User talk:Mozasaur/archive2

1951 in New Zealand

Paul, act your age. - SimonLyall 12:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[1951 in NZ] It is all true, and verifiable, ironic that that doesnt count here.moza 12:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul there is no irony. The problem is simple. You came to this project and created an article about yourself. It was decided that you were not important enough and it got removed. Since then you have spent over a month moping around, complaining about procedure and pointing out other things where you see the "underdog" getting hit on by the evil cabal that runs this place. With the XXXX in New Zealand articles you are not even trying to improve them but just bitched about how the quality of them is too low with the implication that some of your stuff was more important.

It is not even slightly subtle and obvious to everyone. Now either get over your slight and start contributing positively to the project or go away and do something else with your life. We are here to create and improve an encyclopedia, you appear to be here to make some point about "The only reason Paul Moss' article was deleted was because Wikipedia is run by biased self-appointed dictators".

Now Paul I am not going to discuss this matter further with you, because I've meet plenty of kooks on Usenet and if you are one you just want to keep discussing this forever. If on the other hand you arn't a kook you get over this little post soon and either go away or start contibuting positively to wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know that we can all see where you are coming from and give you a choice of 3 ways you can go forward. - SimonLyall 00:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

umm POV to the max.. like so many other editors here you avoid answering directly, see stuff that isnt there, play in your own way, and then have the arrogance to think that you can direct the show... I am an individual, not a sock puppet to you or any one else. Go and fix your toy pages, and if you wanna discuss reality then thats fine, but making up even more shit to smoke screen the core issues, isnt gonna help. i can see that already, I pretty much worked that out a whilel back, but if you are going to insist on rules then so am I. ffs why do you think that you are above the rules? The implementation of the rules is a dynamic thing and they depend on the given group of editors that appear to enforce them, on a case by case basis. You did create a massive array of pages with clearly FALSE DATA, and u still refuse to even discuss it? JJJ is one of my favorite radio stations but it didnt exist 55 years ago, the year of my birth, get a sense of humour maybe, but get a sense of right vs wrong first perhaps, who really cares in the end? Ii am going to continue to do what i see is ok and that includes having fun. moza 14:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm different, its the difference that counts as far as i can see. My desire for this page is for edits to be top latest in reverse time order down the page, I know thats not preferred by many, but it makes sense to me, and its clearly better ergonomically. I mostly use my laptop and 800 pixels is not enough vertical space without scrolling, and I hate scrolling. well you try it on a laptop pad for 2 years and see if you like it..

RE: Waitangi Park

Howdy, I've had a look and made some changes. For a start, current events is a bit of no-no, it was reading too much like an advert. I've chopped and changed parts, but most of the info is still there. The differences can be be here. --Midnighttonight 07:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, do it your way (I hate scrolling too)

Some of what your first critic said makes sense: trim your top request to a bare minimum after copying the whole of it to the BOTTOM (so that it will be noticed by those (currently in the majority!) who don't notice it at the top or don't care)

Anyway, WELCOME! Thanks for the slightly cryptic and apparently complimentary note about those blessed suburbs. I don't remember tidying anything there lately: been busy with mi: and various Wikicities (see, eg, http://cities.wikicities.com/wiki/Wellington), mostly.

Keep in touch, Moz! Robin Patterson 05:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Idleness, well actually the allegation was 'idle git'

You say you hate scrolling, so why did you clog up the top of this page with your own ramblings - which should be on your user page. You asked someone to archive it for you - you idle git - why could you not archive it? You edited User:Paul Moss when you probably meant to edit his talk page - he will now have to move the contrib. You created Courtenay Place. (with a dot at the end) - why could you not move it to Courtenay Place yourself? You have headed the article with a request to cleanup - you could not even manage to state where Courtenay Place is within the first paragraph of the article. Come on man - pull your finger out. If you want to contribute, do it properly, don't create mess and cheekily ask others to clean it up. Clean it up yourself! -- RHaworth 19:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (with apologies for tone!)

