If you want to argue that the Sound islands are part of South Island (which I think is a difficult notion), then I think you will have to adjust the map, which currently shows North Island to be the only part of the range. Last time I checked, the only mainland population was at Karori, which is part of North Island. The global map is not of sufficient resolution to mark out the sound islands - this is left to the second map, further along in the article. I realise that they could be combined, but I'm not sure that resolves our quibble. Referring to the range as "New Zealand" is definitely misleading, and cannot stand. Samsara (FA • FP) 11:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that. I am saying that they are part of New Zealand. You appear to be saying that they are part of the North Island, which does not seem a defensible position.

You should also be aware that there are now tuatara in the wild on the mainland South Island. See [1].-gadfium 19:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map has the North Island highlighted. You'd better come up with a caption that's consistent with this, or change the image, because the way you've left it, the caption contradicts the map. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the map is inaccurate, and the scale of the map means it would not be possible to show the precise locations of the small islands on which tuatara live, I suggest we simply use a location map of New Zealand. I would have suggested that we move up the detailed location map which is later in the article, but of course that is out of date as well.-gadfium 20:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that you are one of the authors of the map. Surely it makes more sense for you to update the map than for me to do so.-gadfium 20:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to both you, but if you have a second could you review the contributions of this IP User (talk) regarding MGM-52 Lance. The User has been repeatedly warned, over the course of months, about continued vandalism and edit warring, but to no avail. The User is repeatedly making the same edits that get reverted and result in a warning, but the IP User just continues. Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user appears to believe that Wikipedia is using copyrighted material from a private website. They believe that Wikipedia justifies this because US government material is (mostly) public domain. I think it might be productive to discuss this with them rather than just issuing templated warnings.

I suspect that we can use the information on the website since pure information cannot be copyrighted, so long as we do not copy their layout or phrasing, but if there is any doubt about this you might like to take it to Wikipedia:copyright questions.-gadfium 03:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see it now, he put that explanation in one of the edit summaries, when I first read it I thought all the edit summaries were blank, when really all but one was. My bad. I removed my warning to that User and opened a discussion on the article's Talk Page and informed all the Users involved that a discussion was taking place to try and end the constant reverting. Thanks. King of Nothing (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your show of good faith in this matter.-gadfium 04:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was missing something and hoped a better and new set of eyes could help me. Thanks again. Cheers Mate. King of Nothing (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for being a pain. I was going to add all the details in the morning. What, wikipedia articles aren't allowed to stay up without references for more than a day? Thanks for nothing. DeeJermo (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I deleted it because it made no claim of notability, as I indicated on your talk page. Having no references would have resulted in the article being proposed for deletion, which would have given you a chance to add them.-gadfium 21:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was only just created maybe? Before you go around speedily deleting stuff, please wait a week after it's created. Give the users a chance to actually flesh out the page. What you did was unfair and actually rather rude. DeeJermo (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you find this rude. Please read the links on your talk page so you can avoid any further such interactions.-gadfium 23:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will preface this by saying that I am very new to the Wikipedia World and although I am doing my best to learn the proper ways to contribute there is still a lot I have to learn about Wikipedia. I have noticed that you have been editing the page Greenwoods Corner, New Zealand, which is some of the first work that I have done for Wikipedia. I was wondering if you might be able to advise me on how I might improve the article so that the notice at the top could be removed? Also, I recognize the removal of the subsection Popular Culture (on the same page) was improperly located under Local Culture because it was solely about One Tree Hill; however, I do think it is important to the topic because One Tree Hill falls within the area known as Greenwoods Corner and those points are internationally recognizable. Do you think that it would be appropriate to add that subsection back in, but this time under Greenwoods Corner, New Zealand#One Tree Hill? I would really appreciate your feedback. Researchassistant101 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the notice asking for more references. When it was added, the only reference for the article was to Google Maps, but the article has many more and better references now.

