User talk:Tkara1984
State Services Commission
[edit]From Wikipedia User : Gadfium
Date & Time : 11 Oct 2014 @ 08:05
User's posted message -
"Budget is 1000x that stated, and is positive, not negative. No need for "Vote State Services". Names should not be in all caps."
Message in reply -
"Budget is 1000x that stated, and is positive, not negative"
I'm very much aware of the Budget for the Government of New Zealand - 2014 / 15. I'm only going according to what's officially stated from Treasury no where else.
"and is positive, not negative"
I agree with the deletion of the "negative sign" from the Annual budget field as it pertains to the "Total budget for 2014/15". However it wasn't the intention to enter it as either negative or positive, quite the contrary, simply for spacing purposes with a dash "-".
"No need for "Vote State Services""
As to "Vote State Services", I respectively disagree with there being "No need" for it. I believe that every government component of New Zealand as displayed on Wikipedia, specifically their pages' infobox (if provided) and within it an Annual budget field (again if provided) should have their Vote(s) shown for members of the public to see. The public, particularly the taxpayers of New Zealand who may come onto to this site should deserve to have that minor / major info shown.
"Names should not be in all caps"
Concluding that "Names should not be in all caps", I'm willing to entertain that, however I only reserved it for the infobox and some tables, no where else. Perhaps it won't hurt to capitalise names of people in the infobox and some tables, perhaps its a minor idea to take in.
- The figures on the treasury page are in thousands of dollars. See the tops of the columns. The figure in Wikipedia must either be multiplied by 1,000 or be changed to state that it is in thousands; the former seems easier and more natural, because we are not contrained by narrow column widths as in the treasury table. Please make/restore this change.
- I'm not all that fussed about "Vote State Services" - it just seems rather meaningless to me.
- It is Wikipedia's house style to avoid all caps, even when the source uses them. See MOS:ALLCAPS. However, it doesn't make the article inaccurate, so I'll leave it alone.-gadfium 18:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Message in reply -
I apologise for overlooking the figures as in thousands of dollars from Treasury, a mistake I've corrected, hopefully.
On "Vote State Services" I see where your coming from, I just believe it's a minor detail that people should see, whether it's meaningless or not.
I will comply with this, and have corrected the names of persons' letters from all caps to lower case.
Thanks
Tkara1984 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Great, thanks.-gadfium 01:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Stop deleting sourced information
[edit]You appear to be going through government agencies updating them. I have some issues with the way you're doing this. Ministry for Culture and Heritage as an example: Using https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_for_Culture_and_Heritage&diff=629639052&oldid=615003696 (a) you converted 'The Ministry' to 'MCH' against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Do_not_use_unwarranted_abbreviations; (b) you removed correct, sourced information that was outdated, please don't do this, just changed the tense and include the current state as well (c) Use extraneous honorifics, such as 'Hon Maggie Barry', we only use honorifics where they are part of the persons common name (seeWP:COMMONNAME); you merging of office holders and their posts apparently for stylistic reasons will break both semantic links to wikidata and the HTML web presentation on smaller screens. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From Wikipedia User : Stuartyeates
Date & Time : 14 Oct 2014 @ 23:35
User's posted message -
"You appear to be going through government agencies updating them. I have some issues with the way you're doing this. Ministry for Culture and Heritage as an example: Using https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_for_Culture_and_Heritage&diff=629639052&oldid=615003696 (a) you converted 'The Ministry' to 'MCH' against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Do_not_use_unwarranted_abbreviations; (b) you removed correct, sourced information that was outdated, please don't do this, just changed the tense and include the current state as well (c) Use extraneous honorifics, such as 'Hon Maggie Barry', we only use honorifics where they are part of the persons common name (seeWP:COMMONNAME); you merging of office holders and their posts apparently for stylistic reasons will break both semantic links to wikidata and the HTML web presentation on smaller screens."
Message in reply -
"You appear to be going through government agencies updating them".
Yes, I have set a self-goal of updating every Wikipedia page about New Zealand's public service and non-public service departments, and perhaps other government agencies as well. I believe it's necessary to do so. I've noticed a lot of pages contain out-of-date and/or expired info that's been left as is, without change and updating, in my view that's unnecessary and unacceptable.
