As a contributor to racehorse articles I would appreciate you taking a look at Category_talk:Racehorses and expressing any views you have regarding Racehorse categories. - Cuddy Wifter 06:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I could've sworn I did. I was editing several articles at once, so I probably remembered to mark the others and overlooked that one. Thanks for catching it and letting me know! Beginning 21:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it correctly for you. You should voice your opinions at the AfD now (you are free to change my comments to reflect it). Ryulong 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(It is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos) Ryulong 01:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MYOB people are writing to us complaining about the article. I note you've contributed there. Please be sure to maintain due regard for WP:NOR. In particular, any conclusions you've drawn, even if valid or obvious to you, should remain out of the article unless they have been published in reliable sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What conclusions have I drawn? Moriori 05:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A general question - I have created a page for Tohu Kakahi of Parihaka. He is often referred to as Tohu (as on the Parihaka page) but Tohu on search leads you to a page on Tofu...How do you go about fixing that - by changing redirection or a disambiguation?

Hey User:Steerpikenz, can you create your user page? Then you can sign your comments with four tildes to leave your sig. Anyway, I am about to fix that curious Tohu redirect. Have you read the stuff on your talk page? Cheers. Moriori 08:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to deny it?

I don't react nicely to threats

My only response to anonymous messages left here is that I make no more response than this one.Moriori 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you putting so many people in this category? They are already listing in subcats of it. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand. - SimonLyall 11:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting New Zealand people in the New Zealand people cat because they are New Zealand people. It is illogical and unhelpful to Wikipedia visitors to not do so. Why do you oppose putting New Zealand people in a New Zealand people cat, and then having sub categories? What is wrong with having all New Zealanders in the one category? How does that hurt Wikipedia? How does it confuse readers? How much space does it take? Why does it bother you? Is the New Zealand people cat only for people like Anita McNaught, a Pom who came here as an adult and who left NZ yonks ago? Go on, check her out. Do you object to Alan MacDiarmid who is in List of New Zealanders having the New Zealand people cat plus three NZ sub categories? Why are there people in List of New Zealanders who do not have a New Zealand people category, such as Christine Fletcher? Isn't she a New Zealander? Why are there people in that article who are not New Zealanders no matter how far you stretch your imagination, like Nancy Wake who wasn't even two years old when her family left this country? Why has she got a New Zealand military people category when she was never a member of a NZ military service? What a hell of a mess these cats are. And you ask me why I put New Zealand people in the New Zealand people cat? Geez Simon, I would have thought it was obvious. Moriori 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to who you are putting in the category (or not) just that you are putting them into the top level category rather than a subcategory. Categorys with hundreds (or thousands) of people directly in the category have various problems. One specific problem is that in the New Zealand people category is that if you go there now you only see the Fictional New Zealanders subcategory. You then have to go to the next 200 to see New Zealand Victoria Cross recipients and other subcats. If we have several thousand NZ biography's directly in New Zealand people then subcats will be scattered all though 50 pages. I have checked other countries in Category:People by nationality and even ones like Category:American people don't appear to have more than 150 or so listed directly in the cat. Exactly what is the use of a category with 10,000 (say) people in it rather than subcats? How does Wikipedia gain by having say Lance Cairns in Category:New Zealand people as well as Category:New Zealand cricketers (and the others he is in)? - SimonLyall 09:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Simon, I am putting them into the top level category, deliberately. First and foremost, they are New Zealand people which is why I put them in New Zealand people. What are you on about when you saty that "One specific problem is that in the New Zealand people category is that if you go there now you only see the Fictional New Zealanders subcategory."? What!? It takes you to a page where the very first line clearly states This category lists famous people from New Zealand. There are 200+ entries there for surnames A - M, none of which are fictional. I thought it would be obvious why it would be an advantage to have New Zealand people in a New Zealand people cat. Ask yourself what the adavantage is in having Lance Cairns in New Zealand cricketers. The same rationale applies. Moriori 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Simon here. It's an established principle that articles don't go into parent categories when they are already in a subcategory. See Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. There are always going to be exceptions to this guideline, but you seem to be arguing that the guideline should not apply at all.-gadfium 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we first started cats in Wiki the proposal looked reasonable. The problem is that since then Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all have continually created meaningless sub cats which then take precedence over meaningful cats. Example - Bruno Lawrence has New Zealand people and English-New Zealanders. Using your reasoning we should remove New Zealand people and leave the sub cat. I'd do it the other way round, to get rid of the farcical English-New Zealanders nonsense. However, if you and Simon are insisting on sticking to a policy that has long passed its use by date, then have at it. I trust someone is going to go through the entire list of New Zealand people on Wikipedia with more than one cat and remove the New Zealand people cats. Moriori 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you that the "English-New Zealander"-type category isn't very useful, but it doesn't hurt either. The appropriate cats for Lawrence are surely Category:New Zealand musicians and Category:New Zealand actors, since that's what he's known for.