I don't see the point in duplicating cultural references to One Tree Hill in an article on Greenwoods Corner. The song, asteroid and so on are named for the hill, not Greenwoods Corner. I'm not sure that when people refer to GC nowadays they mean the full area that it once included, but in any case it makes sense not to duplicate content into articles of wider scope. We wouldn't include the OTH cultural references in the articles on Auckland, even though Auckland undoubtedly includes OTH.-gadfium 22:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback it was useful. Researchassistant101 (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you could offer your views on Talk:Meningitis in response to Paum89 (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 22:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was already participating in the discussion. Unfortunately, I've been busy in real life today.-gadfium 23:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the main characters of My Little Pony have wrongfully been turned into redirects, and Rainbow Dash in particular is locked to prevent it from being restored. I need an admin like you to unlock it for me. ResonX (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Dash (3rd nomination). The problem appears to have been a lack of reliable sources. If you think you have found such sources, I suggest you request a Deletion review.-gadfium 02:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That deletion was a terrible mistake. Also, reliable sources as you define them shouldn't be considered the only measure of notability, as this character and others like her have millions of fans who have produced volumes of fan labor devoted to them. THAT is real notability. Also, the iteration of the article that I have prepared is better than any previous incarnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResonX (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To have the previous decision reviewed, you need to go through the deletion review process. You will not succeed in talking an admin into unlocking the redirect. Schwede66 04:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are the Road Knights Motorcycle Club and our information can be no more reliable. Who are you and what authority do you have to question our information we care to share or correct? Our edits are neither abusive or derogative to anyone, surely you must welcome edits that are informative and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRBean (talk • contribs) 04:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires reliable sources for its content. It is not appropriate for you to edit content on your own organisation, because it is very difficult to be neutral about yourself. See conflict of interest.-gadfium 08:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for keeping an eye on new NZ music articles and adding them to the portal with necessary edits as needed. Vickytnz (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.-gadfium 01:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently going through my second GA review. Can you please assist with a language question? Schwede66 04:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, Could you take a look at the IPCA article please and see what you think. I wrote most of it weeks ago and in the last few days huge passages have been deleted and reverted by a variety of different people. I reverted some material today and then Daveosaurus has deleted that - yet again claiming that nothing I do is neutral. Its very frustrating. Your input would be much appreciated as usual. Offender9000 02:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed link to IPCA in Offender's post.-gadfium 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor claims to be from the IPCA and they probably just need an explanation about conflict of interest. Daveosaurus' hostility to you does not seem to be productive. I think the substantial reversion of your edits is not productive. There may be room for improvement, as always, and I notice that some of the material at the time of the IP's edit was unreferenced, which you have since fixed.

I would suggest you post on the article talk page, and try to establish a dialog with Daveosaurus and the IP. It would be easiest if Daveosaurus was to start this dialog, since it is easier for him to bring up specific points of criticism of the material than for you to defend it with no more to go on than "POV".

Since mediation failed earlier, I fear the conflict between you and other editors may end up as an Arbcom case. This would probably make matters worse, and perhaps result in one or more editors reducing their Wikipedia activity. Since you are all significant assets to Wikipedia, this would be a tragedy. Perhaps I should raise the conflict at the administrators' noticeboard and suggest an interaction ban between you.

I will notify Daveosaurus of this discussion.-gadfium 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have started a discussion on the talk page.Offender9000 06:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Zealand Police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Falcon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding info about the schools. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did crib in the south island come from? I have never heard that term being used in NZ. Steakunderscore (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to my Shorter Oxford Dictionary, it derives from the meaning of crib as a confined space. My understanding is that the term is used in Otago and Southland, so you might find a more detailed response asking an editor from down that way, such as User:Grutness or User:Daveosaurus.-gadfium 03:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, I note you have recently posted a warning to an IP editor at User talk:122.62.226.243. I have only recently encountered this editor's work, but I have some concerns about their quite blatant agenda-pushing in articles relating to Maori. I have reverted some of this editor's most egregious POV pushing and left two warnings at his/her talk page today asking for an improvement in conduct.

I have also tried to engage this person in some constructive discussion at the New Zealand land confiscations article talk page, here and here; the latter indicates a fair amount of knowledge, but an immense amount of strong opinion that conflicts with reliable and usable sources. See also [2] and [3]

