User talk:BlackCab/Archive 3

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have explained my rationale for reverting unsourced changes at the talk page. [1]. User:Willietell, who has been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation (and dealt with pretty damned leniently, considering his past behavior) has so far endeavoured to have the entire page deleted without giving any better explanation than it was all lies. His AfD attempt was quickly headed off at the pass. I'll refrain from reverting this article again; I'm confident other editors will do that instead. Willitell is running a one-man crusade to have Jehovah's Witness-related articles read like cheery propaganda pieces. BlackCab (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Deep breaths?

I know working with stubborn editors is tough sometimes. I don't want to see him going and crying foul about civility for your sake. Maybe a couple deep breaths or some zen exercises? Ishdarian 07:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Dispute about Jesus' execution method, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Episcopal and Tammuz (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) 10:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems a bit weird apologizing to a bot, but really ... I'm sorry. BlackCab (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited The Clean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flying Nun (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) 11:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's behaviour

Regarding your comment here... I believe the reason for AuthorityTam's behaviour is intended to express his contempt for you, without engaging you directly. In fact, it's notable that he very rarely engages you directly, but refers to you in the third person almost exclusively, despite editing many articles in common. This seems to be his way of 'shunning' people he perceives to be 'former JWs', while still being involved in discussions. The behaviour is certainly not conducive to collaborative editing, but the article Talk page probably isn't the best place to address it. You could approach him at his User Talk page about the matter, but since he will likely either ignore you completely or provide an indirect response in the third person, you should probably just remove the comment and the subsequent responses from the article Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

University

Can you please supply a quote at Talk in relation to this edit? It is almost certain to be contested.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I can. The document itself has been uploaded to [2]. Hopefully the WTS will at some point state in a more public forum that they are prepared to remove a pioneer or elder or ministerial servant from their position if they permit a family member to attend university. Until then, this document is the source. BlackCab (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffro77 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jeffro77 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:James Penton portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:James Penton portrait.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hang in there

I saw on AN/I how you have indicated that you are, basically, fed up with JW related content, and possibly wikipedia in general. God knows I can understand why. If you would have no objections to my doing so, however, I would like to encourage you to remain at least somewhat active with Wikimedia, like maybe Wikibooks and WikiQuote, if not wikipedia per se. There is a lot of potential content related to religion in general, and I think the JWs in particular, that we may not yet have. I'm thinking of any substantial entries in the Historical Dictionary of the Jehovah's Witnesses here, for instance. And some topics, like Penton and his books, while maybe not essential to an understanding of the JWs, are still extremely valuable to an encyclopedic treatment of them. Hang in there. With any luck, things should improve a little. If nothing else, if you have any concerns, you could drop a note to another editor with an indication of what you think relevant and they could work on it. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the thought. BlackCab (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam

User:AuthorityTam has resumed editing today and has immediately made a misleading claim about me. I have therefore re-opened the previous unresolved ANI where various proposals were suggested. I am advising you because you were substantially involved in the previous discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Resuming_AuthorityTam_ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit

Thanks. Clearly I need coffee.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Indentation

It doesn't matter too much, but please note that my indentation at the 'supreme court...' Talk page was already correct because I was responding to AuthorityTam's comments. Please refer to point 2 at WP:INDENT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, some people spend too much time making up guidelines. It makes much more sense to increase the indent for every comment to make clear that it's a new contributor to the conversation. But thanks for pointing that out: I often wondered why you didn't increase the indent. BlackCab (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reinstatement of content on SFK page

