainder of 'my' community. I put an exteme amount of time into consolidating all information and research currently available regarding the condition. Directly related to the Ishihara Test page, my test is significantly more detailed than all of the others online, including at least 3 in the existing external links list (infact only one link actually contains information not 100% convered by my work). If you want to remove links, shouldn't you start with the least contributing link, not the most? Should someone take my test and find they are color blind, they can use my website to go on and learn all about their condition, again in contrast to the lack of information on the other websites in the external links section. If you're concerned about the adsense ads on my page, you should know that they are there to pay for my hosting and they DO NOT earn that much anyway. Thankyou for reading this, and i'll leave it to you to decide on undoing your edit - i wasn't aware how best to handle a difference of opinion as i've not contributed before.

Please see our conflict of interest guidelines. You should not be promoting your own website here. You can make much more effective contributions to Wikipedia by adding information to the articles rather than adding external links.-gadfium 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou, i have read the guidelines. My interest is not in promotion for my benefit, but rather the color blind community in general. Looking at the existing external links, i believe my website can offer far more extensive contribution. I have already written all i have to know on the pages in my website, There is no sense repeating it here. Be nice to know how the other people in the EL list survived you wiki-nazis consider they generally offer a lot less than my efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Adding content here will reach many more readers than your website is likely to.-gadfium 06:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


BoNM - New Zealand.PNG The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
for your great tireless work on all things New Zealand. I've always thought that I've got a watchlist that is way too long, but if I look away for half a day and something not entirely appropriate happens to my watchlisted articles, chances are you've already sorted it. Your watchlist must be huge. And you are always onto it. I especially appreciate your calm and measured way, and the good advice that you give.
this WikiAward was given to Gadfium by Schwede66 on 09:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I do have a huge watchlist, but I also rely heavily on "What links here" for various pages and categories, and recently I've started using the wikiproject watchlist as well.-gadfium 10:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

NZ Geographic magazine as a quality source[edit]

Hi Gadfium. At the moment Huia is going thru its nomination process as a featured article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huia/archive1. One of the reviewers has queried NZ Geographic (or an article in it by Szabo) as a quality source. I think it's okay to use - perhaps with some qualifications like not using it to back up something too far out of the ordinary. Any thoughts? I am getting a bit worried about the FA since I am only a minor contributor to the article and the nominator seems unable to contribute much at the moment to the discussions. If he doesn't show soon I might have to suspend the FA Kahuroa (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Geographic appears to be a quality source, although I have no detailed knowledge of its editorial policies. Michael Szabo also appears to be a professional journalist. I would contrast it with an obviously unsuitable source: New Zealand Truth, and a generally reliable source, The New Zealand Herald, which would not be acceptable as a scientific and particularly medical source per WP:MEDRS. Notornis would be a better ref than NZ Geographic, but I think for Wikipedia NZ Geographic is sufficient.-gadfium 06:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's awesome - would you mind briefly stating something like this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huia/archive1? Not a major if you don't want to, but any input may help. Kahuroa (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IP editor and Maori[edit]

Just so as you know. The latest edits [6] by the "helpful" IP editor (Claudia) have broken a referenced sentence on population stats and inserted other information into it. (She) has also added more unsourced and badly formatted stuff - tho I managed to trace some of it to NZETC. I have reverted her twice today and I also found referenced info that contradicted the stuff she was putting on about there being only one documented epidemic. I'm not keen to roll her back this time and I will wait before I fix that broken reference. Kahuroa (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that there would be only one documented epidemic. I've added a reference following one of her notes, and removed the other edit because it had no ref. When did she give you her name?-gadfium 06:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ip with similar editing style etc calls herself Claudia here Talk:Bucklands Beach Kahuroa (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand official war artists[edit]

This subtle usage error was mine. Please review War artist#New Zealander? In the context created by the other national sections, the usage is irregular.

I wonder if your edit reveals a basic flaw in the way these sections were named. If so, there will be similar errors in the way corollary articles are named. I'm quite willing to correct my own errors; but your edit suggests nuances which I hadn't parsed well enough:

  • noun & adjective -- Australian official war artist
the nationality is either or both a noun and an an adjective
  • noun -- He is an Australian?
  • adjective -- He has Australian citizenship

Is this one of those irregular instances in which adjectives and nouns are interchangeable?

Please help me understand any other errors you find in these section headings. With your constructive feedback, it will be more likely that I can avoid making similar mistakes in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Most demonyms work as an adjective, but there are quite a number of exceptions. List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names provides a decent list. I notice that in War artist you correctly have the heading "Spanish", although the demonym is "Spaniard". I hardly ever see the word "Spaniard" - people seem to use "Spanish person" instead. I'll change the New Zealand entry at War artist.-gadfium 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Gadfium, looking through this person's contributions today, some temporary block would be in order. Schwede66 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. You'll get a much faster response in future if you report such edits to WP:AIV.-gadfium 01:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Good to know - thanks (not that there was anything wrong with your turnaround, though!). Schwede66 01:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
AIV response time is usually within a few minutes.-gadfium 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

David Reeves[edit]

I really don't see any reason to delete it as a blatant hoax; there's nothing unrealistic about what the article says about him. Conversely, I've supported deletion at AFD; thanks for letting me know about it. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible difficult issue at South Island nationalism[edit]

Hi Gadfium, I'm wanting some advice, or suggestions, or possibly, if you know how to do it some kind of confirmation or refutation of a sneaking suspicion I have about an editor who is proving a little difficult.

Don't know if you remember it, but a while back you edited the page South Island nationalism and removed an editor's uncited claim that the nationalism was ethnically-driven. Since then, there's been a slow but steady argument on the talk page. LJ Holden, Davosaurus and I all say that it';s not ethnic (I'll admit to being the most vociferous on that count), Son of Zealandia says there are some ethnic elements and some civic ones, and Teroamahai says its ethnic, pure and simple. Teroamahai had earlier caused trouble with unconstructive edits to the page immediately after an article he started on North Island nationalism was deleted.

Teroamahai had been silent of WP for a while when last week an anon added a series of edits to the South Island nationalism article and related articles, which indicated there was a big element of ethnic nationalism involved (and all uncited). Today, after a couple of months away, Teroamahai comes back, using this uncited addition as an indication that S.I. nationalism is ethnically based. While I'd like to AGF, I am suspicious as to whether Teroamahai and the anon are the same editor (BTW, having found no evidence anywhere of the anon-s claim, either online or from people involved in South island independence groups whom I know, I removed them).

Have you any suggestions, or would you be willing to have a look as a predominantly-unbiased* admin? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 11:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (*predominantly, since you did make that earlier edit)

You and other editors seem to have the situation under control.
I don't think I can be considered an uninvolved editor on that subject, as I have been involved in South Island Independence in the past.
Probably Teroamahai is the anon editor. Has any claim been made to the contrary? Teroamahai is not an experienced editor; most likely their login expired after the edits of months ago and they made edits either not realising they were no longer logged in, or not caring. Noticing the lack of login, or wishing to have the edits registered to them, they logged in after making a few edits. The content of the edits may or may not be in good faith, but I don't see the anon editing as a problem unless there was an attempt to deceive.-gadfium 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)