I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye out for edits by this person, which seem to be generally aimed at presenting an anti-Maori bias and help me keep these NZ subjects on an even keel. BlackCab (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this editor, and have asked the community for advice on how to deal with her earlier. See for example User talk:Gadfium/archive62#Pōtatau Te Wherowhero, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#19th century New Zealand history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Māori task force#Politically POV edits at United Tribes of New Zealand. Her opinions differ from those of the majority of New Zealand-based editors, who reflect what I would describe as "academic consensus" on NZ history issues, but which might also be described as "political correctness". Although I do not always agree with her take on New Zealand history, I do think her edits are good-faith and at least generally accurate. I think the appropriate response is to try to balance her edits, and seek for suitable references. She will assist in providing such references although she does not always provide the necessary detail initially.-gadfium 08:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's interesting, thanks for those links. I agree with one of those editors who wrote of the frustration of dealing with this person. It does take a lot of effort. I have asked her to create an account (and sign her bloody posts!) but this seems futile. I'm intrigued by the sources she cites: of those she has thrown up in the past few days, one is right, one is wrong and I'm waiting to check a third when the book arrives in the mail. That bit of background you've provided does mean I'm in a better position to deal with the situation now. She does seem to be well researched on many of the issues in these articles, but needs to learn that articles aren't based on personal opinion. BlackCab (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. Just leaving a courtesy note that I have brought Claudia's current edits at Wiremu Kingi to the attention of the Administrators' notice board. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the pointer.-gadfium 07:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same user? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say quite likely, but I'm not sure enough to block for block evasion. They are on different ISPs. A WP:checkuser would be better placed to say, as they can see what browser/OS combination an IP is using.-gadfium 09:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, That's not my work. Dear Mr Blackcab none of my edits are my "opinion". They are all based on factual evidence from the many different sources I have used over the years-both paper and digital. I think I know the ref you are referring to as "wrong" was one on NZETC in which you did not interpret in the same way that I did. I have the advantage of a very full understanding of the events , personalities and motives, whereas I suspect your understanding is quite limited and/or perhaps dated ?W Kingi was one of the individuals who took part in a "land league" operation in Taranaki, whose principal aim was to get all Maori to withhold sale of land,by force if necessary. There were many reasons for this and I hope to expand on this in good time. Some of the areas/topics are not yet well covered by orthodox historians although we do have McLean on NZETC which is quite detailed. Hopefully current historian writers will soon partake . C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted your request for a citation at Eagles Nest so called them, and of course, they haven't been sold and continue as normal. The post by User:203.97.79.49 was malicious and commercially damaging and I think he should be indeffed. Agree? Moriori (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't indef IPs, and it's not usual to block them at all for a single edit because the address is likely to be dynamic. It's a Telstra-Clear address, and the one previous edit was helpful - almost certainly not the same person. I suggest you place a warning on their talk page such as {{uw-error1}}. If they come back and try it again, then a block would be reasonable, but even then I'd only block for a week. Happy New Year to you too.-gadfium 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Maybe a one off, so I'll just watch, and zap if something similar happens again. It was a commercially damaging post. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statements I inserted about PNBHS and St Peters were true. I was there. You can contact any of those mentioned and they will verify this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptide 76 (talk • contribs)

Whether they were true is not the issue. The issue is that they were unsourced negative material about living people. We have a policy which does not allow such material. See WP:BLP.-gadfium 00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Auckland#Auckland Climate. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite seriously, if this edit remains for 24 hours, you will hopefully help save the life of a 3yo wombat. No room or time to explain the amazing story here, but you'll probably read about it on lifehacker in the coming days. Just 24hrs then you can delete it. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elboskyn (talk • contribs) 07:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt some vandalism on a website will have any relevance to the life of an animal. Mkdw^talk 07:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. Another courtesy note to let you know that Claudia is active again and has been taken to A.N.I. (not by me this time). I have left a quick note suggesting administrators consult with you because you seem to have had the most productive interactions with Claudia (at least that I've noticed). Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh.... I understand now. Sorry! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium why is the Maori Battalion not part of the Maori Stub what disqualifies it. Also why is their no opposing category to Maori activists as a Pakeha activists? -are you Maori descent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aotearoagovt (talk • contribs) 21:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:STUB. Māori Battalion is a well developed article.

There is no category for "Pakeha activists" at present because that does not appear to be a widely-used expression. I see less than 300 Google hits for the term, but in contrast there are over 20,000 hits for "Maori activist". For an article to be placed in a category, it must have sourced content which supports that placement. For a category of Pakeha activists to go in Muriel Newman you would need a reliable source (eg a mainstream newspaper) which called her that. The category might still not be appropriate, as very small categories are usually considered undesirable.

I prefer to keep my private details off Wikipedia. However, I am somewhat active at the Māori-language Wikipedia-gadfium 01:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Trinder2 (talk · contribs). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.-gadfium 19:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many times we need to whack this mole. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. Quick question. Would it be appropriate for you to semi-protect articles such as Waitangi Day and Treaty of Waitangi for the next 3 or 4 days? I've seen a bit of IP vandalism this evening. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to semi-protect. I suggest you ask at one of the NZ-related noticeboards for more watchers on those articles.-gadfium 05:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want people to love Benjamin Lifshey Don't ruin it man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meman23 (talk • contribs)

Start a Facebook page. Wikipedia is not the right place.-gadfium 02:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
		Speaks for itself I hope. You don't get enough of these. Shudde talk 11:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Gadfium by Shudde talk on 11:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.-gadfium 18:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gadfium

