User talk:Gadfium/archive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sir Richard Wild 2 Cheers 3 thanks 4 Doonegate warning 5 Wikinews Main Page Deletion 6 John Fahy 7 Portal 8 Regrading @Moving Conversations@ 9 Regarding '...diff...' 10 lookie lookie! 11 portal:browse nbsp's 12 Auckland meetup 13 Userpage Vandalism 14 Peter Ellis 15 New Zealand Photo Gallery (paul moss) 16 Stephen J Ceci 17 Peter Ellis copyright 18 Years In New Zealand 19 Thank You 20 Mork on 500th Language Pool

[edit] Sir Richard Wild

Thanks for adding the links, I didn't have time to do that last night. I'm currently researching information on Sir Richards' son, John Wild J., who is a judge for the High Court --Lholden 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

Cheers for fixing [1] and [2]. I seem to forget about that preview button a bit too much!!! Cheers. --Midnighttonight 08:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

...for the congrats. I hope there are plenty more NZ featured articles from NZ too - maybe if this new collaboration idea being mentioned at the NZ Wikipedian's notice board gets up and running we can get a few more there! Grutness...wha? 02:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doonegate warning

Right, so 3RR doesn't apply to User:Moriori whose edits are always somehow "minor"? Armon 14:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews Main Page Deletion

I'm reading through the peak of that deletion request, and I've noticed you said that you "lost all respect for Wikinews." Don't worry about it, that Main Page deletion request wasn't serious; it was an April Fool's prank. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I do realise that. Wikinews should be a serious news service, even on 1 April. I don't object to people having fun, but leaving such a message on the front page shows a lack of professionalism.-gadfium 21:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Fahy

Thanks for catching the fact that the John Fahy article had been vandalised, and wasn't just nonsense. I was on a roll with some cleanup and somehow overlooked that change. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

Yes, well, when i worte that it was 18:00 and i hadn't done my homework, and in my highschool i get a considerably big amount of it every day, and then i had to eat and sleep. but i didn't mean im having a three-week "vacation". I apologyze if i misexpressed. Argentino 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regrading @Moving Conversations@

Huh? What's a diff mechanism?

68.148.165.213 09:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding '...diff...'

Oh, thanks for that heads up & for giving me a personal message; I really appreciate it:-D

68.148.165.213 09:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lookie lookie!

I can't tell you now, but look at my new post. --Calvinsupergenius 15:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] portal:browse nbsp's

Oh! d'oh. thanks ;) --Quiddity 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auckland meetup

How about this: Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage Vandalism

Cheers for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. It's wasn't anything malicious; only my little brother doing what little brothers do. Thanks again. Blarneytherinosaur 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Ellis

Hi Gadfium I still don't know how to "talk" to you by creating a new topic so have to barge in on others, in this case "userpage vandalism"

I have long-standing interest in Ellis case, based solely on an interest in fairness and judicial accountability, that in turn led to an interest in social panics. I think the article so far is well researched. I am co-owner of yahoo Peter Ellis discussion group and was alerted to the article by another member.

R.christie

[edit] New Zealand Photo Gallery (paul moss)

thanks Gadfium, you looked just as i was adding a whole new batch about the west coast beaches Muriwai and Bethels, and now i'm uploading Piha. My process is to throw them in there and edit the syntax later, the gallery being sub-ordinate to the articles of course. So for short periods they are jumbled. Its just finding a working style of editing, to minimise moving between pages. Apart from that I think its my main contribution, illustration, as a lot of kiwi history i want to write about is quite hard to verify to wiki standard. I'm also quite happy to give much of my historic images to wiki, and I'm happy to take requests for specific purposes. moza 21:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen J Ceci

Re Ellis article I accept your edit to downgrade Ceci to a mere "expert" rather than "world renowned" but venture that as you research the case further you will certainly have to conclude that he is without doubt recognised (within academic psychological circles at least) as the world's pre-eminent authority in the field of childhood sexual abuse disclosure and interviewing techniques. This article by Michael Corballis may be of interest, http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2003/2003-0906_Listener_MemoryAndTheLaw.htm

