User talk:Gadfium/archive73

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

Re: Vandalism - 19 March 2013, 07:00 UTC[edit]

Thanks for your report. The vandalism was removed at about the time you posted this. You could have done so yourself, because the individual day pages are not protected.

Actually I could NOT remove it myself, as it was not visible on the Edit page, just the Show page. If it were on the Edit page, I would have removed it without bothering to report. (No, I don't know all the correct jargon, I'm sorry if that is an offense to you.) Wd40 (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The current events portal has a subpage for each day, which you can edit by clicking on the edit link in the right margin for that day (where it says "edit history watch"). If you click the edit link at the top of the page, you will not see the actual news items. I'm sorry that I did not make this distinction clear.-gadfium 05:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 Christchurch earthquake[edit]

Thanks for catching the improper edits on this article today. I am usually quite thorough with the earthquake articles, but I was trying to sneak in a few edits while at work, and paid the price by working too quickly. Dawnseeker2000 01:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer[edit]

Thanks so much for correcting some of my reversion of vandalism. I was angry with the stupidy of the vandalism and had very little time to restore the lede to previous. Hence my typos!! Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Manu v Steelink[edit]

Thanks for the speedy removal of the deletion request on my article. The offending editor has not submitted even one law article to wikipedia, and has only been a member of wikipedia for 2 years - I have nearly been a member of wikipedia longer than the editor. Anyway, thanks bro.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talkcontribs) 08:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Lundy[edit]

Hi Gadfium, Could you take a look at the talk page for Mark Lundy. Nikkimaria is trying to claim the article is biased but when challenged she is unable to present a single point to back up her allegations. Instead she has responded by adding other tags to the article without any justification. She has a habit of stalking any page I contribute to. Offender9000 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page there looks more productive than many such discussions. Nikkimaria added a list of perceived flaws to the article as html comments on 14 April, and you appear to have addressed those issues. If she is still not satisfied, then she can repeat the process, or list the flaws on the talk page. You might like to ask User:Escape Orbit, who commented on the talk page a month ago and who is still active, to rejoin the discussion. You can also ask at WikiProject Crime and Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand for further input.
The title of the article and talk page should be along the lines of Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, not Mark Lundy, per WP:BLP1E. Background on Lundy's life and his family's life is still relevant to the article. Wikipedia is very mixed on articles dealing with people known only for one event. A case relevant to New Zealand where we went the other way was Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis, and that was probably a mistake.-gadfium 19:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is totally unproductive. Nikkimaria is unwilling to accept that I have addressed any of her concerns and keeps putting the tags back about tone and neutrality. What the page should be called is another issue altogether. David Bain is also known for one event. Offender9000 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gadfium, could you take another look please. Three other editors have now made dozens of edits re neutality. I have accepted most of these - but they still keep putting up the tag claiming it is not neutral. Offender9000 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It still looks to me like other editors are raising valid points on the talk page and making constructive edits to the article (as well as the tiresome back and forth reverts by all of you) and the article is getting better as a result. If the NPOV tag is still there a week after the last improvement to the article, suggest that a neutral party be asked to evaluate it. Nominate an editor (not necessarily an admin) who has had no previous connection with the article, and no significant interaction with you. User:Good Olfactory is a possible such editor.-gadfium 20:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Damien O'Connor[edit]

Yes, Gadfium, I know what I wrote on the Damien O'Connor page was biased. I did that on purpose because what *had* been written was biased and appeared to try to paint this man deliberately in a bad light, but I assume because so many Wikipedia editors share its bias, *that* was okay, and it would take only a few minutes for me to get in trouble.

Now, it has been changed to neutral language. Well done, for not noticing it before.

And don't tell me what was written was not NPOV because it was true (which is still debatable, actually), what I wrote was true as well. NPOV refers to nuances, not only facts. One must present a fully neutral POV.