Any chance we can get Alex Gilbert (Cinematographer) moved to just Alex Gilbert or Alex Gilbert (Camera Operator) as I dont think he should be down as a Cinematographer. Thank You - --Makethingsbetter456 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Alex Gilbert. There was an article at that title previously, which was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert. Since that was about a different person, that should not cause any problems. However if another Alex Gilbert later has an article, we can deal with what an appropriate disambiguation term is at that point.-gadfium 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I was wrong; this article is about the same person. If it survives the current prod I'll consider taking it to AfD. There's enough new material not to speedy it as a recreation.-gadfium 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I'm a pretty new contributor: I have edited previously without a login using the IP address 1.54.97.96, but as I travel a lot that's become impractical so I've created a permanent login. I just wanted to draw your attention to the Novopay article, which has had a huge number of edits from Offender9000. The Novopay page could do with a substantial cleanup, as there's a lot of material in there that has little to do with the Novopay system itself. If you wouldn't mind, could you please cast your eye over it? Many thanks, VNTrav (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal for articles on Wikipedia to sometimes grow to encompass items not directly covered by the article title. The appropriate solution is to refactor the article. In the case of Novopay, moving some of the content to New Zealand Post is more appropriate than deleting it, and there should still be a summary of the content in Novopay because it is a related system. Creating a new article at Talent2 is also appropriate, but a little bit more tricky because such an article cannot be created simply by copying material from Novopay. That would be unbalanced. An article on Talent2 would need to cover the many projects they have been involved with rather than concentrating on the one system which is getting a lot of publicity at the moment.

I added some of the material at Novopay on the New Zealand Post system myself.-gadfium 08:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your considered view on this gadfium. Now that I've had a look at the Talent 2 website with a view to creating a Talent 2 page, I see that a lot of the material from the Talent 2 company history was copied directly from the corporate website and slanted to maintain the contributor's POV. For the moment I think that establishing a Talent2 page with non-controversial material relating to the company would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VNTrav (talk • contribs) 08:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Talent2 article has been speedily deleted, which I find somewhat intriguing. No trouble to query notability, but to come along and speedy it? Could you have a word to your admin colleague, please? Schwede66 21:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. See User talk:Bwilkins#Talent2. You might like to add your own thoughts there.-gadfium 21:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added my thoughts. Schwede66 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism. --Starship9000 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they haven't edited at all since the last block.-gadfium 21:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium. I was chatting with Drmies about an AfD that you [another editor] had re-listed, which he then in short order closed. My thought was that your relist made sense for the reasons you indicated, and the close was perhaps earlier than ideal. He suggested at the end of our chat, which you can see here, that I drop you a line and he "won't stand in the way of anything. They [you] have a couple of years more experience than me, and may be interested in this matter." So I am doing that here as he suggested. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fussed about the outcome. The merge should have included a source - the Ministry of Education link from the infobox of the merged article, but as indicated at Talk:Avonhead, an even better target would be to write an article on the suburb of Russley, and if Schwede66 does that, I'm sure he'll source it impeccably.-gadfium 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Do you agree generally with my points? For example, that ITRW, it is far more common for the outcome at AfDs of such schools to be a redirect, than a merge? Even if the essay that discusses the two doesn't go into that level of detail. (There are some other points, of course, as well).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow school AfDs in general, only the ones of NZ schools, so I don't know what the common outcomes are for other schools. New Zealand primary schools are usually converted to redirect to the locality, and a fair proportion of localities already have an "Education" section listing the local schools with decile ratings and rolls. I think it would be desirable to add such a section where it doesn't exist to localities which are the target of a school article redirected by an AfD discussion.

I have noticed some people arguing that non-notable school articles should be redirected instead to "List of schools in <region>" (eg List of schools in the Northland Region) instead. I prefer the locality, but as I said above I'm not too fussed on such matters.-gadfium 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, gadfium. I've looked at a few hundred such AfDs, and what I've seen matches what you have seen. Overwhelmingly more common for them to be a redirect, than (though it does happen) a merger ... or delete ... or even keep, which does happen on occasion.

As to the target of the redirect, I've seen it debated precisely as you describe. I have no strong view as to the better target for a redirect, and am always simply happy with the consensus view of others. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a clever move - especially seeing as he plays his first NRL game in 5 years this Thursday. I can only imagine the extra vandalism before, during and after that event. This protection should give the hot-heads some time to cool down after the event. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a list of fictional foods article but it was deleted per an Afd discussion so where else can fictional foods be put?--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for such a list to suggest to you and was surprised we didn't have it. Now that I've looked harder, I've found the AfD, and it certainly looks as if people don't want such a list on Wikipedia. The AfD was in 2007, and as consensus can change you could reasonably raise the matter again. I'm not sure quite where the best place to raise it might be. A deletion review for the AfD doesn't feel right for such an old issue, so I suggest you ask on the help desk about how to proceed.-gadfium 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium - about this, the obituary isn't online, but was published in the print edition of the Otago Daily Times. It was written by Peter Entwisle, who is also the wikieditor who tried to add it into the article (he's a good writer, but isn't that savvy on how to expand Wikipedia articles). Since obits are written freelance, it will be Peter's copyright, so it's fine to add it in. However it does feel like a textdump in as is. I've put a few small scraps of it into the article, but anything else from it can be acceptably added in. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the explanation.-gadfium 01:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to extend the semi-protection for Tenzing Norgay article to indefinite? Multiple different IPs from Nepal constantly change the nationality of Tenzing Norgay right after the semi-protection ends. Th4n3r (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask at requests for page protection so someone with no previous involvement with the article can decide on the best course of action. It might be just one person who is changing the nationality, but they are on a dynamic IP address. Perhaps a range block is another solution, but that might catch too many other uninvolved editors.-gadfium 19:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Th4n3r (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gadfium; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how the references on this article are broken? I've looked through the article and can find no problem. Please note that I used the manual link style of shortened footnotes (see also WP:CITESHORT). Mindmatrix 14:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first ref appears in the edit box as <ref>[[#DPMC|Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet]]</ref>, and when clicked on it takes you to the notes area and shows as "Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet", which is a wikilink but clicking on it does not make it clear which of the lengthy list of references is relevant. Looking at the wikicode for the reference, I see *{{cite web||url=http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/honours/overview/design-insignia|title=Design of The New Zealand Orders Insignia|publisher=The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, [[Government of New Zealand]]|accessdate=2013-03-20|ref=DPMC}}, but there is no way to tell without looking at markup that this is the reference you intended. Several references are published by this department.

