User talk:Gadfium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 current

Please add items to the bottom of this page. I will normally reply on this page to any conversation started here.

Contents

[edit] A block for clearing two warnings? I think NOT!

My removal of two warnings, you say, was reason for my block? I laugh; those were there only because I simply edited the articles of those two people, and they refused to believe that anyone else (since they made the article) could make it better. Perhaps, you should block them, for "spuriously warning" me.EZisthebest 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I blocked you for the repeated copyvio and for putting spurious warnings on another user's talk page. I also noted that you had received previous warnings for your behaviour, although you had removed them from your talk page. I suggest you not laugh at warnings, but instead improve your conduct.-gadfium 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The TRUTH is that you have been blatantly ignoring the facts

placed before you. First, I was unjustly "warned" by James Bond for writing a sentence in his article, which HE PERSONALLY did not approve of, but made perfect sense. Secondly, I did not commit any copyright violations in my Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts article, as I have EXPLICIT PERMISSION to use the passage I used. Then you say I spuriously warned James Bond? I did not; he deleted MY writing for NO reason at all, so I warned him. If you define my warning as spurious, then HE "spuriously" warned me too. By the way, where does it say you cannot blank your talk page? EZisthebest 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts: COPYVIO? I laugh at such an unwarranted accusation!

I was given explicit authorization to use the passage. The website that your friend Bond talked about actually plagarized it from the official site; which I have permission from. Next time get your facts straight before accusing the innocent. Thanks. EZisthebest 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the onus is on you to prove that you have permission. We are only protecting the rights of the copyright holder.-gadfium 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean EZ, but the only warning I have ever given you (more of a good faith general note) was in regard to an edit you made on October 23, 2006 to the XXX: State of the Union article which I removed because It was unsourced. I then reverted your blanking of your own talk page because you removed warnings and comments of other users. I am not aware of any "Copyright violation" warnings coming from me.--James Bond 10:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BillEnglish.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BillEnglish.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Oden 11:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current National Party caucus rankings

Hi, GF. As you may have noted, I've altered details of not only Katherine Rich's cacus ranking, but also those of Don Brash, Bill English, Simon Power, Gerry Brownlee, Richard Worth and Judith Collins to reflect their current placements. It's shopkeeping. If we retained the prior list rankings, then we would confuse any offshore New Zealanders or others interested in current political developments in New Zealand. It's comparable to the US midterm election modifications that needed to be made to several Republican losing candidates due to the Democrat swing there early last month.

FYI, the current rankings are available through Scoop's current Politics menu.

User:Calibanu 13.39, December 4, 2006

[edit] I am sure that what my edition is not spamming at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a chemistry major student, I am confident that the page link I added is good for chemistry students, especially for basic chemisty learner. I have no economic interest with the website owner.Please don't reedit my edition again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chemistrypal (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re: Freda du Faur

When I discovered that pioneering female mountaineer Freda du Faur didn't have an entry of her own, I set out to rectify that oversight, resulting in the piece entitled Freda da Faur. Unfortunately, the original Mount Cook entry misspelt her name (which I rectified), but I've found myself unable to tweak the initial entry. Help!

User: Calibanu 12.44, 05 December, 2006

I don't see why you couldn't have used "Move this page"; only very new users are prevented from using it. Anyway, I've moved it to Freda du Faur. There are still several misspellings of it at Aoraki/Mount Cook, and the new article is sometimes capitalising the "du" when I suspect it should not. I'll leave those for you to clean up, if you don't mind.-gadfium 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locke redirect

Hi, Gadfium. Can you have a look here. What's the deal with surnames when one person is much more notable than others? <<-armon->> 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that -and yes, that's what I meant by "getting an admin". <<-armon->> 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy

As this could be interpreted as a campaign to "colour" the article, which seems to have occurred looking at at this, what do you think about semi-protecting the page? <<-armon->> 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We only semi-protect if a range of anon editors are vandalising a page. In this case, anons or signed-in editors are welcome to add information from Hager's book, so long as it is credited and referenced, and doesn't include copyright violations. You make a good point that Hager's book is less reliable than the Auditor-General's report, but the anon also makes a good point (in the article) that the AG's scope of enquiry was limited.
I think you would be better seeking a compromise position than reverting the anon's edits outright. For example, in my last edit to the article, I put in a {{fact}} tag, and the anon then quoted the relevant pages of Hager's book. You have reverted to a point where the fact tag is there again. At the very least, you should leave the reference, unless you have checked out the book and found those pages are not relevant to the assertions made.-gadfium 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So I took your advice, but now I'm wondering if "National foot soldiers are deleting what is now in the public record, for their own deceitful propaganda purposes." includes you  ;) <<-armon->> 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify; do you think I might be a National foot soldier, or do you think I'm the anon editing the article? I'm not either.
No no no -sorry. I was referring to the absurdity of the accusation made by the anon. It apparently referred to you and me as a Nat "foot-soldiers" (which I assure you I am not, either). <<-armon->>
We should be insulted. At the very least, we should be officers.-gadfium 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What I deleted was a paragraph about National's billboard campaigns, which I believe to be irrelevant to the article. How they funded those billboards is reasonable to discuss, but any discussion of the content of them belongs in the election article, not the funding controversy article.
Fair enough. Made sense to me. <<-armon->>
I see you've used stuff.co.nz urls as references. If you can use nzherald.co.nz articles instead, they'll last longer. Stuff articles get taken down after a few months, but Herald articles stay on the web forever (so far). Just don't use the internal Herald search engine, because articles with "nzherald.co.nz/search" in the url become non-free after about a week. Use google to search the herald site with "site:nzherald.co.nz". Radio New Zealand items time-out within a year too.-gadfium 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Good tip -I'll fix them when I get a chance. <<-armon->> 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This cite doesn't seem to appear anywhere else. Do you think that's a problem? <<-armon->> 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That particular quote doesn't appear in the Herald. A google search for '"very, very prominent friends" "Helen Clark"' gives me the same quote in the Sydney Morning Herald and ABC in Australia. I don't know what their retention times for news stories are, but I just tried an abc.com.au link from April last year and it still worked. You can find old links by looking through April 2005 in Australia and New Zealand and similar pages (changed to the format May 2006 in Oceania this year). -gadfium 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW: here's a heads up <<-armon->> 11:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabites Porter Consultants & Traffic Design Group

Hello Gadfium. Some admin (I'll try to refrain from name-calling, but it is hard) called 'Danny' deleted the two above stubs, which are both NZ traffic planning consultancies (yep, my industry). He gave 'linkless' as the reason for the first one, and called the second article 'non-notable spam'. Note that while I do not know all that much about the first, the second has existed for 30 years, has millions of turnover per annum, 85 employes, and major built projects based on their designs all over NZ. Why would that be 'non-notable spam'.

Of course, thanks to the delete (which he did not even announce!), I cannot show you the articles themselves, nor (except under threat if another instant delete) recreate them. I already placed comments and requests for undeletion on 'Danny's talk page (again, just barely staying polite - but staying so, I guess). Do you have any idea how to approach this? MadMaxDog 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What really gets me about this the the absolute no warning given. Had both of them on my watchlist and was intending to eventually work more on them...