-- (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:POINT.-gadfium 09:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

David Bain[edit]

Hi Gadfium, there are some serious (vandalistic) deletions happening on David Bain by Pushbutton auto if you want to take a look. Offender9000 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request[edit]

Peer review request for Thomas Ellison
PR icon.png

I'm currently attempting to bring the article Thomas Ellison to Featured Article standard. I've opened a peer review, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas Ellison/archive1—any feedback, however brief, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

- Shudde talk 07:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Te Anau Article[edit]

Hi Gadfium, I am sorry for not following the official protocol. I never meant to delete the images, but I could not add some new ones. I also had issues citing the sources. Could you send me an e-mail to and I will send you the Word document I created with the references. I would like to see something more in dept on Te Anau and I would like to work with you, as you know much more than I do about Wikipedia! Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiordland (talkcontribs) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at Help:Editing and Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing (just get the gist of those pages, you don't need to memorise every word on them), and then start adding content to the article. I, or someone else, will come along within 24 hours and fix any mistakes you make in formatting. Just don't delete the existing content wholesale, and if you end up with a page that looks badly damaged, stop editing until someone fixes it (or reverts your edits). Earlier, you tried to add references but got large red messages in the page saying the references weren't formatted correctly, and in response you removed the references. That makes it more difficult for later edits to format the references, because they have to dig into the page history to find what you removed.
It would probably be a good idea to get a new username, as we don't allow usernames which are names of companies or organisations. See WP:ORGNAME. The simplest thing you can do is just log out, and create a new user account. Alternatively, see Wikipedia:Changing username.-gadfium 05:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will follow your guidance. What is the best way to add images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I find myself duty bound to support Claudia this time...[edit]

... at least in the matter of the edit removed here: [1]. It's as clumsy as the rest of her contributions, and should probably be edited down to simple salient facts, but it's nowhere near as egregious as much of what she writes: it's referenced to a well-known, mainstream writer, and the comparison between Polynesians and Vikings is by no means original to her (cf "Vikings of the Sunrise"). It's not worth reverting its removal, but it's an example of one of her edits which, with some work, could be salvageable. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I hadn't looked to see who had added it, but I'll accept your input on this.-gadfium 09:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I guessed it as Claudia just by the attempt at reference formatting. Have just gone and checked and it was from this edit [2] which is definitely one of her IPs. As I said it wasn't worth reverting the removal but if you're still trying to encourage her to improve her content work, this is an example of one of her better edits. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good old Dave.Lets see maritime seafarers, same time period ,similar problems , same range of navigation resources but the sea is a lot colder.Viking boats were about the same level of seaworthiness . Both cultures produced hard people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This same IP editor is escalating his/her activity at a couple of Maori-related articles, Parihaka and Pai Mārire, with some vigorous edit-warring (including deletion of citations and restoration of an incorrect book name), unsourced speculation and refusal to discuss. I have reported him/her for edit-warring over Pai Mārire and given a 3RR warning at Parihaka, but a third voice on the talk page at either article would be appreciated. BlackCab (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for speaking up at the edit-warring page. The "two to tango" approach is all very well, but either editors step in to stop the excesses of editors who care nothing for quality and accuracy ... or they just stand by and let the pages descend into a swamp of POV and agenda-driven crap as this editor is doing. It's a bit galling to think that taking on the task can lead to a block from editing. I have tried to engage this person in discussion, tried to debate the problems, without success. The other avenues for the future, I suppose, are dispute resolution and request for third-party comment, but that needs active involvement from other editors, and so far that's been in short supply. Anyway, thanks for your comment. BlackCab (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand demographics[edit]

Is this Claudia?[3] It reads like her style (with the unnecessary mentions of cannibalism), but you are probably more familiar than me with her. Assuming it is, what is the current consensus with her edits? I vaguely remember some discussion on the NZ notice board and possibly at ANI. The IP address has many warnings to not add original research so maybe if it hasn't been done yet it should be brought up? AIRcorn (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's Claudia. Her IP address seems pretty stable now. Some of her edits to Demographics have been reverted. I modified some earlier comments, but noted in my edit summary that I wasn't sure they belonged. Feel free to revert further back, or to better integrate her material.
The last discussion about Claudia's edits in general that I'm aware of is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Racially charged editing by IP at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars, and there are further links at User talk:Gadfium/archive71#Agenda pushing by IP user. user:BlackCab has been involved in monitoring her edits since then, and I believe while many of her edits have been reverted, in some cases the articles have unquestionably improved as a result of their monitoring.-gadfium 03:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The reason I didn't revert straight away was because I thought that the article could do with some pre-European information. Anyway BlackCap is onto it so the demographics article should be kept under control at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I have left further notes on the article talk page. It is patently rubbish that doesn't belong. Removing this stuff can't be left to one editor, though, for obvious reasons. That editor thrives on edit-warring and has scant regard for Wikipedia style, conventions or policies and a concerted effort by several editors to remove the worst of his/her excesses is clearly needed. BlackCab (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

