Jump to content

User talk:Gadfium: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
On holiday
←Replaced content with 'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
Tag: repeating characters
Line 1: Line 1:
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
{{Holiday}}
{{User:Gadfium/archive template}}
Please add items to the bottom of this page. I will normally reply on this page to any conversation started here.
<!--

You do know new comments go at the bottom, don't you?

-->
==Vandalism==
[[user:208.125.139.103]] is vandalising again. Could you have it/him blocked? Without wishing to be presumptuous, I think an indefinite block is merited.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov|talk]]) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:I've blocked them for another month. We almost never block IP addresses indefinitely, since the address may be re-assigned to a new user at some point in the future. However, if they vandalise again once the month is up, and there is no evidence of collateral damage, the following block will be for three months, and subsequent blocks will be for longer periods.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:: Thanks. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov|talk]]) 03:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

==New Zealand general election, 2005==
I don't see any reason to keep [[New Zealand general election, 2005: in depth results]] either, not sure why we had that in the first place when it doesn't really go in depth. BTW I'm working on the party lists for 2005 like 2008, 2002 et al. so should be added in a few days[[User:Mattlore|Mattlore]] ([[User talk:Mattlore|talk]]) 10:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

== Reply ==

Cheers. What with finishing my PhD, moving cities, starting a new job, finding somewhere to live and going up to Auckland every other weekend I've been pretty busy. But I'm in a new place and have an internet connection now (even if I can't get the damn wireless to work) so I'll probably be back now. --[[User:Helenalex|Helenalex]] ([[User talk:Helenalex|talk]]) 09:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

==Richard Worth==

Hi, Gadfium. I'm currently monitoring the Richard Worth scandal and will amend the article accordingly as new information comes to hand. Thanks for your constructive comments, and I will include media references when I re-edit the article should any further concrete details come to light
[[User:Calibanu|Calibanu]] ([[User talk:Calibanu|talk]]) 02:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu
[[User:Calibanu|Calibanu]] ([[User talk:Calibanu|talk]]) 02:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu
==David Bain==
Hey Gadfium. The paragraph you restored to David Bain bothers me a bit. The very first sentence of our [[Acquittal|not guilty]] article says ''"In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally '''certifies the innocence''' of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned"'' (my bolding). How can we justify that paragraph in the Bain article which says "A not guilty verdict does not mean that the accused person did not commit the crimes for which he or she is charged." The reference was to a Massachusets Bar Assn website. Unless we can come up with a NZ or England source, shouldn't that be left out? [[User:Kaiwhakahaere|Kaiwhakahaere]] ([[User talk:Kaiwhakahaere|talk]]) 04:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not entirely sure that we should be elaborating on these concepts in the David Bain article, but the concept of "not guilty" in New Zealand means "not proven beyond reasonable doubt" and falls short of "innocent" by a wide margin. The paragraph is there in part as a lead in to the following section on "possible compensation", for which innocence must be established.

:I didn't write the paragraph, and I would be more comfortable with it if it gave a New Zealand source. If you still believe it is not appropriate, feel free to remove it with an explanation in your edit summary.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 05:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

:It certainly needs to be expanded upon if it is to stay. The truth versus the courts findings are exactly the same as a statistical hypothesis test. The issue arises around the truth versus the jury decision in any trial. We will never know the truth in this case as valuable forensic evidence was destroyed, only David Bain knows the truth. In the long run the courts findings are correct most of the time (if not the whole judicial process would be a joke). --[[User:Zven|Zven]] ([[User talk:Zven|talk]]) 10:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gadfium for your reply to my edit to the Bain article, about repeated vandalism. I think it's not only appropriate, but necessary, to point out that a not guilty verdict is distinct from a declaration of innocence, because (a) it's simply true, in terms of both common sense and the law, and (b) it seems that the coroner is going to have a new look at this matter, and his determination will be based on a balance of probabilities, and he could reach a decision (using that lower threshold) that is contrary to the jury's in the retrial. For what it's worth, I think the jury in the retrial probably got it right, because the defense had in fact raised a "reasonable doubt," and that was the jury's test to be applied. But as in the OJ Simpson case, a finding of not guilty based on the evidence presented in a courtroom is not at all the same as a declaration of innocence. That doesn't mean that David Bain is guilty, or innocent. It simply means that the jury found that guilt had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. It is very very important to make that distinction, but many people seem to be confusing the two concepts. Anyway, thanks again for your balanced consideration. You know 50 times more about Wikipedia than I ever will. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/125.237.70.15|125.237.70.15]] ([[User talk:125.237.70.15|talk]]) 09:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Lets not forget that ideally the coronor will provide an objective (and not subjective) viewpoint, just like the three QC's who are likely to decide if compensation applies. --[[User:Zven|Zven]] ([[User talk:Zven|talk]]) 11:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