The examples for shortened footnotes use works not available online, where no amount of clicking is going to take a reader directly to the source text. Most of your sources are online. I would expect that clicking on the inline ref would take me to a link to the online article, not to a link with little indication of what to do next.

If you still think this reference style is appropriate, I suggest the first ref should be <ref>[[#DPMC|Design of The New Zealand Orders Insignia]]</ref>, ie it should match the title of the ref, not the publisher. Putting the references section in alphabetical order by title would also make items easier to find.-gadfium 18:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on the citation, it takes me to the relevant note, and clicking on that highlights the appropriate ref (in light blue for me, using Vector skin). Based on your comment, I assume you're not seeing the highlighted ref. Do you perhaps have a gadget enabled that interferes with this behaviour? (Accessing the page when logged out, I see the highlighted ref.)

Regarding you second point, I use a consistent ref style within an article, and usually need something that allows me to use multiple citations to the same ref (eg - to indicate page numbers from which I obtained info from a book). Also, I'll disambiguate the refs in the article; note that they are alphabetical by author, and if no author is specified, by publisher name (sort of). I'll try to make it clearer. Mindmatrix 20:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also use Vector skin, but I see no highlight even now that I know to look for it. I don't see it if logged out either. Probably it's something in my monitor setup, which doesn't show subtle colours very well. At any rate, this is clearly not a general problem, so I'll remove the template I added, and sorry for the inconvenience to you.-gadfium 04:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the ref formatting to use the {{sfn}} template instead of the manual ref entry. Does this resolve the problem? Mindmatrix 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as before. If I turn my gamma down to the absolute minimum (0.5), I can just see the shading in the highlighted ref, but most pictures become too dark.

I've just fiddled with my monitor setup, and I find that if I set the Color temperature to "Normal" or "Cool" (previously it was on "Warm"), and my desktop display gamma to 1.0, I can still see the highlighting and pictures are acceptably bright. So I think I've found a solution that will work for me.-gadfium 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your report. The vandalism was removed at about the time you posted this. You could have done so yourself, because the individual day pages are not protected.

Actually I could NOT remove it myself, as it was not visible on the Edit page, just the Show page. If it were on the Edit page, I would have removed it without bothering to report. (No, I don't know all the correct jargon, I'm sorry if that is an offense to you.) Wd40 (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current events portal has a subpage for each day, which you can edit by clicking on the edit link in the right margin for that day (where it says "edit history watch"). If you click the edit link at the top of the page, you will not see the actual news items. I'm sorry that I did not make this distinction clear.-gadfium 05:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the improper edits on this article today. I am usually quite thorough with the earthquake articles, but I was trying to sneak in a few edits while at work, and paid the price by working too quickly. Dawnseeker2000 01:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for correcting some of my reversion of vandalism. I was angry with the stupidy of the vandalism and had very little time to restore the lede to previous. Hence my typos!! Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy removal of the deletion request on my article. The offending editor has not submitted even one law article to wikipedia, and has only been a member of wikipedia for 2 years - I have nearly been a member of wikipedia longer than the editor. Anyway, thanks bro.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs) 08:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, Could you take a look at the talk page for Mark Lundy. Nikkimaria is trying to claim the article is biased but when challenged she is unable to present a single point to back up her allegations. Instead she has responded by adding other tags to the article without any justification. She has a habit of stalking any page I contribute to. Offender9000 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the talk page there looks more productive than many such discussions. Nikkimaria added a list of perceived flaws to the article as html comments on 14 April, and you appear to have addressed those issues. If she is still not satisfied, then she can repeat the process, or list the flaws on the talk page. You might like to ask User:Escape Orbit, who commented on the talk page a month ago and who is still active, to rejoin the discussion. You can also ask at WikiProject Crime and Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand for further input.