IP block[edit]

Hi Gadfium, I reported an IP to WP:AIV and saw this update indicating that you'd blocked the IP for one year. I didn't see any notification on the IP's talk page or contrib history, so I was curious if the block went through. And since the editor also operates from‎ I was wondering if they should receive equivalent blocks, though I have no preference as to duration. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what's up with helperbot, but I didn't block that IP and wasn't aware of the entry at WP:AIV.-gadfium 05:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh! Maybe I'll pester the other editor on the case! Shame on Helperbot!! Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Canavan's disease[edit]

Hi Gadfium,

My brother is the man that turned 30 yrs old and why I wanted to edit the prognosis section of the page. Pls tell me what reference I can send and how. I have birth certificates, pictures, doctors notes etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texashedge17 (talkcontribs)

Is there a newspaper article or similar about your brother turning 30? Even better would be an article in a medical journal saying that survival rates for CD are increasing. We need to have such sources to support articles in Wikipedia, especially medical articles. Is he the first person with Canavan's Disease ever to reach this age? If so, this might be worth mentioning as a record, but makes little difference to the vast majority of people with this condition.-gadfium 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Johnny Barker (entertainer) albums[edit]

You tagged Category:Johnny Barker (entertainer) albums for speedy deletion 11 days ago. Time to do the deed, methinks. Here is some history: The article Johnny Barker (entertainer) was deleted on May 4, 2013 (discussion), and the article on Barker's only album, Lullabies for Macy Rose (album), was speedy deleted on May 8, 2013 (discussion). (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I guess categories for speedy deletion don't get as much attention as articles do.-gadfium 20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

renew ban please[edit] is still vandalizing, please block this url again. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done-gadfium 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) is still vandalizing, please block this url again. With all the disruptive editing from this source a much lengthier block would seem to be in order. Thanks.1archie99 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

174's recent edits are not obviously vandalism. They may be good faith, and most may be correct. Those few which seem clearly incorrect (because they are contradicted elsewhere in the article) may be due to the editor not having a good grasp of English. Their subject of interest - actors and musicians - is not an area I have much knowledge of, and this would therefore be better handled by another admin.
I note that they have received no warnings since my block last month, and many of their recent edits have not been reverted. I suggest you attempt to discuss their edits with them, trying in particular to establish to what extent they understand English, and point out that all edits to biographies of living people must be sourced. They have had many templates dropped on their talk page, but no attempt at communication so far.
If such attempts are ignored, then report them at WP:AIV, which is where the admins who are most active in dealing with vandalism hang out.-gadfium 22:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Congratulations are indeed due. Schwede66 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tikipunga may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


What specifically did you think was inappropriate. LivvyPritchard (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edits appear to be promoting Alan Cox's book, but the publication of this book does not appear to be one of the most notable events in Samoan history.-gadfium 04:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic editor[edit]

Hello Gadfium, I'm currently feeling the pressure at work and I don't have time to deal with a problematic editor. The issue is adding of unsourced content to various pages on arms, for example [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], and this may or may not be a copy violation. I tried to engage in discussion on the user's talk page, but despite two attempts in April to get a response, my posts were simply deleted earlier this month. I thus transferred the deleted discussion items to the talk page of Canterbury Province, so that there's a record why I deleted the material again. There's now a post on my talk page, which is good to see, but no effective discussion has been had yet. I see that fellow editors Moonriddengirl and Stuartyeates have also tried to have discussions with this user. Would you have time to look into this? Schwede66 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the user is claiming that the description of coats of arms and blazons must be written to a precise formula, and there is no room for originality in this (for blazons in particular). Thus, they argue, copyright does not apply. See Flags33's post to Moriori's talk page. I'll ask Moonriddengirl's opinion of this.
Apart from the copyright issue, I don't really have a problem with the addition of such material to articles because it isn't controversial. Flags33 needs to be encouraged to provide sources. Perhaps they are not currently doing so because they fear their material will be tagged as copyvio.-gadfium 20:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I saw your message at MRG’s Talk page and thought I‘d comment here. Although no expert, I would tend to agree that heraldic blazons are not copyrightable; they‘re not unlike chemical formulae in that they describe their subject in a standardized manner, with very little latitude for creativity on the writer’s part. You might want to seek more opinions at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, though. Note that this only applies to the formal description itself, not to any further material discussing the symbolism, history, or whatever.—Odysseus1479 00:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Kaikorai Valley College[edit]

Hello Gadfium.

