Kaiwhakahaere

/Archive 2

Helen Clark tag

Hi, I'm sorry if my replacing that tag has caused you stress. In hindsight I probably should have guessed that you had just missed the tagger's post on the talk page, and dropped you a note here instead. I wasn't aware of the tagger's history on that page either. I agree they don't seem unbiased, and I understand that you might be frustrated with them. Even so, though, I still think we're better off being seen to deal with their complaints as far as we can before removing the tag. -- Avenue (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't agree. "Their complaints" are not worth a cap full of cold water if they don't fully explain their concerns, or make even a token effort to rectify them. It is not in the interests of Wiki for a person with a bias to slam a POV tag on an article and then run for the hills. I don't feel the slightest bit obliged to try to fix something claimed by such hit and run experts which is not totally obvious to others. So, Helen Clark joins the thousands of thousands of Wiki articles with tags that the taggers never had any intention of trying to fix. Fuck them. It is against all of my journalistic instincts, but I can't see the point of bothering to rectify such crap again. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It was my mistake to forget to login before editing. I do apologies for that. However, I am not going to accept that just because I am new that my placing of the neutrality tag was unnecessary. The section on the prime minister does give the feeling of an advertisement. It highlights "successes" rather than events and focuses on her party's policy rather than the prime minister herself. As far as I have read, this issue has not been resolved as you have claimed, and I have not seen any previous posts by yourself either. In any case, please post your thoughts so we can get this issue sorted quickly. Thanks for your concerns. Wipkipkedia (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverts on Phar Lap

Me and Ernest have been having a discussion on his talk page regarding what to do about the issue thats arisen with that sentence you just reverted. We hadn't agreed on anything, but I found his lastest edit kind of a step in the right direction, and am a little worried that your reverts will start things up again. Not that it matters really, but on top of that he decided to leave New Zealand first (I don't know why as thats really what he'd been debating about) but i'm open to the way in which it is worded properly as the anon editor did have a point that the sentence didn't make sense, but however Ernest does make a good argument that he probably was more important in Australia (although this could be argued that since New Zealand wasn't as established as Australia it is harder to find sources, but thats just going to cause more problems that we cant solve). I don't know really what to do, but you're welcome to chime in on his talk page with us or on the talk page of the article about it. Matty (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Discussions should not be on his talk page, your talk page, or my talk page. Try the article talk page. Something to ruminate on while you are on your way there, consider whether "but" or "and" is less POV? Read his intro to see the context. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, don't collaborate. Just don't start an edit war then. Matty (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What a curious response. I say discussion should be in the article talk space, not editors' talk pages, and you somehow decide I won't collaborate. Why would discussion among editors on an article talk page not be collaboration? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are other articles which are getting "Australized" too. Australians seem to forget that Phar Lap was American owned and won his biggest race in Mexico. The fact that he was New Zealand bred should go first, as nearly all other horse articles specify where they are bred first. Wallie (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

I was planning on adding a new section to the Akshardham Delhi article. But before I add it, I need it revised. If you could, please visit my sandbox and edit the akshardham section on the development. It would be greatly appreciated World (talk • contributions) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello World. (Always wanted to say that). The first four paragraphs on your sandbox, tweaked a bit, would make a nice addition. But the remainder on the page is about Pramukh Swami Maharaj and already exists in his own article, so there is no need for duplication. Do you want me to tidy the first four pars on your sandbox? Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Phar Lap

Thanks for your amendments. There are a few Australian/New Zealand articles with "issues". They should be balanced. There are some patriots getting involved unfortunately. I looked at the Sir Tristram article, and you could have believed he had never been outside Australia! With Phar Lap, had he been Australian owned, that may tilt the balance towards Australia - but he wasn't. The fact that Australians are so interested in him gives them some rights for sure. Wallie (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony Veitch

Thanks for your copy-editing of Tony Veitch. I've spent some time trying to get material not related to the court case for balance and my copy editing isn't the best. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Can't find it

Hi. The reason that the letters "DFC" and "DFM" are included after Antoni Glowacki's name is becasue he is a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and Distinguished Flying Medal (DFM), both of which carry the aforementioned letters as postnominals. The Polish honours he was decorated with do not carry postnominals, which is why I removed the abbreviated form of the decorations from his name. I hope this helps clarify things. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. The only honours I know that do use postnominals are those of the British Empire and Commonwealth nations, which have postnominals officially authorised by their respective governments to be conferred on the recipients of the decorations. I don't think any other nations outside of the British/Commowealth do confer postnominals on recipients of honours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Britain