"I have some issues with the way you're doing this. Ministry for Culture and Heritage as an example: Using https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_for_Culture_and_Heritage&diff=629639052&oldid=615003696 ...
--...(a) you converted 'The Ministry' to 'MCH' against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Do_not_use_unwarranted_abbreviations
This has been changed back to 'ministry' from 'MCH'. However it was more about simplicity. ...
--...(b) you removed correct, sourced information that was outdated, please don't do this, just changed the tense and include the current state as well
If your referring to a press release page speaking about the fmr PM Helen Clark than off course that's outdated because nothing of relevance is displayed - http://www.mch.govt.nz/oldnews.html. I have no questions about the "correct, sourced information", I know it to be so. There is no sense at keeping links to pages available if you aren't able to access them, or if you're able to and nothing of relevance is displayed. In regards to the tense and current state I believe I have. ...
--...(c) Use extraneous honorifics, such as 'Hon Maggie Barry', we only use honorifics where they are part of the persons common name (seeWP:COMMONNAME)"
I have corrected this issue.
"you merging of office holders and their posts apparently for stylistic reasons will break both semantic links to wikidata and the HTML web presentation on smaller screens".
Nothing wrong with style and might I add simplicity. However I don't believe it will break both of those links, but will see.
Thanks
--Tkara1984 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- The broken link is a trivial fix looking at the date it was adding and archive.org gives https://web.archive.org/web/20100522013403/http://mch.govt.nz/oldnews.html The documentation for the infobox is at Template:Infobox_government_agency. The core of that issue is that infobox fields (as opposed to body text) are machine-readable data and putting information in the wring fields is going to lead to problems that aren't visible through the main HTML interface. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Tkara1984. Thanks for your work to update information. I would just like to comment on StuartYeates points. I don't want to appear too critical, but I take issue with some of the things you are doing.
- I would agree in terms of deleting information. Just because the URL is broken doesn't mean it's necessary to remove it. I think it would be better to update the information in the text (ie add former Prime Minister or whatever) or add the {{dead link}} template.
- You have been systematically changing {{URL|www.mfe.govt.nz}} to [http://www.mfe.govt.nz mfe.govt.nz] There's no need to change the format of the links - you can just remove the www in the URL template -> {{URL|mfe.govt.nz}}
- I agree with StuartYeates about how you've been putting both the name and the title in the same parameter for all the Ministers. The different fields are there for a reason, and just because you think it might look better to have a hyphen on a new line I don't think is sufficient reason to disrupt the template. It's better to have the right information in the right field wherever possible!
Thanks! Ballofstring (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Message in reply -
"Thanks for your work to update information."
I appreciate the comment despite some fairly "critical" remarks about what I'm attempting to do or perhaps otherwise shouldn't do, not too sure really to be quite honest with you.
"I would agree in terms of deleting information. Just because the URL is broken doesn't mean it's necessary to remove it".
Perhaps the idea of looking at removing broken URLs could be explored.
"I think it would be better to update the information in the text (ie add former Prime Minister or whatever) or add the [dead link] template".
Could be better to do so, will see off course.
"You have been systematically changing www
Minor mistake will learn next time.
"I agree with StuartYeates about how you've been putting both the name and the title in the same parameter for all the Ministers. The different fields are there for a reason"
On this point, I respectively disagree with that, and for this point only - to put the name and the title in those "separate" fields because they publicly appear to be on the same line / in the same field instead of actual fields for the "name" and "title", clearly and separately shown. I have no issues with the other fields.
"The different fields are there for a reason, and just because you think it might look better to have a hyphen on a new line I don't think is sufficient reason to disrupt the template".
On "The different fields" I refer to my comments above. Nothing wrong with a hyphen to make it "look better" but that wasn't my intention, I was trying to establish a clear and separate public display between the name and title, not disrupting the template at all!
"It's better to have the right information in the right field wherever possible"!
Again I agree with that, except for the "name" and "title" fields, as I pointed out above.
Thanks
--Tkara1984 (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ministry of Education (New Zealand) 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.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | Hon Hekia Parata || Lead Minister (Ministry of Education<br />- Minister of Education ||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Message in reply -
Hello to you, BracketBot thanks for that, I don't believe the edit broke the syntax, will check though, and make any needed edits or corrections.
Again thanks, Tkara1984 (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Tkara1984. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)