I have reinstated some of the content that you removed, as it is still relevant to the page; I agree that the info about the latest record's release is outdated and have left that out.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What you have reinstated is "relevant" only because it is about the band, but the content is arbitrary, adds little more information than is contained in the discography below and is also poorly representative of the band's history. Why no mention of Echolalia for example? The article badly needs expanding with a better history of the band from reliable published sources, but I have no such sources at hand at the moment. BlackCab (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am just going by the pages of other bands, whereby the History explores each album in greater depth. The page is by no means complete and I did not create it, but I have been progressively chipping away at it over the last few months. I think the reinstated information provides a worthwhile template to expand upon, that's all.There are three more albums to write about and the current sections need expanding, with corresponding citations added. I have responded to your commentary on the Talk page, as the points you raise are valid and will need addressing. You will also see that I cut down the Tour section, as it was excessive and inappropriate for Wikipedia. I also want to add the latest area of political activism (an animal liberation campaign, I think) that the band has been involved in. Please feel free to add any sound sources that you come across to the Talk page, as they will be most welcome.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never been a fan of that style of article structure, which is too limiting, and is particularly weak when the albums per se don't actually define the band's history. It does work with, say, Radiohead because that band's albums in large part marked major stylistic changes or career milestones; in contrast The Triffids and 10cc articles work perfectly well without creating arbitrary subheadings for album. A further problem is the brevity of each of those sections: WP:BODY states: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." That's certainly the case at the SFK article.

In any case, I've since found a fairly detailed published history of the band which hopefully I'll find time to add in the article in the next few days. I think it will overcome the problem. BlackCab (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good and thanks for the tip!Soulparadox (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leave Your Soul to Science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Brown (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) 12:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Something For Kate

		The Half Barnstar
		Sending this over to you for our collaborative efforts on the SFK page—amazing work with your latest edit! Soulparadox (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Soulparadox. The information on the page is certainly more comprehensive now. I've also expanded the pages for most of the band's albums and tidied up the Paul Dempsey page. It's always good to have great Australian artists represented with clean and informative Wikipedia articles. BlackCab (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Check the Talk page for my update regarding the Cover songs section and I have also added a tag to the Touring members section.--Soulparadox (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm

Careful. The "WATCHERTOWER" will get you. LOL.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a worry, particularly in light of the 2012 phenomenon. The end could be closer than we think .... or has someone else already said that? BlackCab (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, those nutters. I guess I can stop worrying about heat death of the universe then.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BASE jumping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M83 (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) 11:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hitching