When categories were first established, I believe there was a software problem with putting very large numbers of articles in a single category, and this was overcome by displaying only 200 names at a time. It's probably a bug in this feature of splitting a category into multiple pages that causes some subcategories not to be displayed on the first page of the category, but while this bug exists I think we should avoid categories which have both sub-categories and more than 200 articles.

Rather than trying to reform Category:New Zealand people by itself, you really need to propose a change to the Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories guideline and get some consensus on it.

I'm happy to go through Category:New Zealand people over the next few days and try to move most people out of it into subcats, but I won't do so if you are moving more names in there.

I've fixed the link at the top of this section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand. There were some non-printing characters at the end of the link.-gadfium 00:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't be moving more names in there. Go for it. Moriori 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New Zealand‎ when you went to edit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand. - SimonLyall 10:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the link when you invited me to "Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand‎". As it is also here, I'll delete it. Moriori 22:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, guess I probably did it. - SimonLyall 09:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand people is a great-grandparent category of the more accurate Category:New Zealand racecar drivers. Generally, an article is not listed in both a parent and child category of the same tree. In this cares, New Zealand racecar drivers shows that Dixon is both a New Zealander and a race car driver. -Drdisque 22:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So when readers browse through the articles in the New Zealand people cat they will never be able to find Scott Dixon. Highlights exactly what I was saying above. Totally illogical. Moriori 22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From New Zealand people they will be able to navigate to New Zealand Racecar Drivers through: People -> People by Occupation -> Sportspeople -> racecar drivers. Imagine if every New Zealander was listed in Category:New Zealand people. There would be thousands upon thousands and the category would be completely impossible to navigate. For a more formal explanation of how this works, please see WP:CAT. -Drdisque 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What!? How can anyone possibly navigate from People -> Occupation -> Sportspeople IF the subject is not in the People cat? They can't. My point exactly. Anyway, forget it. I've finished with cats. Moriori 03:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - a parting shot. Drdisque, as numbers seem to bother you, please check out the People from New York category. Less than 1300 of them, for a State with four times the population of NZ so there goes your thousands upon thousands theory. Check out Lou Gehrig. He's got 23 cats, including People from New York, Major league players from New York and New York Yankees players. To be consistent with what you have written here, you should remove the People from New York cat from the Gehrig article, and in every other article about people from New York similarly categorised Moriori 04:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the smoking hill tribe kids thing? I've worked in a few different villages over the past year and a half and never saw a hill tribe kid smoking. I've been in a few different Lahu and Lisu tribes... along with a Palong village (although, the latter is not typically classified as a hill tribe.

- Kiladin 11:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is one vandalism edit enough to indef block an ip? IPs are only indef blocked for being open proxies. Kotepho 07:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Kotepho? Are you 202.154.147.135? Moriori 08:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Kotepho 08:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to whois, this IP belongs to ITNET Ltd, Wellington, and it's a portable address belonging to actrix.gen.nz. Accordingly, the person it's assigned to tomorrow is probably not the person it's assigned to today. If you can track down the original racist, feel free to blast them into oblivion, but the IP address shouldn't be blocked for very long.-gadfium 08:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will unblock tomorrow a.m.. Moriori 09:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No i don't think you understand what he meant. The next person to come along after the vandal has disconnected may well be assigned that IP. That could be minutes later. Indefiniate blocks are only to be applied in very unusual circumstances. Long term blocks in extreme circumstances. This is a mild circumstance, our policies dictate that they get a warning first then we only block of the vandalise again. Thwe first and formost way to deal with vandalism is reveting it. Blocks are for cases where reverting doesn't do the trick. As it's been several hours, the vandal has probably gone away, so I've undone the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I misinterpreted. Tks for unblocking already. Moriori 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing my work on 1907. I am not sure I agree that it should have been pared that much. I have left the literary reference as it is still valid.