Could you please take a look at the Kaikorai Valley College page mainly the roll back of the material by Mean as custard on the 29th of May. The information he rolled back from was vastly more up to date than what is now there, If it seems biased could you or someone else re-write it to be more acceptable. We would very much like to have up to date correct information about Kaikorai Valley College. If you would like to get in direct contact with myself or someone higher up in the school could you email me at . Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logosta (talkcontribs) 03:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to the article have been promotional in tone, and have listed numerous people with little claim of notability. I am concerned that recent edits have stated the school roll as being very substantially higher than that reported by the Ministry of Education Te Kete Ipurangi site. I understand the TKI figure will be a little out of date, but it is unusual for a school's roll to change so rapidly. Can you give me a link to a reliable source which gives the current school roll?
I have added a couple of alumni who have Wikipedia articles, and included references which establish their connections with Kaikorai Valley College. I have also updated the list of sister schools and used your prospectus as a reference for the history paragraph.-gadfium 04:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you stop linking in Clayton Wetherston to the Kaikorai Valley page - this has been requested many times and you keep blatantly adding this back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wetherston is clearly notable, and he's got a greater claim to association with the college than most alumni. We do not list only alumni of whom the college approves.-gadfium 08:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Base[edit]

The current title The Base (Shopping Centre) is wrong, at least by WP:LOWERCASE, but I think the standard dab is mall, rather than shopping centre. What are your thoughts? Adabow (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The correct terminology in New Zealand is shopping centre, we do have malls but this is a hybrid. Helamant(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to update the content for this page with current information. I am also trying to add more information to build out the article to better reflect the development. If a COI exists can you suggest a way in which I can have the information updated? The organisation owns all of the information that I was posting. HELP Helamant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You can update the information using your employer's web site as a reference for purely factual, non-controversial information. You would need an independent source for superlative terms eg being the country's largest. However, if you want to use the wording on the web site directly, you must establish your permission to do so by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Even then, you should be restrained in what you copy, as material on Wikipedia must not have a promotional tone.
If there is controversial material, please post to the article talk page rather than the article itself.
As far as the name of the article goes, I would suggest The Base (shopping centre) (note lower case) or The Base Shopping Centre if that is the advertised/legal name. However, getting the name of the article right is not urgent at this point.-gadfium 06:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted content[edit]

Hi Gadfium, I hope you are keeping warm and dry. Pretty lousy down here in Christchurch. The other day, the Category:Members of Canterbury Provincial Council and its sibling categories got moved, and the silly bot didn't take any account of the explanatory text that was written there. I cannot remember whether I just wrote the text for the Canterbury Category, or whether it was done for all of them. Would you mind having a look at some point, and restoring the text? Much appreciated. Schwede66 06:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any explanatory text at the old category, so I am unsure what you are referring to. It may be that the best person you can ask is User:Good Olfactory, who has been involved in the renaming of these cats, and who is a NZ resident.-gadfium 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - I was sure that there was content, but obviously I was in error. I've had a look and now realise that Good Olfactory is an admin, too. If I'd known, I'd have asked him in the first place. Thanks for looking. Schwede66 07:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Block request of Special:Contributions/Bobbi1988[edit]

Please block Special:Contributions/Bobbi1988, with an expiry set of indefinite. Because the user may vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That user hasn't edited for a couple of weeks, and their contributions are mainly to change the genres of songs. I don't have the expertise to decide whether their edits are productive or not, but I note that they have not received a level 3 or 4 warning for their edits. I suggest you attempt to engage them in a discussion about what genres are appropriate on articles, and if necessary ask for guidance at WT:WikiProject Songs.
I also note that you have placed similar block requests for other users on the talk pages of several admins. Please try to work out differences with other editors before running to authorities for help.-gadfium 07:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)