Cheers and thanks for the tips for beginners. Richard 06:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Ellis copyright

Yeah, I take your point about the copyright. I've put in a few bits from some of the articles though as extracts. That little shouldn't be problematic? If they are, then could you trim it down rather than remove it all? Cheers, --Midnighttonight 09:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Years In New Zealand

Thanks for your balanced response, yes I will particapate in such a collaboration. I could simply sit here for a while and remove the Television in New Zealand pieces for the 59 odd articles (up to 1959 when we got TV), and also remove the Triple JJJ pieces from the 70 odd articles up to whenever JJJ was created in oz. I am just concerned that the author that created them is VERY quick to pounce on any thing I do and lots of other articles, while that YINZ sequence has existed for nearly 2 months, with those bits almost untouched. I simply got a bad taste from my initial attempts to bring it to an aware state; I have been severely abused here, and although some of it is clearly my own fault for pushing the boundaries, a lot was just from being new and not understanding the complexities. For instance placing my name and birth to 1951 was a highly tongue in cheek move to see if those pages were being monitored after someone told him to. I was trying to lighten it all up a bit and i said so. But that backfired in my face. Even though it was verifiable fact, and true, it was described as vandalism, even though the 60 to 70 articles with substantial non-fact and non-verfiable components existed for weeks then, and still exist weeks later. He has removed some specific pieces from specific pages that i nominated, after a delay, but left the rest. I found that ironic and still do. A further irony is that i would normally be happy to pitch in and fix that series, it IS about NZ after all.. If i had done that, it would have removed the very behaviour that I am trying to understand, so I brought it to the authors attention on several occassions. How do i get to understand this wiki beast, if there are such disparate practices? There seems to be many layers of comprehension and behaviour, and I still find that fascinating, its a mirror of life. I acknowledge that since i pointed out those articles contained much garbage that author has backed off a lot, and left me alone more. (I know his intentions are ok and that he is doing what he belives is right). But his contribution list and interactions with other editors is of interest, and seems to support the views of the media, i find that a cause for concern. I dont think he is much different from the core of passionate editors that must keep wiki clean at all costs, (clean from the 'enemy' but do whatever you want yourself). I hardly know, there is insufficient balanced discussion to determine that. I am quite intrigued at the deletionist vs inclusionist thing. The bottom line is that humans are creative and simply find new ways to cope, to get aroud these obstacles, to achieve their individual objectives, and much of the squabble becomes a waste of time and energy. I am anti-vandal too, for some reason they target Dugong , and theres the endless taranaki vs egmont thing. and i get snyde references back to other articles that i have created/worked on in some of the vandalism, (courtenays butt stinks) appeared somewhere. My thinking is that when newbies are slammed like I was, they will mostly just go away and the status quo will remain, so lots of the powerful and passionate allies to wiki will be lost in that first set of transactions. I came here thinking that it was the brave new world where i could be friends with everyone!. It seems to be much calmer recently and maybe thats cause i'm not actively looking so much, but its likely editors are bored with this kind of verbose response. I'm focussed on building good articles. Some of those West Coast beach articles have been sitting for years with little editing. How does that truth sit with all this other energy wasting and destructive deleting and abuse? Its simply the attraction of excitement vs boredom, and its all done in the name of wiki policy. Took me a while to figure that out.moza 03:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for your help.Oneophile 17:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mork on 500th Language Pool

Hi there, I've noticed you removed my entry of "Mork" as an advertisement. It wasn't my intent to advertise the auction; I just linked to it as a reference. Just to let you know, I restored my entry of "Mork", this time without the link (and an explanation in place). —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 01:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It just didn't appear to be a language, but I'll let it be.-gadfium 01:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)