Your suggestion of a stand-alone page was a bleeding good prompt. I have done so and; made with as many references as I could conjure up without appearing defensive of my mahi. I still want help on this subject though, so please see the discussion page. You do realise this is ALL your fault! Ha!! L-Bit 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. I have given it a little tidy, and asked User:Kahuroa for input. Cheers. Moriori 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of Kahuroa's valuable addition of the Tohunga page and his/her futher edits to this page, the article feels much more complete. I wonder though if we could revisit some of the changes you made to the Suppression Act page? I initially thought that it was appropriate to give Sir Maui's full name and title, however on reflection, it would be unnecessary on any other page than his own (which I have done). It is correct practice though, to refer to a knighted person by Sir/Dame FirstName. We do not refer to Dame Catherine Tizard as Dame Tizard, but Dame Cath. I therefore think that it is appropriate and correct to keep 2nd and later references as Sir Maui as opposed to "Pomare"('s). True, this may seem odd to non-Commonwealth readers, but nevertheless, it is the correct methodology. The disturbing feature of this to me is that this format does not seem to be used at all. Sir Maui's own page is a classic example.

The other matter is more minor, I am sure that practises is the correct usage in this instance, not practices. I can never really get my head around this, and have the same problem with affect and effect.

Also, I'd like to add that I am glad you have watched this space and grateful to you, Kahuroa, and Gadfium for your help in this article. This is a subject I have a keen interest in. L-Bit 06:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L-Bit, I am afraid what you find disturbing has been accepted writing style for decades, and it is Wikipedia's style also. Check out Edmund Hillary and Judi Dench. Sir Edmund Hillary and Dame Judi Dench respectively when first mentioned, but then Hillary and Dench from then on. Practice v practise can be a can of worms I know. In the sense it is used, it is generally describing the methods used by tohungas. Like, their usual practice was to employ medicinal plants, while the practice of Doctor Fixit is to use acupuncture in his practice. Only problem, if he wants to bone up on his ability and sticks a few dozen needles into his nurse, is he practicing or practising. I give up. Cheers. Moriori 08:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I do accept what you say despite the irritation it causes. It's the same irritation I get when ppl txt me in txt spek... grrrr. Cheers. And again, as others have said, thanks for your good works. L-Bit 06:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are a contributor to racehorse articles, if you are interested there is a new project underway on the topic. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and feel free to join up, im sure your contributions would be worthwhile! (dark horse 01:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits to Auckland Grammar School. I will explain here:

• Image removal due to uncertain copyright status.
• Extraneous information was deleted. What I mean by "extraneous information" is information that is only useful for people related to the school---year 9 tests are not exclusive to AGS (even though it never explicitly said that its inclusion was pretty useless). AGS's notoriety wrt curriculum largely stems from its NCEA/GCE argument, and streaming etc are secondary in terms of public recognition.
• Buildings. Its a pretty small area compared to the independent schools AGS aspires to be compared to. Hence I edited the buildings section to describe those independently described as notable (Historic Places Trust). The boarding house is not unique as far as wooden buildings go---you can find a colonial wooden building in almost any NZ town...
• TV show was moved to the general info section since its pretty ridiculous having a one-sentence section for a non-series show (see the edit summary+hist diff).

I won't reinsert the changes without your comment, except for the image/copyright thing which I believe is pretty clear-cut. 202.89.159.112 07:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please explain why you removed my updated definition of incarceration, which is straight from its Latin origins? Aeh4543 17:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, because I reverted to Wikipedia style. The first word of the article should (generally) be the same word/words as the heading. Secondly, as this article is called Incarceration the object is to explain Incarceration, and definitely not to start with an explanation of where the "The term incarcerate" comes from, as you did. Note our Main Page article today, "Cryptography". We say what it is, not where the name comes from. Cheers. Moriori 23:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. I must say you are biased. Taoc 02:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read WP:POV? Those guidelines were formulated by editors over the years.. I happen to agree with them, but I didn't write them. Moriori 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3] You say that Óscar Pereiro claimed he was the winner. However, the clip i saw in the news he said that now the 99% probabilites, he felt like he was the winner. The same say other media [4].

Translating the quote: I consider me the winner but, until being named so, i won't be. I wouldn't want to say teh word winner. I am the cyclist which is pending to be named Tour winner in an official way

Before the second drug test, Pereiro declared several times at the media he wanted Landis to be innocent. So claim seems incorrect to me.