Good to see you there too. Keep up the good work. :) Wallie (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello, Kaiwhakahaere. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding you. - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#wiki-stalker_User:Kaiwhakahaere.. Thank you.--Michael (Talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While not exactly stalking, there was no need for such snide comments . As EdGl already mentioned, best to put this to rest. Thanks. David D. (Talk) 05:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tks David. I left an innocuous note on Michael's page. Did you see his response below? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just drop this. David D. (Talk) 12:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Let's just drop this. Please. --Michael (Talk) 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tks for advising me

You think you had something so important to say, that you felt the urge to leave a comment on my talk page. There are other ways to get people to listen to you than behaving like a little, dirty troll. You are an individual who enjoys creating conflict on the internet. You create and fuel arguments which upset other members of the online community. hopefully, you will get bored and leave. --Michael (Talk) 08:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, something else to archive. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically calling someone a "dirty troll" is inappropriate and uncivil... but I wouldn't feed this one anymore. I'm being openly watched by this user who accused you of stalking, why?- I do not know. If anyone requires more scrutiny it is Michael.Synchronism (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

(block template removed)

Please unblock this user, they didn't make that personal attack on AN, and there is no evidence of sockpuppetry.Synchronism (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and owe this user a huge apology. Account unblocked with full explanation and IP block removed. Kai, there was someone who was impersonating you (they used a signature that linked to your account and had a very similar name). My mistake; I should be more careful. Let me know if you have any further questions. Tan | 39 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No probs. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Courtesy call

Please leave me alone. Don’t send me messages, Thanks. --Michael (Talk) 00:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

You appear to have an imitator

I see that Kaiwhakahre (as opposed to Kaiwhaka haere) has placed a speedy deletion tag on one of your user subpages requesting deletion as if you were the requesting user. I've removed the tag; if this was an attempt to impersonate you please report it at WP:AIV for immediate action or give me a shout on my talkpage. Wikipedia:UN#Inappropriate_usernames Impersonation is grounds for an immediate username block per WP policy on the impersonating user. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now blocked them as the account appears to be used only for vandalism. Since your username is prone to being mis-spelled can I suggest you set up some "dead" doppelgänger accounts to pre-empt further impersonations?Tonywalton ^Talk 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, second imposter in a few days. But what now? If I voice my suspicions I risk being "blocked for disruption" according to User:Mr.Z-man. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)(moved here from Tonwyalton for continuity)

One thing, as I say, think up a bunch of doppelgängers — plausible mis-spellings of your username. For instance, I've pre-empted User:Tonwyalton. Create them as accounts and flag them on their userpages as {{doppelganger}}. Then never use them. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA observation

Thank you, I understand now. Your comment has me making a mental note to stop and fully understand a comment, before I respond to what I THINK that someone else is stating. --Preceding unsigned comment 21:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4

Hi, you've double-voted in this RFA; I suspect you didn't mean the "neutral" vote to be a vote, so that comment needs to go in another section, or in reply to someone else's vote. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dank, I didn't vote Neutral, I left a comment on someone else's neutral vote. The comment still applies where I made it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Belay that, I left a comment, and I placed it directly beneath the existing comment. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fine now, thanks. Last night, it was showing as a numbered vote in the neutral section. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

I was just wondering, why are you looking at my User contributions every day. Are you looking for something. You might want to read WP:HOUNDING. O yea.. following another user around could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. You can keep on looking at my contributions. I don’t care if your following me around. I have nothing to hide. I just wanted to let you know that it keeps a log.

• Have a great day. --Michael (Talk) 22:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Maximum Break

Re your weird message on my Talk page. The title of the article is "Maximum Break". In snooker, this is 147, also known as "a maximum". The highest possible break is 155. The two are not the same, hence it's useful to add the bit about "after a foul", as per that article's Talk page. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about! But have a stiff drink and take a chill pill, there's a good chap (or lady)! Regards, bigpad (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the page Maximum break appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to take. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bets, I appreciate it when someone else edits an article to prove my point for me. I am referring to your edit to the article which totally reflects what I was advocating, that after the free ball he did not go through the reds and colours to clear the table. Impossible, of course, because after his free ball he had to hit a colour, not a red. Explaining the sequence of his shots is also a helpful improvement. All's well that ends well.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk

FWIW, I think your assessment was spot on. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Might you be able to lend a hand with the discussion at the talk page of Betty Logan (talk)? I see she reverted you as well. And looking back at her talk page discussion this is a pattern. Everything is now even sourced, and she continues to delete. Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Braun

Tx for your help, but just looking at the first edit of the first tweak, I'm puzzled. Why would you alter it from an American date order? I didn't think that was the way that Americans dates were to be listed ... though the way it was allowed those who like day before month to see it that way, while others would see it their preferred way. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I unlinked the dates which has become Wiki convention - see Babe Ruth or Barack Obama eg. It is problematic but d/m/y (not wikilinked) seems to becoming the norm wikiwide. It's my preference too, but not rigidly so. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. A few points. First, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says in part: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month." That would seem to militate in favor of not changing the order as you have.

