From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments Welcome! 1.1 Reconstruction of T. carnifex 1.2 Tolquhon Castle 1.3 WP:AUK 1.4 gallery.mcmillan.net.nz 1.5 Rimu 1.6 Religious beliefs

[edit] Comments Welcome!

[edit] Reconstruction of T. carnifex

I used the reconstruction by Mauricio Anton in Alan Turner's National Geographic Prehistoric Mammals, [1].--Mr Fink 03:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning on updating the image, possibly make it look more arboreal... Do you have any recommendations or suggestions?--Mr Fink 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For my money the best things to base it on would be either [2] which is a model built by people with access to a reconstructed skeleton, or [3] which I believe is based on a more recently discovered full intact skeleton. I think that the biggest flaw in the current image is the awkward visual foreshortening due to the chosen pose. The more drama the better, to illustrate a story, but to illustrate the features of an animal the dramatic parts should be chosen to expose particular features. Karora 09:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a bigger version of the second link?--Mr Fink 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tolquhon Castle

Thanks for adding the above! You may or may not be aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Castles. Its a bit quiet there at the moment, but we're aiming to improve all of the Scottish Castle articles, and any help would be welcome. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck 09:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thats really lovely! We have a category: Category:Scottish castle articles needing images, if you have shots of any of those they'd be much appreciated. Thanks again, Jonathan Oldenbuck 10:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AUK

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] gallery.mcmillan.net.nz

Hello Karora. I was wondering if you could upload the following pic from your online gallery to the Wikipedia Commons: [4]. This is a photo of the Kānuka tree - (despite your caption there, it is Kānuka, not Mānuka - mānuka is basically a shrub, while kānuka is a tree). I have even filled out the upload form for you:

{{Information

|Description=Kanuka (Māori lanuage: Kānuka) or White Tea Tree, ''[[Kunzea ericoides]]'', endemic to New Zealand, at Wellington Botanic Gardens, Wellington, New Zealand.

|Source=self-made

|Date=April 21, 2007

|Author=[[User:Karora|Karora]]

}}

==Licensing==

{{PD-self}}

[[Category:Uncategorised by Andrew McMillan]]

[[Category:Plants of New Zealand]]

The reason I ask is that the pics on commons [5] and on the species page on this Wikipedia (Kunzea ericoides) are of an Australian species - which as the article points out, are not the same species. Mucho appreciated if its ok by you to do this... Cheers Kahuroa (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here you go... Karora 05:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rimu

Thanks heaps man, great... And while you're out there hunting for a pic of a Tawa tree, you never know, might find a decent one of a Rimu (tree) as well. Kahuroa (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn! I just did a tour around the entire South Island and I saw a fabulous Rimu but didn't stop because I thought there must already be a good one on Wikipedia. I'm sure I can find another one though... Karora 06:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I know there are some good ones out in the Waitakeres ... doesn't mean I can get a decent photo tho, does it Kahuroa (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Took some commons:Dacrydium cupressinum photos at Opua in the Bay of Islands, great improvement IMHO, but the Rimu pic still eludes. Kahuroa (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Got a usable pic of a mature rimu in the Waitakeres. Also got some of Tawa, but not that good - couldn't get a clean shot as they were in dense bush and not that tall. May upload one of those. Kahuroa (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a beautiful rimu! Well done. Karora 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious beliefs

Kia ora Karora, I'm happy that religiosity has gone, but your replacement New Zealand religious beliefs is illogical. People without religious beliefs should not be included under a heading which specifies the column is about religious beliefs. Does not compute. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, people have many beliefs which are not religious (I believe that it will rain tomorrow, but I have no plans to go out and proselytise about that :-), and the table is clearly referring to people's beliefs in relation to religion. "Does not have religious beliefs" is still a valid data point in the table.

Of course many practising Atheists would happily say that they do have a religious belief (i.e. Atheism), but that is a whole other can of worms, and I don't think we want to go there. Really though I think the table looks silly in it's entirety and should probably be removed. It oversimplifies the actual data enormously and doesn't really provide useful commentary to the article - the %age believers by age demographic in the source link is much more interesting, as is the source data about length of stay in NZ for the 'Other' group - and that's if we just chart religious stuff. Karora 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The first words (but one) of your reply say "people have many beliefs which are not religious". Exactly. Precisely my point. The word "religious" in the table should exclude people who do not have a religion. But they are included. Nonetheless, I also agree this meaningless table should be axed. It doesn't help Wiki at all. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, clearly I am dealing with a master word-twister :-) I should have said "Many people have beliefs which are unrelated to religion". Of course having no religious belief is related to religion :-) Karora 06:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Saying that having no religious belief is related to religion is the same as saying that not having a baby is related to having a baby. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Ah, again. Clicked the thingy before saying what I also meant to say -- your comment "Many people have beliefs which are unrelated to religion" is the very reason I believe the word religion should not be in the heading, but beliefs should.

So a table of 'Number of babies born to women' should not include a line for zero? Well, it's at least good that we agree that the table should go, but I think we need to find a more interesting one to replace it with too. Karora 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)