The title of the article and talk page should be along the lines of Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, not Mark Lundy, per WP:BLP1E. Background on Lundy's life and his family's life is still relevant to the article. Wikipedia is very mixed on articles dealing with people known only for one event. A case relevant to New Zealand where we went the other way was Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis, and that was probably a mistake.-gadfium 19:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is totally unproductive. Nikkimaria is unwilling to accept that I have addressed any of her concerns and keeps putting the tags back about tone and neutrality. What the page should be called is another issue altogether. David Bain is also known for one event. Offender9000 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium, could you take another look please. Three other editors have now made dozens of edits re neutality. I have accepted most of these - but they still keep putting up the tag claiming it is not neutral. Offender9000 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks to me like other editors are raising valid points on the talk page and making constructive edits to the article (as well as the tiresome back and forth reverts by all of you) and the article is getting better as a result. If the NPOV tag is still there a week after the last improvement to the article, suggest that a neutral party be asked to evaluate it. Nominate an editor (not necessarily an admin) who has had no previous connection with the article, and no significant interaction with you. User:Good Olfactory is a possible such editor.-gadfium 20:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gadfium, I know what I wrote on the Damien O'Connor page was biased. I did that on purpose because what *had* been written was biased and appeared to try to paint this man deliberately in a bad light, but I assume because so many Wikipedia editors share its bias, *that* was okay, and it would take only a few minutes for me to get in trouble.

Now, it has been changed to neutral language. Well done, for not noticing it before.

And don't tell me what was written was not NPOV because it was true (which is still debatable, actually), what I wrote was true as well. NPOV refers to nuances, not only facts. One must present a fully neutral POV.

--193.90.240.119 (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT.-gadfium 09:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, there are some serious (vandalistic) deletions happening on David Bain by Pushbutton auto if you want to take a look. Offender9000 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request for Thomas Ellison I'm currently attempting to bring the article Thomas Ellison to Featured Article standard. I've opened a peer review, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas Ellison/archive1—any feedback, however brief, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

- Shudde ^talk 07:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, I am sorry for not following the official protocol. I never meant to delete the images, but I could not add some new ones. I also had issues citing the sources. Could you send me an e-mail to marc@fiordland.org.nz and I will send you the Word document I created with the references. I would like to see something more in dept on Te Anau and I would like to work with you, as you know much more than I do about Wikipedia! Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiordland (talk • contribs) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Help:Editing and Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing (just get the gist of those pages, you don't need to memorise every word on them), and then start adding content to the article. I, or someone else, will come along within 24 hours and fix any mistakes you make in formatting. Just don't delete the existing content wholesale, and if you end up with a page that looks badly damaged, stop editing until someone fixes it (or reverts your edits). Earlier, you tried to add references but got large red messages in the page saying the references weren't formatted correctly, and in response you removed the references. That makes it more difficult for later edits to format the references, because they have to dig into the page history to find what you removed.

It would probably be a good idea to get a new username, as we don't allow usernames which are names of companies or organisations. See WP:ORGNAME. The simplest thing you can do is just log out, and create a new user account. Alternatively, see Wikipedia:Changing username.-gadfium 05:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I will follow your guidance. What is the best way to add images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.240.157 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... at least in the matter of the edit removed here: [4]. It's as clumsy as the rest of her contributions, and should probably be edited down to simple salient facts, but it's nowhere near as egregious as much of what she writes: it's referenced to a well-known, mainstream writer, and the comparison between Polynesians and Vikings is by no means original to her (cf "Vikings of the Sunrise"). It's not worth reverting its removal, but it's an example of one of her edits which, with some work, could be salvageable. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I hadn't looked to see who had added it, but I'll accept your input on this.-gadfium 09:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I guessed it as Claudia just by the attempt at reference formatting. Have just gone and checked and it was from this edit [5] which is definitely one of her IPs. As I said it wasn't worth reverting the removal but if you're still trying to encourage her to improve her content work, this is an example of one of her better edits. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good old Dave.Lets see maritime seafarers, same time period ,similar problems , same range of navigation resources but the sea is a lot colder.Viking boats were about the same level of seaworthiness . Both cultures produced hard people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This same IP editor is escalating his/her activity at a couple of Maori-related articles, Parihaka and Pai Mārire, with some vigorous edit-warring (including deletion of citations and restoration of an incorrect book name), unsourced speculation and refusal to discuss. I have reported him/her for edit-warring over Pai Mārire and given a 3RR warning at Parihaka, but a third voice on the talk page at either article would be appreciated. BlackCab (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for speaking up at the edit-warring page. The "two to tango" approach is all very well, but either editors step in to stop the excesses of editors who care nothing for quality and accuracy ... or they just stand by and let the pages descend into a swamp of POV and agenda-driven crap as this editor is doing. It's a bit galling to think that taking on the task can lead to a block from editing. I have tried to engage this person in discussion, tried to debate the problems, without success. The other avenues for the future, I suppose, are dispute resolution and request for third-party comment, but that needs active involvement from other editors, and so far that's been in short supply. Anyway, thanks for your comment. BlackCab (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Claudia?[6] It reads like her style (with the unnecessary mentions of cannibalism), but you are probably more familiar than me with her. Assuming it is, what is the current consensus with her edits? I vaguely remember some discussion on the NZ notice board and possibly at ANI. The IP address has many warnings to not add original research so maybe if it hasn't been done yet it should be brought up? AIRcorn (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's Claudia. Her IP address seems pretty stable now. Some of her edits to Demographics have been reverted. I modified some earlier comments, but noted in my edit summary that I wasn't sure they belonged. Feel free to revert further back, or to better integrate her material.