Furthermore, it goes on to say "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." That, also, would seem to militate against your revision.

However, sensitive to the fact that month day autoformatting allows people to both see who else shares the ballplayer's birthday, and the birtday is germane, plus it allows people to see the date in the form that they prefer to see dates, I thought that autoformatting made sense here. Note that there has been a lot of back and forth on the issue of autoformatting for the sake of autoformatting alone, and the matter is currently being reviewed by the Arbitration Committee, during which time everyone has been asked to stop mass de-linking.

Another issue -- Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) also clearly bolds nicknames, yet I see in your second edit you un-bolded it ... was wondering what your thinking might be there.

Also in your third edit (all I have time to address at the moment), you inverted the points from the order that makes most sense, I believe. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Last point first:-

Compare (1) how it was and (2) what I changed it to.

1 "He won the National League Rookie of the Year Award in 2007, during which he led the National League in slugging percentage".

2 "He led the National League in slugging percentage in 2007 when he was Rookie of the Year".

Please don't tell me my version does not flow better, and does not eliminate jarring repetition (National League twice in only 16 words). What do you mean by "you inverted the points from the order that makes most sense"? Why is it more sensible to put rookie ahead of best slugger in the league? Remember, this article is for the world, not just baseball fans.

Regarding dates, as I mentioned above, I unlinked. To extrapolate, I didn't consciously say to myself "Kaiwhakahaere, you must use d/m/y". It was automatic because that's the style I have been involved with for years, but as I already stated, I am not rigid on the point and if the convention for US centric articles is m/d/,/y, then ok. A comment tho, presentation on the page is important too. Which of the following is less cluttered, or flows better to the eye -- 30 May 2009 or May 30, 2009? Why deliberately place two numbers in juxtaposition when they can easily be separated by a word? Regarding page presentation, I think too much bold is unappealing but if the MOS says nicknames should be bold too, then that's OK too. I'll revert it, and the date to m/d/,/y. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and tx, but I agree with epee (mostly). The award-first approach is better because in my view that is what is more notable. It's sort of like saying "Obama became President, during a year in which he won x primaries as well as the election" I think it's more logical to have the more notable of the two points come first. Not crucial perhaps where chronology suggests a different approach, but makes sense here. Regarding dates (and this may surprise you), to Americans "30 May 2009" seems jarring and unnatural, while "May 30, 2009" appears normal. No doubt, that is what behind the rule. If you were to restore the linking of May 30, however, it would appear to each person in the manner they view as most natural.--Ethelh (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

List of cryptids: I'm reverting your edits because we are supossed to list hoaxes. See the heading of the article, where it says: "Hoax – cryptids once thought to be real, but for which it has been conclusively proven that they were a hoax". Regards. --Againme (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They do not fit he definition of cryptids. We are not "supposed" to list hoaxes as cryptids at all. They were never suspected of being animals of any kind, extant or extinct. They were and are hoaxes, pure and simple. I have reverted. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You have been mentioned in a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael93555. If you have additional evidence, please add it to the case. Thank you. Shubinator (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Contact arbcom

You have failed to respond to my queries. You need to contact myself or arbom immediately. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Check your inboxes. Send me one. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I abandoned my g-mail a few weeks ago when a now banned user was creating bogus accounts and harassing me to cause trouble for me, which ended up up with me being banned here. I should have removed it from my preferences, which I will do right now. If you like, I will create a new e-mail addy and contact you with that, on condition it remains confidential because I am sick of idiots who are here to disrupt wiki rather than help build it. But, how do I e-mail you without disclosing my new address in my preferences, and more to the point, without knowing what your address is? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Create a new gmail account and update your wiki preferences with it. Only you and people you send wikimail to will know it, people will not be able to look it up on their own. Then go to my user or user talk page, click on the "email this user" link on the left side of the screen. I'll get the email. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Case closed. No action being taken. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tweaks

I hope to have User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association go live within 48 hours. All assistance and tweaks are very welcome. Thank you.