Danny is not just an admin. He works for the Wikimedia Foundation, and is responsible for WP:OFFICE. Under the auspices of the latter, Danny (usually using the account User:Dannyisme) will delete articles as a result of complaints received. Normally such an action is noted as being a WP:OFFICE action. Any admin who undoes such an action is immediately desysopped. This has been known to happen when Danny uses his normal account and fails to note that it is an OFFICE action. As a result, I am not willing to undelete the articles without Danny's explicit consent. If you want the text of the articles, I can email them to you (you'll have to enable an email address for Wikipedia first).
If there was anything in the articles which might have caused a complaint to be made to the Wikimedia Foundation, then I don't believe there is anything you can do. The legal safety of Wikipedia overrides all other considerations. However, I saw nothing which is likely to cause such a complaint in the articles.
I can give you some advice. For Gabites Porter Consultants, it was a single sentence stub, which failed to assert notability. See WP:CORP for guidelines on company notability. There are a great number of companies which have articles on Wikipedia which are never likely to meet WP:CORP standards, but Gabites Porter falls below the average of these. I don't think you have a case here. For Traffic Design Group, because the article was much more substantial, and because it is the largest company in its field in the country, you have some sort of case. The appropriate action is to list it at Deletion Review.
An alternative solution would be to create an article on Traffic and transport consultancies in New Zealand with at least a paragraph on each of the major firms, and then create a redirect from each firm name. Create the initial article in one edit, so it is not simply a recreation of the deleted articles. I have no idea whether this strategy would be ultimately successful, but it should at least be debated at WP:AFD rather than being speedy deleted.-gadfium 08:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
So what is the chip on his (Danny's) shoulder? Why is he still being rude about it, dropping me a pithy line about Wikipedia not being a directory of companies etc and asking me to please give him notice of any other companies he can delete - when I offered to, once having the articles undeleted, to provide additional info establishing notability? MadMaxDog 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
He's probably fed up with people complaining about his deleting of non-notable articles! I take a more generous interpretation of notability of companies than many others do. However, this discussion has in part prompted me to nominate for deletion an article on a minor software product that I have been defending up until now. See my recent contributions if you're curious.-gadfium 05:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW: What about things like Council reports establishing the participation of companies like Gabites or TDG in major NZ projects? Would that satify notability, even if the council reports, minutes etc... were not specifically about the company? MadMaxDog 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CORP for the rules, or ask at Deletion review whether there's anything you can do, or use my suggestion above to cover the industry rather than specific companies. I'm not an expert on the finer points of when something is deleted or kept.-gadfium 05:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the explanations, Gadfium. As an inclusionist, I tend to chafe under some of the restrictions placed on Wikipedia from (as I feel it sometimes) 'on high'. I'll likely recreate the TDG article, but only after some substantial research to establish notability. No wish to have it all wiped again. MadMaxDog 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infobox

Thank you for your past and recent prompt attention to my queries. I'll think about the infobox template for Ellis article. At the moment I feel a little dispirited about bothering, as if being made to jump through pointless hoops. RichardJ Christie 07:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. Would you like me to create the userbox? I can probably do so fairly quickly, because I'm somewhat familiar with the syntax.-gadfium 08:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I see Brian has already done so.-gadfium 08:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It might need fulling out, I foresee that would slight be hard through. Also technically under the fairuse policy FU images are not meant to be in infoboxs Brian | (Talk) 08:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide Potential

"No one reputable has suggested it" should read "no one who understands the potential for genocide has removed it". Gadfium I have studied international relations at a public policy post graudate level at university. Your assertion around removing the genocide considerations by the UN and international community shows your lack of depth in understanding around this issue. I ask you to return what you have removed and remove the blood on your hands should genocide develop in Fiji. Doing nothing is just a complicit in the act as taking part. Your herd mentality of looking for someone else to say it before you think it show lack of causal thinking on your part. Explaining why the international community has not used popular media to make light of the fact has to do with the need for the international community to keep cards close to the chest on this matter. The obvious reason, to me any way, is that genocide is the only reason that the UN can become involved. Nations like New Zealand and Australia can take part, with other nations, to correct the situation if genocide looks like taking place only under a UN mandate. Also other nations in the world are on the UN watch list for genocide, like Iran, and suprise disclosure is an important part of remedy. Again the international community keeps these cards close to the chest for suprise initiation if and when the need may arise to interven. Gadfium you may not have the courage to change your mistake but that is something that the UN will not suffer with under a South Korean Secretary General. South Koreans are noted for taking failure in senior management personally. Unlike your reasons which seem to be herd thinking and ignorantly hiding as opposed to cognitive rational thinking conclusions. Gadfium the genocide potential alert is in your hands and it is my hope that these comments enlighten you and my stern words prompt you to do the right actions under your control. RoddyYoung 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My reason for rebuilding the discussion pages so that the links to verifiable references can be found is that deleters have no such standards applied to the level of deletes that they make. The onus of proof is firmly on those being deleted in the slim hope that someone catches what has been deleted before it goes. gadfium you are now deleting from the discussion page and asking for people to redirect to a central page. Stop this as each page requires its own discussion. However wikipedia still grows and is a good information location for an overview of the topic, so power to the people who want verifiable facts. RoddyYoung 00:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur with your general rationale about deletionsW. Frank 10:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revert to article Nelson Central School