The last discussion about Claudia's edits in general that I'm aware of is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars, and there are further links at User talk:Gadfium/archive71#Agenda pushing by IP user. user:BlackCab has been involved in monitoring her edits since then, and I believe while many of her edits have been reverted, in some cases the articles have unquestionably improved as a result of their monitoring.-gadfium 03:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I didn't revert straight away was because I thought that the article could do with some pre-European information. Anyway BlackCap is onto it so the demographics article should be kept under control at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left further notes on the article talk page. It is patently rubbish that doesn't belong. Removing this stuff can't be left to one editor, though, for obvious reasons. That editor thrives on edit-warring and has scant regard for Wikipedia style, conventions or policies and a concerted effort by several editors to remove the worst of his/her excesses is clearly needed. BlackCab (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, I reported an IP 50.8.27.98 to WP:AIV and saw this update indicating that you'd blocked the IP for one year. I didn't see any notification on the IP's talk page or contrib history, so I was curious if the block went through. And since the editor also operates from 173.11.226.201‎ I was wondering if they should receive equivalent blocks, though I have no preference as to duration. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's up with helperbot, but I didn't block that IP and wasn't aware of the entry at WP:AIV.-gadfium 05:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Maybe I'll pester the other editor on the case! Shame on Helperbot!! Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium,

My brother is the man that turned 30 yrs old and why I wanted to edit the prognosis section of the page. Pls tell me what reference I can send and how. I have birth certificates, pictures, doctors notes etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texashedge17 (talk • contribs)

Is there a newspaper article or similar about your brother turning 30? Even better would be an article in a medical journal saying that survival rates for CD are increasing. We need to have such sources to support articles in Wikipedia, especially medical articles. Is he the first person with Canavan's Disease ever to reach this age? If so, this might be worth mentioning as a record, but makes little difference to the vast majority of people with this condition.-gadfium 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged Category:Johnny Barker (entertainer) albums for speedy deletion 11 days ago. Time to do the deed, methinks. Here is some history: The article Johnny Barker (entertainer) was deleted on May 4, 2013 (discussion), and the article on Barker's only album, Lullabies for Macy Rose (album), was speedy deleted on May 8, 2013 (discussion). (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I guess categories for speedy deletion don't get as much attention as articles do.-gadfium 20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

193.133.28.102 is still vandalizing, please block this url again. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-gadfium 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

174.48.147.152 is still vandalizing, please block this url again. With all the disruptive editing from this source a much lengthier block would seem to be in order. Thanks.1archie99 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

174's recent edits are not obviously vandalism. They may be good faith, and most may be correct. Those few which seem clearly incorrect (because they are contradicted elsewhere in the article) may be due to the editor not having a good grasp of English. Their subject of interest - actors and musicians - is not an area I have much knowledge of, and this would therefore be better handled by another admin.

I note that they have received no warnings since my block last month, and many of their recent edits have not been reverted. I suggest you attempt to discuss their edits with them, trying in particular to establish to what extent they understand English, and point out that all edits to biographies of living people must be sourced. They have had many templates dropped on their talk page, but no attempt at communication so far.

If such attempts are ignored, then report them at WP:AIV, which is where the admins who are most active in dealing with vandalism hang out.-gadfium 22:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```Buster Seven Talk 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Congratulations are indeed due. Schwede66 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tikipunga may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
contributing primary (years 1-6) school with a roll of 212.<ref>{{TKI|1113|Tikipunga Primary School]}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically did you think was inappropriate. LivvyPritchard (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits appear to be promoting Alan Cox's book, but the publication of this book does not appear to be one of the most notable events in Samoan history.-gadfium 04:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gadfium, I'm currently feeling the pressure at work and I don't have time to deal with a problematic editor. The issue is adding of unsourced content to various pages on arms, for example [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], and this may or may not be a copy violation. I tried to engage in discussion on the user's talk page, but despite two attempts in April to get a response, my posts were simply deleted earlier this month. I thus transferred the deleted discussion items to the talk page of Canterbury Province, so that there's a record why I deleted the material again. There's now a post on my talk page, which is good to see, but no effective discussion has been had yet. I see that fellow editors Moonriddengirl and Stuartyeates have also tried to have discussions with this user. Would you have time to look into this? Schwede66 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the user is claiming that the description of coats of arms and blazons must be written to a precise formula, and there is no room for originality in this (for blazons in particular). Thus, they argue, copyright does not apply. See Flags33's post to Moriori's talk page. I'll ask Moonriddengirl's opinion of this.