Moved this from Betty Logan talk page to here to preserve full conversation

Consensus, and your version of it

I noted your comment above that "editing is done through consensus, and if you want to add information to an article, the onus is on you obtain a consensus." That will be the day. No-one needs consensus to add information to an article (provided it is relevant, neutral and sourced). Can you better explain what you mean? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone and anyone needs a consensus to edit Wikipedia, because whether something is relevant and sourced is a viewpoint. If people disagree with what you are trying to add to an article on the grounds that it is not relevant or properly sourced then there is no consensus for adding the material. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Everyone and anyone does not need a consensus to edit Wikipedia, so please don't lecture editors with misinformation. As you mightn't have read Wikipedia:Be bold, here's an excerpt -- "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts......". Got that? Add facts. No-one needs your permission or my permission to add facts. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing is done by consensus on Wikipedia. Yes anyone can edit, but ultimately only within consensus. I am sorry if you feel like I am lecturing you but you are clearly uninformed. I suggest you read up on editing policy: WP:CON. If you cannot agree on what is to be added then it doesn't get added since there is no consensus to include the information: "Consensus is one of a range of policies regarding how editors work with each other, and part of the fourth pillar of the Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural outcome of wiki-editing. Someone makes a change to a page, then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages." If you can't agree about adding information then you make a request for independent advice, you don't keep adding disputed content and edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So you couldn't defend your position, but went off on a tangent to fudge the issue. We see that a lot when people are backed into a corner. Let me remind you of what you said to another editor, which I took issue with. You said ".....if you want to add information to an article, the onus is on you (to) obtain a consensus." That is hogwash. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That was in the context of one editor trying to add "challenged" material to an article so I warned him. If it is not challenged then the consensus is to retain the material. If it is challenged then there is no consensus to include the material. Either way, every single edit is subject to consensus. I hope this has helped clarify matters for you. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

More hogwash. You told an editor he needed consensus before adding information to an article. That is anathema to the basic principles of Wikipedia, and it is noticeable you will not address that point. Tell you what, how about I watchlist your edits for a while and bring to your attention any other misinformation you might post? That could help clarify matters for you, and would be in the interests of Wiki too. OK? Incidentally, why did you make this unhelpful edit? You changed the link so that English went to the disambiguation page instead of English language it was intended to go to. You didn't give an edit summary, so you can clarify this matter as well. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Trans4mers was a vandal who vandalised every article he ever edited. He didn't have a consensus to do that so I had him banned. His edit made "English" link to the disambiguation page rather than the English langauge page and then a wikibot came along and relinked it to the English language page. So to revert the edits of Trans4mers I had to revert the actions of the bot. You will actually see my first revert was a mass revert but I noticed that removed pertinant information, so I had go through each edit individually to make sure the legitimate information that was added later was not removed. If you bothered to check my last edit you will see that the link you are whining about is back to its natural state. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You really should check to ensure that what you are doing is helpful, before you save your edits. What you did was change a link from its legitimate target to a disamb page, creating a redirect. Nothing else in the article was changed, so the motivation for your edit is a mystery. Incidentally, you say the banned person didn't have consensus for his vandalising. What is the # of the "Betty Logan Wikirule" which says people need consensus before they can vandalise articles? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary

Just to let you know, your addition here [1] was unnecessary as the section already mentioned "It is questionable whether any of the above (with the exception of New­town­mount­kennedy) are properly considered English words, being derived from Maori, Nipmuck, Welsh, Aboriginal and Irish words respectively, or being a conjunction of individual English words" and that applied to basically every example given in the placenames section Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. The section is titled "Place names", not "English words". Therefore, I will remove the irrelevant bit containing it "is questionable whether any of the above are properly considered English words". Incidentally, Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu is not "derived from Maori", it is Māori. The edit will also remove the unreferenced POV, namely "It is questionable whether any of.....". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hold the bus -- I see User:DavidWBrooks has beaten me to it. Job's right. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite error in Blenheim, New Zealand

Hi. The edit you repeated in Blenheim, New Zealand has again caused a cite error. Check the bold red error message in the references section. Your earlier edit was reversed to correct this error, as noted in the edit summary. If you really want the article to mention population in the method you wish, please find a way of doing this without causing an error message. Thank you. --Pakaraki (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

420 (Dinghy)