== BCE/BC ==

Hi Gadfium, I notice you are actively reverting my attempts to bring consistency to that Germanic article.
BCE, or Before Common Era, is simply Atheists trying to cover the fact that our calendar is based on the birth of Jesus.
There all it does is add ambiguity to dates, as how are these 2000 years any more or less 'Common' than the previous 2000? --[[User:Hayden4258|Hayden4258]] ([[User talk:Hayden4258|talk]]) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:I would direct you to [[WP:ERA]], but you are already well aware of that and have just been blocked as a sockpuppet of [[User:Hayden5650]].-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 05:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

== Thanks for the support, but . . . ==

Hey, I want to see vandals blocked as quickly as possible, and sometimes I get frustrated when there's apparently no one at AIV monitoring our block requests. But I nonetheless am puzzled by [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.174.167.3&diff=295327842&oldid=295317932 this block] of yours. The vandal had only one warning in the last four days, had never gotten a warning higher than Level 2, and had not made an edit for nearly two hours before your block—and none since my warning. I guess admins, like vandal fighters, sometimes make mistakes when they pull the trigger, eh? Well, we're all human. Just thought I'd point it out and let you decide what to do, if anything, about it. Cheers. [[User:Unschool|<font color="52A249">'''Un'''</font>]][[User talk:Unschool|<font color="23CE40">'''sch'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Unschool|<font color="7ED324">'''ool'''</font>]] 07:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:I was concerned that they had not received a block3 message or above, but they had received five separate warnings, and their last three edits were clearly vandalism. My block was only for 31 hours. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh, but not hugely so.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

==Assessment of articles?==
Some of the assessments of Wikiproject New Zealand seem eccentric to me. For example, the [[History of the Royal New Zealand Navy]] is assessed as low importance. Wikiproject Australia assesses their parallel article as high importance. [[Fishing industry in New Zealand]] is also assessed as low importance. Low importance, according to Wikiproject New Zealand's own criteria, is for an article that is "of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia". Anyway, I no longer contribute articles in these areas to the New Zealand project, since there is little point in wasting energy on articles that have such little value. Still, I find the project's stance a bit strange. --[[User:Geronimo20|Geronimo20]] ([[User talk:Geronimo20|talk]]) 11:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
:I agree that many articles have assessments that do not reflect their true value. This is mostly because about 11,000 articles were automatically assessed by a bot towards the end of last year, based on the number of hits each article was getting. Both the articles you mention were assessed by this bot. We prefer human assessments. Both those articles should be rated more highly, using other similar articles as a guide. For example, [[Agriculture in New Zealand]] is rated as top importance; fishing is probably one step down from that, so should be rated as high importance. [[Royal New Zealand Navy]] is high importance, so its history should be mid-importance, and individual vessels are probably low importance. You can find discussions on how to assess New Zealand-related articles at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment]].

:We have no restrictions on someone assessing the importance of an article they have worked on, so feel free to reassess any articles you wish. There might be some push-back if you rate too many articles as top importance, as we want to keep that rating for no more than 100 articles. You can also assess article quality yourself up to B-class. WPNZ has no process for giving an A-class rating, and there are Wikipedia-wide processes for determining GA and FA class articles. The more articles you assess, the better a feel you get for the process.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::Arr... a bot which assesses value according to the number of page views! That explains all these NZ articles about ephemeral populist fluff with such high ratings, while substantial background articles are dismissed as "obscure pieces of trivia". That might be a good marketing approach if Wikipedia were designed for promoting spam links. But for an encyclopaedia...? --[[User:Geronimo20|Geronimo20]] ([[User talk:Geronimo20|talk]]) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

==Great work on the cats==
Kudos to all your tireless work in organising categories for new articles. You apply a great deal of knowledge to this activity and certainly clean up a lot of new articles i have started. Keep it up. Best regards. [[User:Kiwikibble|Kiwikibble]] ([[User talk:Kiwikibble|talk]]) 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

== Please restore the Primary school list for Palmerston North - it's a work in process ==

We're (PNCC) trying to get the code right and the only way to see if it works is to leave it on.
Until yesterday there was only one Primary school even listed (a Non-state one at that).
Question: Are you an Officially appointed Wikipedia Administrator?
:Surely it would be better to improve the comprehensive list rather than duplicate it at the PN article. It might be appropriate to split out the PN city schools from the list for the region, as I have done for some of the schools so far at [[List of schools in Auckland]]. I can do this if you think that would be an improvement. The list would still seem to be too long to be included in the city article, although eventually I think each suburb article should have a short list or section on the schools in it. See the articles on [[North Shore City]] suburbs for an example of this, eg [[Devonport, New Zealand]].