Lets play a game of count the positive statements vs the negative statements. ummm pos - 0, neg - 100%. WOW! thats a balanced and considered response. We have a name downunder for such behaviour by humans of such ethic background; whinging poms. Small-minded-ness is another possible term. There is simply no need to behave in such a manner, even a cursory look at the facts indicates the complete superficiality of such behaviour. If it actually mattered much then the whole ball game would change.moza 21:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Positivity

yeah actually I am Paul Moss. and for the record i can edit anything at anytime.. and as positive as i can be even given the parent-child transactions that fill this place with counter-productive clog... the article was only up for 6 hours.. whats wrong with some patience?.. user and user talk pages are generally for whatever ya want, if its not offensive... name calling can only be less effective for the collective goals.. umm i havent figured out how to archive?.. and umm umm i dont know how to MOVE pages yet? otherwise there would be a bunch of moves.. i truly dont expect ANYONE here to even see the logic in my request let alone comply or even humour me.. my dad was born in Croydon, quite like to know a bit about his environment from 1912 to 1927.. ramble ramble... thanks for the help though.. um whats msdos? for that matter whats a floppy? I spent 18 hours yesterday building the very latest machine using Gigabyte/Intel/Corsair/WesternDigital. Thats LGA775/PCIE/x/320GigSATAII/36GRaptor10Krpm/P4DualCore90micron2MegCache/Raid1/0/ and i did that for nothing, you know friendship, and that included setting up security, pro work environent software, giving more than a 100 gigs of content, and networking and pulling the work of an old clogged machine and setting it all up in the new workspace. It costs about $NZ1800 for the components. And we both work for a living, and often much harder as self employed, compared with others. And then I come home at 2am and create the beginnings of an article. thanks for the excellent reward for effort. And I'm now about to unclog the old machine so that it can be passed down to another family member with disability and in need. there is another world out here, even if its upside down under.... relativity matters. moza 00:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Archive 1

Wellington

Paul, nice you see you doing a few edits again. There are a few problems though, Specifcly you probably don't need a dozen cataegories in each article. Also I don't think you are aware of Category:Wellington urban districts. If possible can you check similar articles in Auckland and try and follow the same structure. BTW, you seem to be marking every edit you do as "minor" which is confusing. - 21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

2nd comment. I've opened up a discussion at the [NZ notice board] on wellington categoriys, please have a look. Also watch the sloppy edits, Adding categories like New Zealand to Wellington is completely wrong. - SimonLyall 01:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Streets, exhibition

Thanks. As far as the streets are concerned, since none of the streets is world famous and all are likely to be the names of streets in other cities, having them at "XXX, Wellington" makes sense for the names. And no, I didn't get to Earth From Above (I don't get to Wgn that often, unfortunately - a shame, since I like the city and would have liked to have seen the exhibition). As to my own exhibition, a lot of the paintings in it are shown on my website here and here, if you're interested. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

an idea

Yes I'm different, its the difference that counts as far as i can see. My desire for this page is for edits to be top latest in reverse time order down the page, I know thats not preferred by many, but it makes sense to me, and its clearly better ergonomically. I mostly use my laptop and 800 pixels is not enough vertical space without scrolling, and I hate scrolling. well you try it on a laptop pad for 2 years and see if you like it.. look, I dont expect it, i merely requested it, either way is clearly ok. consider the sum total of un-necessary mouse movements per day by the editors here, or are you gonna tell me that its key strokes by linux users.. whatever its a huge amount of waste. moza 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nz Musicians

Its not so much i have a problem with the list per se, i just feel that (with the correct catagorisation) the page is redundant thanks to the catagory pages (e.g [Category:New_Zealand_musical_groups]) which will automatically generate such a list, sans red links. It may just be me, but if i found that list with that many red links, i'd be rather annoyed. However i am willing to bow to the way the community views it, hence why i prod'd it rather than a random blanking or other method of ensuring deletion. Hope this clears up my view point, if not feel free to re-reply on my page PhatePunk 13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha cool. I didn't see a lot of contributions to the talk page and so i guess just thought a discussion might not be warrented. Probally poor judgement on my behalf but oh well, is in the past now. PhatePunk 14:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Humor and metrics

I've answered (I hope) both of your posts on my talk page. --Kbh3^rdtalk 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:SalmonellaDub17.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SalmonellaDub17.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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 Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BlanketManOfWellington2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BlanketManOfWellington2006.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ThomasKingObservatoryAtCarter7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ThomasKingObservatoryAtCarter7.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ThomasCookeTelescope.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ThomasCookeTelescope.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SaturnThomasKing18Feb06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SaturnThomasKing18Feb06.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GiffordObservatory04p1024.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GiffordObservatory04p1024.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)