Hi Kaiwhakahaere, thanks for your note, i do appreciate it. The change was made (particularly because I am very knowledgable on the 420 Class, and it seems to be completely random. This is mainly because it wasn't referenced, and it's not a 'notable point' for the class. It is a one-off situation where the 420 wasn't chosen as a youth class in 2007, and did not effect the sailing community at all. I would argue that it did not effect the 420 community and as such, doesn't really belong on the 420 page. I do believe, however, it should belong on the 29er page. Thoughts always welcome on my Talk page. Taymaishu (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You gave only one reason for your edit, irrelevancy. It is not irrelevant in an article about 420 to note it was replaced by 29er for event Z. It is part of the history of the class, minor, but still part of the history. It most definitely would have an effect on the sailing community, in that 420 sailors wishing to compete in event Z would need to change to 29er boats. If it justifies mention on the 29er page it equally justifies mention on the 420 page. Taymaishu, your few edits to Wikipedia so far show you will be a definite plus for the venture, so don't be disheartened by my comments. I expect that some time in the future we will see you at RfA again. My advice, given with the very best of intentions, is that you don't approach it with the mindset "there are no prerequisites for Adminship", a comment you made on User:Gogo Dodo's talk page. There certainly are, even if not written in blood. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, RfA is a completely seperate issue. I'm here to talk about the 420. I don't see the point in raising an RfA here under the 420 heading. My views are:

• Firstly, it has not been cited and is not referenced.
• Secondly, the notability of mentioning that is not even claimed.
• Thirdly, the wording is misleading - it leads the reader to believe that it was replaced at the 2007 championships, and never reverted back to the 420.
• Last, The Youth World Championships aren't notable. That's why they're not on WP. Just because another class replaced them at one single un-notable regatta does not mean it needs to be mentioned here. Taymaishu (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So let's look at your concerns. Not referenced - ok, but if you remove that for lack of reference a hell of a lot of the rest of the article will go too. Notability of mention - I'm unsure what you mean. Misleading - no way. The line actually says " The International 420 was replaced by the 29er as the ISAF Youth Worlds two person dinghy for boys and girls at the 2007 championships in Canada" --"at the championships". It doesn't say permanently anywhere, but nonetheless, I will change "at the 2007 championships" to "for the 2007 championships" if that will help. The International Sailing Federation youth world championships might not be on Wikipedia - yet - but that doesn't make them non notable, and I'd like to see your sources that say so. Regarding my mentioning your RfA, it was current at that time, unlikely to succeed, so I gave you a bit of friendly advice for your next one. Is all. . Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Taymaishu

Yes, looking at that you have a very valid point which I didn't see before. I'd suggest you gently raise it with the editor and explain why it is unacceptable. You are of course right in responding to an AfD in any way you wish, but because it became apparent the editor didn't stand much of a chance I was hoping for more constructive feedback rather than a simple rejection from voters, for his sake. I apologise if I seemed a little excessive in defending him, between the vandal-whacking and edit wars which seem to form the backbone of every second article I've sort of forgotten of that rarest breed of editors: the constructive newbie. +Hexagon1 10:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

McDowell

Oops. I don't know how/why I did that. Cheers anyway. –Moondyne 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

This feels a bit like Good cop/bad cop at times!-gadfium 00:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello there. Thanks for your recent efforts towards combating vandalism. I noticed that you have made a few reverts using Twinkle, but that you didn't leave a warning for the user (e.g. the Andy Brownrigg article). Twinkle has an option for warning people and has a biased POV warning. The manual template is {{subst:uw-npov1}} for a level 1 warning, {{subst:uw-npov2}} for a level 2 warning, etc. It's always a good idea to leave a warning so that the user knows why their edits have been reverted. If the user is a repeated vandal then there needs to be a proper warning history so that the user can be blocked from editing. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Sometimes it is easier to follow the perp around for a few minutes until they get the message or are blocked. Dropping a toothless tag on a talk page is a waste of space sometimes. For instance. Less than an hour ago I reverted several vandalism edits made by User:203.45.163.86 to Installation art. Someone slapped a tag on his talk page, welcoming him to wiki, pointing out "the" edit he had made appeared to be unconstructive, but if he believed the edit was constructive he should provide an informative edit summary. How does one phrase an informative edit summary to justify an edit which says "fuck you"? Meant to mention too that IP vandals aren't always the same person. Leave a message on the talk page, and the perp may never see it. Follow him around and rv his vandalism as he does it and he'll sure see that! Here's a talk page I saw a little earlier today. Highlights what I said about toothless tags.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please start leaving warnings to users? If they haven't been warned sufficiently then the admins at WP:AIV will refuse to block them. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