Apart from the copyright issue, I don't really have a problem with the addition of such material to articles because it isn't controversial. Flags33 needs to be encouraged to provide sources. Perhaps they are not currently doing so because they fear their material will be tagged as copyvio.-gadfium 20:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw your message at MRG’s Talk page and thought I‘d comment here. Although no expert, I would tend to agree that heraldic blazons are not copyrightable; they‘re not unlike chemical formulae in that they describe their subject in a standardized manner, with very little latitude for creativity on the writer’s part. You might want to seek more opinions at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, though. Note that this only applies to the formal description itself, not to any further material discussing the symbolism, history, or whatever.—Odysseus1479 00:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gadfium.

Could you please take a look at the Kaikorai Valley College page mainly the roll back of the material by Mean as custard on the 29th of May. The information he rolled back from was vastly more up to date than what is now there, If it seems biased could you or someone else re-write it to be more acceptable. We would very much like to have up to date correct information about Kaikorai Valley College. If you would like to get in direct contact with myself or someone higher up in the school could you email me at logan@kvc.school.nz . Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logosta (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to the article have been promotional in tone, and have listed numerous people with little claim of notability. I am concerned that recent edits have stated the school roll as being very substantially higher than that reported by the Ministry of Education Te Kete Ipurangi site. I understand the TKI figure will be a little out of date, but it is unusual for a school's roll to change so rapidly. Can you give me a link to a reliable source which gives the current school roll?

I have added a couple of alumni who have Wikipedia articles, and included references which establish their connections with Kaikorai Valley College. I have also updated the list of sister schools and used your prospectus as a reference for the history paragraph.-gadfium 04:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop linking in Clayton Wetherston to the Kaikorai Valley page - this has been requested many times and you keep blatantly adding this back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.237.236 (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wetherston is clearly notable, and he's got a greater claim to association with the college than most alumni. We do not list only alumni of whom the college approves.-gadfium 08:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current title The Base (Shopping Centre) is wrong, at least by WP:LOWERCASE, but I think the standard dab is mall, rather than shopping centre. What are your thoughts? Adabow (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct terminology in New Zealand is shopping centre, we do have malls but this is a hybrid. Helamant(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to update the content for this page with current information. I am also trying to add more information to build out the article to better reflect the development. If a COI exists can you suggest a way in which I can have the information updated? The organisation owns all of the information that I was posting. HELP Helamant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can update the information using your employer's web site as a reference for purely factual, non-controversial information. You would need an independent source for superlative terms eg being the country's largest. However, if you want to use the wording on the web site directly, you must establish your permission to do so by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Even then, you should be restrained in what you copy, as material on Wikipedia must not have a promotional tone.

If there is controversial material, please post to the article talk page rather than the article itself.

As far as the name of the article goes, I would suggest The Base (shopping centre) (note lower case) or The Base Shopping Centre if that is the advertised/legal name. However, getting the name of the article right is not urgent at this point.-gadfium 06:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadfium, I hope you are keeping warm and dry. Pretty lousy down here in Christchurch. The other day, the Category:Members of Canterbury Provincial Council and its sibling categories got moved, and the silly bot didn't take any account of the explanatory text that was written there. I cannot remember whether I just wrote the text for the Canterbury Category, or whether it was done for all of them. Would you mind having a look at some point, and restoring the text? Much appreciated. Schwede66 06:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any explanatory text at the old category, so I am unsure what you are referring to. It may be that the best person you can ask is User:Good Olfactory, who has been involved in the renaming of these cats, and who is a NZ resident.-gadfium 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was sure that there was content, but obviously I was in error. I've had a look and now realise that Good Olfactory is an admin, too. If I'd known, I'd have asked him in the first place. Thanks for looking. Schwede66 07:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Special:Contributions/Bobbi1988, with an expiry set of indefinite. Because the user may vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.177.205 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That user hasn't edited for a couple of weeks, and their contributions are mainly to change the genres of songs. I don't have the expertise to decide whether their edits are productive or not, but I note that they have not received a level 3 or 4 warning for their edits. I suggest you attempt to engage them in a discussion about what genres are appropriate on articles, and if necessary ask for guidance at WT:WikiProject Songs.

I also note that you have placed similar block requests for other users on the talk pages of several admins. Please try to work out differences with other editors before running to authorities for help.-gadfium 07:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]