May I compliment you on your Portal: New Zealand and your help with the above article.

However, on 14 December 2006 I propose reverting, unless there is convincing argument to the contrary, your deletions.

The rationale for the revert is outlined on Talk:Nelson Central School so I would appreciate you discussing the proposed revert, if necessary, on the articles discussion page RATHER THAN HERE.
Thanks for your anticipated help and co-operation in this matter.W. Frank 10:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Patrick's College, Wellington

Thanks for your assistance yesterday even though at the time I was rather frustrated - I have substantially rewritten and/or reworded the material and added some other info - actually not that easy a task when the original was also "in my own words". Also attempted to reduced the "hard sell of the material". I wanted to highlight David Kennedy but of course a common name and no current Wiki article except regarding some Camelot Kennedy in the USA of no huge significance but the highlighting would point to him. I guess that means I should make a David Kennedy of my own. Forgot to sign in before the edits so now attributed under the hex code instead of my moniker. As well, I believe that the article should be renamed St Patrick's College, Wellington rather than the current St Patrick's College, Kilbirnie but not sure I know how to do that. Would appreciate your assistance in that. Kiddo54 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gore - Nicknames of New Zealand cities

Can you tell me why you gave me a final warning and deleted my addition to the Gore article? You say it was linked to a vandalised Wiki article. Firstly, why should I be punished for a vandalism to another article I did not write? Guilty by association is not a fair and just rule, but of course, that is for you to decide right? Secondly, and most importantly. Why is the NZ cities nicknames article vandalised? It has entries under Auckland which refer to it as "Dorkland" and "The Queen City" that you did not remove. These are clearly derogatory! How is it vandalism to refer to Gore as the Gay Capital of New Zealand while allowing derogatory nicknames for Auckland? Including one which is about homosexuality. Your arbitrariness is staggering! Gore is known widely and informally as the Gay Capital of New Zealand, that is a fact. If you are to be the ruler of what nickname is or is not vandalism could you atleast have some consistency. Elliott2006 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A google search for "Gay capital of New Zealand" shows no links to Gore other than the Wikipedia article. The Queen City is clearly a fairly well known name for Auckland, again using Google. Dorkland is fairly marginal; there are a large number of Google hits for it, but it is a derogatory term. If someone removed it, I would not reinstate it.
Your behaviour here has been appalling. You have been given several chances already. So far, you have not been punished at all. However, if you continue as you have started, your editing privilege will be removed.-gadfium 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, do you have no life apart from treating grown adults like children? If the future of free speech is in the hands of people like you then I am very much saddened. And for the record, Google is not Wikipedia, I think you're confusing the two sites. If you are only going to place knowledge as acceptable because it stems from a Google article then you are not only lazy but a narrow minded technocrat. But you go right ahead and block this account, then I will make another, and another, and another, and another until you get a life and stop using your self-righteous crusade to inflate your ego by wielding what little power you have like a spoilt little child. Elliott2006 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/d/User_talk%7EGadfium_49fb.html"