One advantage of leaving warnings is to attract the attention of any admin who has watchlisted the user's talk page. I watchlist the pages of anyone I block, and most people I warn, and in some cases the pages of someone who I've noticed the edits of but who has already been warned by someone else. A later warning allows me to review their subsequent edits, and if necessary to renew their block.-gadfium 22:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ross Jeffries

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ross Jeffries, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Jeffries (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, ok, I might have liked to put my two cents in. Trouble is, you left me this message at 4.10 and when I got around to looking at the AFD nom I discovered it had been dealt with at 4.14. Worse still, I see it was closed Speedy Keep (one keep and one oppose) because of jurisdiction or whatever. Gee, Wikipedia used to be such an uncomplicated place. Pity.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that - I was surprised by the speed of the speedy keep. It happened within seconds of me linking it into the AfD queue. It was an AfD nom by another user that did not add it to the deletion log, etc. meaning no one noticed. I added a keep comment and then figured I'd be nice to the nominator and link the article into AfD. The AfD itself and delete vote you saw was from a user that admits he's a friend of a competing seduction instructor. He/she first tried to AfD Jeffries in the middle of an AfD discussion about his friend. When the friend's article went down as delete he immediately nominated Jeffries and another competing seduction instructor. The speedy-keep came from an admin who's active in editing the Jeffries and thus knew the history. It's not exactly your uninvolved admin but I'll let the original user do the deletion-review battle. If you have any interest in the territory the other AfD is for JDOG. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I noted the tag at the top of your talk page which said "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk". OK, but doing that alerts you to my user page, not to my talk page. Yeah, Wiki used to be a lot less complicated. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on that - I should remove that header as I'm monitoring the watchlist better these days though may soon take a wikibreak and ignore the watchlist. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It turns out the wording is correct. {{Usertalkback}} takes the username and converts it into the talk page link. I did leave a comment for them to work on the grammar a little. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The intention of the header instruction on your talk page is not specified correctly. It says to leave "{{Talkback|your username}}" on your talk page to alert you to something I wrote on my talk. I left "{{Talkback|User:Kaiwhakahaere}}" on your page, so you were presented with a header where you would click on User:Kaiwhakahaere. As I said, that goes to my user page, not my talk page as specified in the header. It's not a matter of grammar. The correct tag for me to put on your talk page is "{{Talkback|User talk:Kaiwhakahaere}}" and that is what should be indicated in the header on your page. If you know any geeks, maybe they can rectify the problem..Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The intent was that you use {{Talkback|Kaiwhakahaere}}. The message itself comes from {{Usertalkback}} which is a protected template meaning we can suggest changes and the admins will implement them if they agree with your reasoning. One painful aspect to wikitext is that the login name is not available otherwise it would be easy to show {{Talkback|Kaiwhakahaere}} literally if it was you looking at my page. This will be a tough one to fix as one of the design goals was that the sentences be as terse as possible so that the lines will not wrap should the viewer have a low resolution screen. Thus we can't add a detailed explanation. I'll bring it up with the template developers to see if someone can develop better wording. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc, I'm starting to tear my hair out. I know what the intent is. I know that it can't be achieved by following the instruction on your talk page. I know how to fix it, and that is to replace the template in the header with one that actually takes you to my talk page rather than my user page. That is the intent you mentioned. Hopefully your contact with the template geeks will fix the anomaly.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you have a lot of hair to spare. :-) At present it's technically impossible to do exactly what you want. The explanation of why this is the case is rather long and I'll need to hunt around for the discussion about this.

Also, you had written "I know that it can't be achieved by following the instruction on your talk page." I'd disagree with that. The issue seems to be that you are interpreting the phrase "your username" as "User:Kaiwhakahaere." See WP:USERNAME and WP:USERPAGE. Your username is "Kaiwhakahaere." Your user page, often written as "userpage," is "User:Kaiwhakahaere." When instructions ask that you enter your username the expectation is that you will enter "Kaiwhakahaere" and not "User:Kaiwhakahaere." Since you entered a userpage where it asked for a username the {{talkback}} code made the assumption that it was your intent is that the link be to your user page as that's exactly what you asked for.

