User talk:Gadfium/archive32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 current

[edit] Household income

Gadfium. Normally I would agree that this does not belong in the New Zealand. However confusion between GDP per capita and median household income has been a real problem. For the moment I will let it slide. However if problems persist then I will want to clarify things. Badenoch 06:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kakapo

Thanks for restoring my question about Heather's egg - it was a good faith enquiry. StephenBuxton 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rv POV edits - Immigration to NZ

I don't think that explaining what is proposed in the bill is contentious. It took me a lot of reading to get it clear what was being proposed from 400 pages of document. You can read about it in hansard, that this is what is being proposed, more power to immigration officers, and a reduction of appeal rights to one tribunal. This is viewed generally as more efficient. Please revert the rv POV or explain why it is a POV. —F^red ¹1⁴ 20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Immigration to New Zealand says

"By reducing the exisiting appeal rights and giving more power to immigration officers, principles of fairness and natural justice could be more easily overridden."

Clearly, it is POV to say that the bill is intended to override principles of fairness and natural justice. It would be more reasonable to quote someone influential as saying that, with source, but when the bill receives less than a paragraph it may be better just to stick to the facts and leave the interpretation to a separate article on the bill itself.-gadfium 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say or imply that the bill is intended to override certain priniciples. A bill is a proposed set of laws that are being currently debated. I think it is unfair to state the intention of a bill, because that is very subjective. It is more reasonable to offer insight into what could arise from the bill. That was my intention. I intend that others add their take on what might happen if it was passed, and then once it becomes law alter the text to reflect what finally arises from the debating chamber. —F^red ¹1⁴ 08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. You still need to quote someone else as saying it, not give your own interpretation. I'm willing to let the rest of your edit stand.-gadfium 08:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the above to Talk:Immigration to New Zealand where it is more likely to be viewed by subsequent editors of the article. Please continue there if you consider it necessary.-gadfium 08:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops

Just an honest accident. I got TWINKLE installed and for some reason didn't realize that submitting a Query meant editing the page. I figure. Been here for almost 3 years. I have 60,000 edits. About time I made a stupid mistake. :-D Anyway. Thanks for the heads up on the user talk page. I removed the warning. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media Whores

I wish you hadn't deleted that article. I JUST started it. I was busy researching how other book pages were built so I could properly write it up. I don't think it's fair to delete an article on its first day. How can you possibly tell how it's going to be expanded unless you give it a week or so? I understand that you deleted without predjudice, but shouldn't you give work a chance first? Rather disappointed with your quick deletion tactics. Not everyone is an expert at this; we need time to learn and grow and experience. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to this in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Made in DNA (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In the deletion summary, I said "Deleted but without prejudice if recreated and expanded with sources". In other words, you are welcome to recreate it with the expansion you promised, and with some sources e.g. reviews. If you don't have a copy of the original text you wrote and want a copy, I'm happy to give it to you.

In short, we do expect that an article conforms to certain standards right from the start; yours was marginal, in that it had a full paragraph of text but it didn't include any sources or explanation of why the book was notable. You might like to look at Wikipedia:Notability (books) before you put too much more effort in since self-published books sometimes have problems meeting our criteria for inclusion.-gadfium 07:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course you expect an article to conform to certain standards and I agree. My point was, you have to give an article time to meet such standards. I don't believe my article was given more than 48 hours before it was deleted. Are you suggesting that an article should be perfect right off the bat? I hardly think that's fair.

As for notable books, are you suggesting that the time and effort an author puts into a self-published book is not worthy of Wikipedia somehow? As it stands, MEDIA WHORES, which was touted by comic guru Warren Ellis, not once, but TWICE in both his blogs, is one of the world's first books written completely via SMS for an SMS-audience and then compiled into a PDF format and launched, but you didn't know that I'll bet, because you didn't give me time to put that information up.

I'm sorry if I come off strongly about all this, but I have a lot invested, yet I am willing to take the time to make any article Wiki-worthy (ie neutral). It's not that hard, I am, after all, an author, self-published or not, no one can deny me that. All I want, is the chance to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.29.54.177 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that last one was me. I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Made in DNA (talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As this is your own book, then you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest in writing about it, and should consider letting someone else write the article rather than doing so yourself. At least, I suggest you work on the article offline and create it here when it's ready.

An article doesn't have to be perfect when it's first posted, but it does have to explain why the subject is notable; in this case, the guideline for determining notability is Wikipedia:Notability (books). I didn't write that guideline; if you want to ask questions about it, you'll get better answers posting on its talk page. Even a claim to notability, which may fall short of those guidelines, is enough to prevent speedy deletion of the article - the article would then be taken through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process if someone didn't think it met our standards, and that would allow a discussion on the merits of the article. However, what you posted was two sentences, plus some empty headers. These two sentences were

A microfiction e-book by Japan-based expat American author Made in DNA. A compilation of original, single 140-character posts serialized on Twitter.

Had you added what you said above: that it "is one of the world's first books written completely via SMS for an SMS-audience and then compiled into a PDF format and launched", then there is a claim to notability, and had you added links to Warren Ellis' mentions, that would have been a reference to a third-party mention (although blogs are not normally considered reliable sources, Ellis' blogs may be considered more reliable than most). A review in a more conventional media would be even better.-gadfium 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, my point is, which you still have not addressed, you did not give me proper time to update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Made in DNA (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to create a better article than that in the initial edit. You need to establish notability, you need at least one reliable source, and it certainly helps if you are not writing about your own book. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear about this.-gadfium 08:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bimbo edits

Thanks for catching some of my air-headed typos at Tokelau - I really must be more careful with the edit preview button!