Platonides 13:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from BBC - "I am the Tour champion - Pereiro. Spaniard Oscar Pereiro declared himself the true Tour de France champion after confirmation of a positive dope test for yellow jersey winner Floyd Landis." To me, that sounds very much like claiming he is the winner. Moriori 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that. A very strange thing for somebody to change - SimonLyall 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my bio on Adam Fein? I am the second person to write a bio on him with materials available on the internet... why dont u read what it actually said instead of stating it was "nonsense" it was well-written and there are thousands of people in the University of Texas school systems who know of his work. I do agree that the previous bio was immature and should have been deleted due to it having no significance. However, I am hoping that mine will be accepted. Please tell me what I can do differently, for I am trying to create a serious entry - CollegeExpress 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am not sure what has happened here. This article appeared in the New Pages list. It contained nonsense so I deleted it, on the first occasion. My edit summary said " (nonsense. content was: 'David Porto, born August 13th 1985, of italian ancestry, is a professional bowler and full time stud. He enjoys travelling Australia beating people in...' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/SchmickitySchmack|S) . When I saw it was recreated, I deleted again. OK. I have restored the article, but it is not as well written (encyclopedic) as you claim. Perhaps you could do a bit more work on it before it comes to the attention of someone else. What do you think? Moriori 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will go over everything in the next few days. Thank you for your patience. Also, if there are any other questionable items, please contact me first, and I'll be more than happy to make necessary changes. Once again, I will work on creating more topical and relevant information. Thanks again.-

CollegeExpress 05:09PM, 8 August 2006 (CCT)

Why I can't publish an article about the story of an Italian company? There are lot of italians from sicily in the world that search informations about their roots. Please answer me.

Because the only content on the page was in Italian, namely "Labisi Carlo s.r.l. è un azienda di autotrasporti turistici fondata nel 1954 da Carlo Labisi (a.n.-a.m.)"!!!!! When you recreated the page, it was a virtual ad, the reason I called it spam. Moriori 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moriori,

I thought that the rugby links for the Provincial All Blacks were quite good. But saddly you chopped them. Only Colin Meads has his own wikipedia page, so I am thinking that until more of the lesser known players have a wikipedia page, then maybe I could put the link to the local unions page.

What are your reasons/thoughts?

Maybe I can have a link for each specific player that has a web page dedicated to them elsewhere?

NevilleDNZ 09:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC) (You can reply here, I will watch your talk page)[reply]

Hello Neville. References/external links mostly go at the bottom of articles. An external link to a source corroborating a statement made in an article is often appended just at the end of the statement, but that is an entirely different situation. Apart from that tho, the external link you gave went to nothing more than a list of the same names, so it wasn't really helpful. Regarding your last sentence, external links on pages such as Colin Meads are fine. But, you couldn't create Peter Henderson and have the external link as the only content. Hope this helps. Moriori 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - not today - we could create wikipedia stubs for each player. ITMT: I have added links to each All Black from Wanganui, rather then point to a summary page.

NevilleDNZ 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R%e Wanganui all blacks

Neville, I replied to your query on my talk page. You cannot create an article which contains only a link to external information. That's why I reverted. Moriori 22:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moriori, Now I confess I am confused... I linked each player to their own unique entry at the www.RugbyMuseum.co.nz. When one clicks on a player one will get their background. Much better then leaving a red-link.

Check it out: (e.g. Click on Mona Thomson)

* Wanganui

Please unrevert my contribution as a click on the individual names functions correctly.

NevilleDNZ 06:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request you stop using patronising edit summaries like this one. I will assume good faith and deem it to be a strange kind of humour, but I ask you stop using edit summaries which contain statements of ambiguity which could be (wrongly) interpreted as a personal attack. Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand racehorse Xcellent has been listed for deletion. Some informed comments from thoroughbred enthusiasts would seem to be needed. - Cuddy Wifter 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken in reverting Polarion's changes in New Zealand. It looks to me like he/she has gone through all country articles to bring them up to date with various articles such as List of countries and outlying territories by total area. Also, the area in square miles was adjusted along with the area in square kilometres, not removed, so WP:MOSNUM is not an objection to the edit.-gadfium 21:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Polarion has changed them because they were inaccurate, OK, that's fine, I'm all for accuracy. However, I'm also all for knowing the edits were justified, by being advised why in an edit summary. Moriori 22:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why you reverted my edits on Auckland? MadMaxDog 07:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I mistakenly thought I was reverting an edit, not edits. The edit was "New Zealand For further information on New Zealand", because New Zealand is actually already linked in the very first sentence of the article. Moriori 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]