FYI, protocol is that people leave new stuff at the bottom of a talk page. The header at the top of the page has a blue link that says "Please click here to leave me a new message." If you use that then your message will get deposited at the bottom of my talk page. Many people do not have a "Please click here to leave me a new message." message. Instead, you can leave them a new message by clicking on the "+" tab that's at the top of the page. It's between "edit" and "history." --Marc Kupper|talk 23:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While a {{CURRENTUSER}} magic word would simplify the template you two are discussing, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_22#CURRENTUSER for why it would be a bad idea. The last line (by CharlotteWebb) appears to sink that idea irretrievably.-gadfium 01:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

R-i-g-h-t, the username bit is about as intuitive as press Start to Stop. Imagine there's a new visitor to Wikipedia who has heard all about the wonderful edits by someone called Marc Kupper. So he thinks to himself, I want to see what this guy's been writing, so he types "Marc Kupper" into the search box. Zilch. He doesn't know it, can't know it, but if he types User:Marc Kupper into the search box, geronimo, he can admire all your good works. To him, User:Marc Kupper becomes --is -- your username (as it would be for zillions of casual visitors/users I'd bet). Not to worry, as long as communication eventuates, then it's job done. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

While a {{CURRENTUSER}} magic word would simplify the template you two are discussing, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_22#CURRENTUSER for why it would be a bad idea. The last line (by CharlotteWebb) appears to sink that idea irretrievably.-gadfium 01:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess that's better than accepting the advice on her page which says "There are two things every writer should know how to say to those who wish to change their work. The first one is 'No', and the second is 'Go fuck yourself'." Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that one gadfium - I'd seen the caching issue before but had forgotten about it. Logging, as raised by CharlotteWebb, would be a tough one to detect/prevent. I agree, that sinks CURRENTUSER. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Introduction

Hi Kaiwhakahaere, I noticed you reverted someone who experimented on this page, calling it vandalism. Please note the text on that page, and the comment in the edit box, specifically invite people to experiment there. I thought I'd mention it because I've done the same thing myself. Now, I generally either welcome people, or at least don't bug them, as long as it isn't spam, rude, or removes the actual introduction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Really! He "experimented"? You know that how? Actually, the instruction on that page says the following :

{{Please leave this line alone}}

<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. -->

So, what did this person do? He put a little message below the line saying "What's up my peeps?"

But above the line he put the following:

== File:Headline text[[Media:$Example.ogg$--~~~~Insert non-formatted text here + ---- + #REDIRECT [[<s>Target page name</s><br />^{_{Superscript text}<small><!-- Small Text --> + <gallery> + <blockquote> + Image:Example.jpg|Caption1 + Image:Example.jpg|Caption2 + </blockquote>{| class="wikitable" + |<ref>- + ! header 1 + ! header 2 + ! header 3 + |- + | row 1, cell 1 + | row 1, cell 2 + | row 1, cell 3 + |- + | row 2, cell 1 + | row 2, cell 2 + | row 2, cell 3</ref> + |} + </gallery></small>}]]]] ==

We'll see. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't talking about the person I reverted, I was talking about the person you rolled back, and called a vandal, who didn't do what you describe. I thought you might be interested in a little feedback about your small, understandable, accidental misuse of rollback, from someone who had done the same thing before; if such feedback is unwanted, then, nevermind I guess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Scottish New Zealander, you will be blocked from editing. It has been explained more than once to you that your personal dislike of Russell Crowe has nothing to do with WP:MOSBIO and do not apply to this article, nor do most of your other edits. Merely quoting abbreviations does not mean that they apply. By repeatedly restoring them to the article you are deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, which is defined here as licenced vandalism. You might wish to pursue a career in the Civil Service, if you are capable of passing the examination. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. I would also advise that you do not remove CENSUS figures either.

Seriously, will you stop bullying me? Your edits are not constructive, in fact they're destructive. To shut you up, I removed certain people from the list. However, Kate Sheppard who had Scottish parents, and the Kilted Kiwis who played for Scotland - you cannot justify the removal of these, because they are New Zealanders with a Scottish background. Which is exactly what the article is about.