On a more serious note, is it appropriate for me to add countries like Japan to the Category:New Zealand-Pacific relations? Alice.S 08:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that country articles don't belong there unless the country is a dependency or associate of New Zealand. An article on New Zealand-Japanese relations might belong, but we don't have such an article. It depends on whether you consider "Pacific" to mean "Pacific Ocean and rim" or "Pacific Islands" - the category states it includes "islands of the Pacific Ocean" which is ambiguous. You could ask User:Grutness who created the category for further clarification.-gadfium 09:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Done!

Thanks for the prompt and useful reply. Alice.S 10:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November?
Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007.
It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Have seen you around (and remembered you recommended 2007 South Pacific Games to the main page a couple of months back) and wondered if you could have a look at Trial of Penenden Heath to see if it's worth a DYK. It needs some work (mainly I need to read the paper sources) but grateful for your thoughts in any case.Dick G 06:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly qualifies for DYK - it's long enough, created in the last five days, well written and sourced. You just have to come up with a hook which is interesting enough - something which will appeal to more than just English historians.

I did notice that you repeat that the exact date is unknown but between 1075 and 1077 in both the lede and in the second to last paragraph. Also, the reason you added [sic] after Penenden heath isn't clear to me - is it that "Heath" isn't capitalised?-gadfium 07:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back on this so soon. Will give some thought to the hook. Am not familiar with the process for DYK so excuse my ignorance on that score. The reason for the [sic] was indeed to cover off the fact that "heath" is not capitalised; overkill perhaps but wanted to avoid it looking like a typo. Oh, and will look at the duplication re dates. Cheers Dick G 08:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pollen8

Yes apologies for what looked like ruthless commercial linking to my web site. I would however still like to be an External link on pages to do with Metrosideros, Griselinia, Ficcus, and other epiphyte related pages due to the ecological and educational angle of my work. Project Crimson, a current external link on these same pages has endorsed my work with Rata in NZ in writing . I would like to re-insert the link but will direct to pages on the Pollen site that relate directly to Rata (or the page topic) for eg http://www.pollen.net.nz/blog/?p=30 and http://www.pollen.net.nz/about-shrine.php . The reason I want to do this is to raise the awareness of and interest in how special these trees are in NZ and the world, showing people what they are capable of and getting them into the public eye, in a truly original and dramatic way. Please let me know what you think, Regards Pollen8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollen8 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Pollen8.-gadfium 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oceania a continent?

Thanks for rescuing me there, Gadfium!

As you're probably aware, I don't like to revert controversial edits, preferring to discuss or place a template instead so the (controversial or erroneous) editor can possibly revert themselves. Alice.S 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WinstonPeters.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WinstonPeters.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Jackaranga 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PeterDunne.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PeterDunne.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PaulAdams NZ.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PaulAdams NZ.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MidgeMarsden.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MidgeMarsden.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these images all have good fair use rationales, but deletion of fair use images is not worth fighting over.-gadfium 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Hitachi Data Systems

Hi, If you see the deletion log of the article, you will see that it has a history of copyright violations. Similarly, the past revisions contain copied and pasted text. Thanks. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I don't think that a comment from me is needed there now. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why bother...

with messy words when deeds leave no doubt. 71.100.15.165 00:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Godard

Hi there: this isn't to start an argument about the change to the tag. Either category will work in the long run, I believe, and what's a week to Wikipedia? I would like to know, just for my information, what I failed to search for that you found. Not one of the titles, or the name, had even a hint of a hint on Google, except by other authors or clearly belonging to other people, as in the Terry Godard who is with Homeland Security, for example. I gather you found something that said this person exists and is famous as written. Could you point me the right way? I'd hate to do this to someone real, or, another someone real. Thanks Bielle (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't a hoax, since it looks like he exists and wrote the play claimed. However, checking the google refs I found, I see the text was identical to [1]. Had I noticed this earlier, I would have speedy deleted as a copyvio. However, the article has been substantially rewritten since. I think technically it should still be deleted as a copyvio, but I'll point this out at the AfD and let someone else make that decision.-gadfium 05:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link especially. I thought I tried all the titles on Google, but perhaps I missed the only one with a hit! So he is real, but also, I think imaginary in some ways. The AfD will tell. Cheers! Bielle (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Text

Hey. I have to apologise for the santa text insertion within the article on John Key. If you read my latest blog post at www.tapedapplase.blogpot.com things will become much clearer. Your swift resoonse to the "vandalism" is deeply reassuring.

Sorry again for any inconveniance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taped Applause (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand portal

Yeah. I was disappointedly that it was not getting many updates. I an setting it up so that there is weekly changes, easy to update and low maintenance. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 19:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Please

Hi, My user name is Franklin.vp in wikipedia. I realized that someone had access to my wiki account. Since I found some inappropriate content uploaded using my account in "my contributions" It is a special page so I can't change what it is said there. I would like to those lines to be erased from "my contributions" page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Franklin.vp

   * 02:48, 26 August 2007 ( hist) (diff) Penis ( →Erection)
   * 02:47, 26 August 2007 ( hist) (diff) Image:Human Eyaculation.jpg (top)
   * 02:43, 26 August 2007 (hist) ( diff) Ambigram (→ Ambigram types)
   * 06:33, 25 August 2007 (hist) ( diff) Penis (→Erection)

I already changed my password. Please Help me!!

I see someone else has already helped you. For anyone else reading this, the problem was resolved by renaming the account so that it was not associated with the user.-gadfium 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)