:I am an administrator, but that gives me no more say in article content than any other editor. As an administrator I have to deal with misbehaving users, but you and I have a collegial difference of opinion/approach to the Palmerston North article which does not involve bad behaviour.
:: FYI: I started the primary schools list in the article in order to redirect the article of a newly-created non-notable school. While these are usually redirected to articles on the suburb the school is in, I had difficulty identifying the suburb, and I'm not sure if there are suburb articles for Palmy yet. [[User:Dramatic|dramatic]] ([[User talk:Dramatic|talk]]) 09:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:I will make a post to [[Talk:Palmerston North]] shortly about the gangs issue.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 02:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:The comprehensive list is at [[List of schools in Manawatu-Wanganui, New Zealand#Palmerston North City]].-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 03:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great: We were just blindly following the example of how the page had already been setout. Trying to add Primary, as all the other levels were covered, it seemed a blinding ommission not to include Primary schools. We had hoped to make the names of each school link to that schools actual website and were in the process of doing so. In any case I think we'll just point users to the one version of the truth we're acutally paid to maintain. - http://www.palmerstonnorth.com/Learning/SchoolsInPalmerstonNorth/

== Crime information for Palmerston North ==

To explain further: Our attempt to add some more recent information to the "Crime" section came from a serious concern raised by our District Health Board who contacted us about the information (Crime and Gangs); they have had a significant number of overseas high level medical job candidates ultimately turn down opportunities to work here simply because of what they read in that section. One candidate from Israel was so concerned about "the crime situation in Palmerston North", he opted to stay put... This unbalanced representation has thus had a direct effect on the recruitment efforts of our district health board, which in turn could exacerbate surgical waiting lists and place patients at increased risk. It's fair to say the DHB is quite rightly disappointed. As are the authorities and associated community organisations that have put in a tremendous amount of work, particularly in the past 8-9 years to address the issue of crime in our community. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hamish-r|Hamish-r]] ([[User talk:Hamish-r|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hamish-r|contribs]]) 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I have asked for some guidance at the [[Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Palmerston North|New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board]].-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 03:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

== Where's the Crime section for Auckland City? ==

Like there isn't one...

Palmerston has one drive by shooting way back in 2001 and we get a Section on Crime in wikipedia; Auckland on the other hand has had how many gang related killings since 2001? and they don't have a section on "Crime"... yeah, right oh! LOL
:See [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. You are most welcome to add a section on crime to [[Auckland]] or [[Auckland City]] with references. However, this does not help your case.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 03:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd contend that as for the most part the pages for other cities in New Zealand don't contain a section on "Crime", the inclusion of one for Palmerston North in this context is somewhat unbalanced; and serves to make out that Palmerston North is by comparison the crime hotspot of New Zealand, particularly to anyone living outside of NZ who is trying to make and assessment of risk in relation to selecting a suitable city to move to in relation to a job offer.

As far as adding sections to [[Auckland]] or [[Auckland City]], I'm already going to have to put in extra hours out of my own time for our rate payers to cover the time I've spent pursuing this matter, but thanks all the same for the invitation.

Correction.
Palmerston North had its last drive by shooting at 7:20pm, 8 June 2009 at the Mill liquor store on Grey Street. Here is the link for verification purposes: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/witnesses-sought-after-shooting-2773850
:Thanks, but this might be more useful posted at [[Talk:Palmerston North]].-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 03:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

== What about Crime sections for Wanganui, Wairoa, Whakatane, Westport, Whangarei, Wellington ==

And they're just some of the places, starting with "W" that have been more of a hotbed for recent and longstanding gang related crime and violence in New Zealand, far more than Palmerston North.

Anyone remember the 2007 drive-by shooting in Wanganui which took the life of a small child asleep in her bedroom - http://www.police.govt.nz/district/central/release/3035.html
{{Holiday}}

Revision as of 04:29, 21 June 2009

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gadfium&oldid=297669477"