I'm not intimidated by folk trying to quote the rules at me, particularly when their interpretation of them is based mainly on personal prejudice, and not on balanced view. You do not help Wikipedia, you just make it hidebound.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Records

Why do you persist? They detailed the difference on the telecast today. Did you miss that? Is it really so difficult to understand? --Falcadore (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's you who has the comprehension problem. The outright lap record for a circuit is the fastest ever lap on the circuit regardless of vehicle class (and regardless of what a TV "personality" says). For Bathurst, read this, the official V8 supercars site. Note where it states the following: ........"Touring Car and Outright Lap Record. Greg Murphy 2003. Holden Commodore VY 2m.06.8594s". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a TV personality, Neil Crompton said much the smae thing last year on the telecast, It's in several The Great Race annuals, the publication which were for 20 years the official publications of the Bathurst 1000 and the series, and not the least of which, that which I've shown you previously, the official timesheets! Why the the documentation of the event timekeepers does not sway you strikes me as denial. --Falcadore (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You remember when we had this arguement last year, and it was suggested by another edittor that the contrdictory nature of the references suggested a write-up explaining the differences - I attempting to write that out yesterday, giving explanation for the changing nature of the term for the lap record, and you dismissed and erased it as POV out of hand. I would very much like to know why, and which part of that was not true. --Falcadore (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And while Matthew White can be dismissed as a 'TV personality', his statistics and data are written and/or supplied by Neil Crompton and Aaron Noonan, the former needs no introduction, the latter is the editor of all of V8 Supercar main event programs and provides statistician information for V8 SUpercar at large.

Could it then be that the information of the website was just gotten wrong be a 'web site designer'? --Falcadore (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am having considerable trouble believing this. Wikipedia itself defines outright lap record here. Wikipedia defines outright lap record a second time here within the definition of lap record, and differentiates between the two. The official website of V8 Supercars, this, says "Touring Car and Outright Lap Record. Greg Murphy 2003. Holden Commodore VY 2m.06.8594s". The record time exists. It's in the records. The fastest ever lap by any car at Bathurst. The outright lap record. How else can I spell it out? And you think a web site designer got it wrong. Good grief. I am restoring outright lap record to the intro, wikilinking it to our very own Wikipediai definition of outright lap record, and inserting the best reference available in the world, a link to the official website. Don't vandalise it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Take credit where it is due, it was your definition of the term, need I reference the edit concerned?

What can I say, there are multiple, also official, references that disagree with the above that you champion. There is more than one definition. --Falcadore (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And - a question for you, is it coincidence that Bathurst is the only circuit outside of North America that recognises a qualifying lap in such a manner? --Falcadore (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletions from the Eltham, New Zealand article. In a small town such as this one (where I grew up, incidentally), names such as Chew Chong, Newton King, or Charles Wilkinson are now almost forgotten: and that has only happened in the last generation. Rugby players (who, Urbahn excepted, are alive and well-known) are more representative of Eltham's self-image now than is a long distant and dead Oxford don or an architect... Boethius65 (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AT IT AGAIN WITH THE THREE SUPPORTS OF MISINFORMATION ON THE STEORN PAGE

Need your support if you can.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

I am going to revoke my offer for your help, because I just don't have time to learn enough of the rules of editing and then dispute resolution. But I wish you the best.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Fairfield College

The Waikato Times report regarding the attempted bribe of a student by the Fairfield College principal Julie Small has not been challenged by Small.The section was referenced to P1 Waikato Times -is that not adequate?(The Times is on line so it is easy for some editor to check it out).Not all of us are computer nerds like most editors-just humble folk trying to do their best.I'm not a teacher!!(More in the law enforcement line).The turmoil at that place is incredible.The commissioner has allied himself with Small apparently.Currently he has 2 Personal greivance changes against him and likely to be more after the load of distortions and outright mistruths he told the Times (if he is quoted correctly)concerning the Small-bribe article).Behind the scenes I am aware that very high level investigations are going on into this women who has left a trail of destruction behind her at Rodney College and at FFC.I have it on good authority that when she announced her resignation from Rodney the staff all stood and applauded-a pretty extreme reaction from a group that are fairly conservative by any standards.Conversations with an MP keep me up to date with how the govt and MOE view this debacle.At least interested wiki viewers can troll back through all the old "removed" edits and get a more rounded impression of the whole situation, which stinks to high heaven.The commissioner himself is clearly feeling the pressure-after failing to bully a staff member into changing their"story" ,Mr F was obseved brutally attacking a door in the staff roo!!Well, better a door than a staff member ,otherwise I might have to pay a profesional visit.This school really is a dangerous place at times-thats why police presence has been stepped up of late and good work is done by private security guards who work closely with the staff to try to keep everyone safe.There are grave concerns regarding the influence of the Mongrol Mob in this school(as there are in other Hamilton schools).This isanother reason why the school roll has plumetted by around 200-300 this year.I hope this clarifies the situation . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.32.3 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:NZ.pear.tree.plaque.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NZ.pear.tree.plaque.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Sarah Palin Kuwait 13b.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sarah Palin Kuwait 13b.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗plicit 07:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)