Please note that the 'See above' comment at the JW criticism Talk page is for the benefit of other readers of the Talk page. I'm quite confident that you're already aware of the other section. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the comment on my iPhone in bed at the end of long night socialising. (The iPhone is pretty hopeless when trying to edit Wikipedia; adding comments to the end of long threads is very tiresome, so I took the easy way out). I was aware of that rambling discussion about evolution sources, but tuned out a while ago. I've just gone back to re-read it, though, and have now moved my comment into that thread, where it belongs, and expanded it. BlackCab (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jehovah's Witnesses".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC) 1975, Beckford Jeffro and Natural discussed adding the year 1975 to Beckford's citation under sociology. Blackcab did not add to the discussion. Jeffro stated he had no objection. Blackcab reversed that addition to the article without discussion. Why was that? Natural (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Natural I swept it out with a couple of other unworthy and unnecessary additions. It was a poor way of inserting the date. "Sociologist James A. Beckford, 1975, has classified ..." would leave most readers mystified by what the 1975 referred to. I have rewritten the sentence to make it clear. BlackCab (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Your conduct in JW-related articles Hi, I have to say I think you're conduct in JW-related articles is far way out of line. You're edit [3] could not in any other way be looked at as an attempt for identification or provoke a selfidentifying regarding other users status regarding their religious status. I don't know for FakTNeviM, but, I've never selfidentified or revealed my personal status either way regarding JW, at wikipedia. I am pretty sure you did know this, as this have been discussed before. I consider your behavior being a personal attack to my integrity, and I will strongly urge you to not only remake the mentioned edit, but for real think about your conduct from now on. You can also consider this as a last warning before I take further steps involving admins and noticeboards. Grrahnbahr (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Honest mistake, I thought you were a Jehovah's Witness. I don't remember previously discussing it and it wasn;t intended as an insult. If someone called me a JW I'd correct them, but I wouldn't say it was an attack on my integrity. I've changed the comment and I'll refrain from further assumptions. Have a nice day. BlackCab (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Waikato war connections Hello again. There are many connection between the attack on the British soldiers in Taranaki and the attack on the Te Awamutu trade school and the later attack on Auckland. All 3 attacks were carried out by Kingitanga supporters -the first 2 by Rewi Maniapoto's men and the last by Ngati Haua from their secret base in the Hunua ranges. Grey was well aware of all this. Magistrate Gorst at Te Awamutu sent Grey regular letters informing him of Kingitanga movements and intensions. Kupapa Maori in Te Awamutu warned Gorst and the other settlers that they were targets for Rewi Maniapoto. Gorst was inclined to stay but Grey recalled him as he had received information from his many other sources that Rewi intended to kill Gorst. The kingmaker himself had informed Grey what the kingites intended to do in a series of letters. It must be remembered that not all Waikato Maori supported the king movement and even within the king movement the various hapu/iwi remained quite independent. This is shown by the presence or absence of the various groups in each conflict. Without the help of kupapa Maori the defeat of the Kingites would have taken much longer. In particular the help by Maori guides leading the army via local tracks to passby the warriors to attack Rangiowhia was crucial. The need for large numbers of troops was simply military doctrine-attackers need to out number defenders 3:1 to have a reasonable chance of success. The early attacks by rebels on Auckland farms and the armies initial inability to prevent these attacks, meant that Cameron decide to fortify his supply chain,build a military road and create a navy to bring supplies over the Waikato Heads and up the river. Maniapoto men were identified very early on for example after the Pukekohe East battle when they were shot or captured -many of them were well known to Aucklanders through their long established trading activites. The vast bulk of the army was involved in defending the supply line. From memory at Orakau there were only about 800 soldiers but this proved more than enough. The first war in Taranaki had been ample warning to Grey that the kingites would not be push overs. Although Grey had offers of many Queenite Maori troops from the north to fight the Kingites in the Waikato he was wise enough not to take up that offer. All this is conventional NZ history and well established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC) If it's "conventional NZ history and well established", why not produce some genuine references that back it up? I have yet to read any book that states that those two incidents precipitated the invasion. BlackCab (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Suggest you start with Gorst's account written about his time at Te Awamutu. Response to you on my page Letting you know that I saw your comments and appreciated your taking the time to write. There's a fairly short response on my page. G.Larson (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC) In case you are interested, there's an additional comment about Rutherford on my personal page. Thanks. G.Larson (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Bible Students, et. al. Perhaps you could help me understand. If these people were Catholic priests (or Methodist decons) we would not captialize the title when not used to modify a name. On the face of it, I cannot think of a reason to capitalize "Bible student." I may very well be wrong, I often am. Could you provide an anlagoy that would help me understand? If there is a Memorial Ceremony, it might require a capital if we follow the rule that allows us to captialize the religious Mass. Is that your line of reasoning? In any case, I would appreciate tha chance to reason this through with you. I mean no offense. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I saw your edits and they were quite irritating. "Bible Students" in the given context is a title. It is the name of a religious denomination. The term is not being used generically. 'Catholic priests' is not a title, so your analogy is invalid. Also, 'Memorial' is a official title for a particular ceremony rather than generic use of the term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Gosh, I am sorry if I caused you any offense. So you are saying Bible Students is a term like Christian Scientist in construction and use? Would you agree that the use of Memorial is like that of Mass? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Paul, your comments here are so loaded with sarcasm it's difficult to determine whether you're actually seeking a response. Bible Students as the name of the religious denomination or movement deserves capitalisation just as much as Jehovah's Witnesses. With their earlier name, Bible Students, they publicly identified themselves as students of the Bible; with the name they later adopted, Jehovah's Witnesses, they identified themselves as witnesses of Jehovah. The Memorial is a major formal annual event on their calendar; it's a memorial occasion marking Jesus' death in the same way the Assumption is a Catholic religious event marking the assumption to heaven of Mary; both carry a capital. The Memorial is, however, unlike a baptism for devotees or memorial service for those who die, neither of which are capitalised. BlackCab (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I am in no way being sarcastic and am hurt you would violate the policy of assuming good faith. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Please consider this restatement of the same principle in slightly different words: The term Bible Students is not merely a descriptive expression referring to a group of people who study or studied the Bible. Instead Bible Students is a short form of the title Earnest Bible Students, which is a literal English translation of the German title Ernster Bibelforscher, which denotes a specific religious movement or denomination in Germany, which was an extension of the International Bible Students, based in New York City. Please forgive that somewhat run-on sentence, but the chaining in it is helpful. [Incidentally, in an interesting sidenote, the German noun Forscher means more than just "student"; it implies "scholar", "researcher", or "scientist", for it comes from the verb forschen, which means "to seek, search, research, inquire, or investigate".] Back to the central point:  Bible Students in this context is a proper-noun phrase, just as Earnest Bible Students is a proper-noun phrase (that is, a group of words functioning in the same manner as though it were a single-word proper noun). According to a thoroughly established and accepted grammar principle much older than any user at the Wikipedia (and much older than the Wikipedia MoS), Bible Students here requires not only an uppercase B but also an uppercase S. Cheers! Doc. DocRushing (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you. As I said from the get-go I intended no offense. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I apologise for my remark. It is easy to misread the intent in such comments. BlackCab (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Are you saying I misread your remarks you that you misread mine?Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I assumed "Gosh, I am sorry if I caused you any offense" was sarcasm on your part. I was evidently wrong. BlackCab (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Again, thank you very much. Funny how even in the written word, which ought to be so clear, we can too often misunderstand each other. It takes two to make a fight and I hope I in no way fed this small fire. Let us work together to make a better encyclopedia. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Language You've been doing some good work but don't mess it up by losing your cool. Take a break from wikipedia if you need to - or from certain subjects. All the best. Snori (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC) No, that was me showing restraint. That IP editor chooses to ignore repeated civil requests to work as part of a team and use the communication protocols almost every other regular user accepts. Perhaps a different approach may be more effective. BlackCab (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Ani notice Please see [[4]]. Mark it on your calender, I think this is the first time I have agreed with you on something. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC) There's a first time for everything. Thanks, I'll watch and wait. BlackCab (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Per a suggestion at ANi I opened this: Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Reported I have included you in the report. There was no reason for you to chime in and yet do so with a challenge. --Corjay (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Do what you want. BlackCab (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC) DR/N Hello. I am Amadscientist, a regular volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. According to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Opinion of Andrew Holden not a fact, the dispute that was filed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Jehovah's Witnesses has been resolved. When asked if this included the dispute at DR/N the answer from Jeffro77 was that the dispute should be closed. If you agree with that please indicate here or at the dispute filing so that we may close the case as resolved. If you disagree with this assessment please indicate as well so that the editors can be made aware of the discrepancy to continue the DR/N towards some resolution if possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks, all seems calm again now. I'm happy to let it go. BlackCab (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Was The Waikato in 1863 the land of milk and honey? Ive added information to the talk page on George Grey in response to a question and your reply from a few months ago. I know you are Australian and may not be familiar with the farming history of the area. You name several historians but dont refer to any dates or give a context. The end result is quite misleading. The Waikato was a pretty miserable place to try and farm. The original military farmers-mostly from NSW had little knowledge and no money to develop the land. Most failed. Land was bought up by capitalists from Auckland for a song as there were very few buyers. About 1863 period -Thames became attractive because of gold, as did central Otago. These 2 areas were magnets for men . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) September 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ozark Mountain Daredevils 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: *Mike 'Supe' Granda] Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language Hi there is a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Is the term JW offensive? that you might be able to help answer if you have time. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Jehovah Witnesses and Blood Transfusions It is unfair for you to caution me not to provide accurate information regarding our beliefs of blood transfusions and try to pass off inaccurate information as unbiased and balanced information citing information from the watchtower and from people who are not, never have been, or who have been but are now disgruntled Apostates. It is not fair that you do not allow me to provide information directly from the publishers and owners of the information. The current information is not accurate and I have a right to provide accurate information regarding the content. KT-JW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.35.35 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia has quite plainly stated policies on how its content is created, and copy-pasting copyright material from subjective sources is not acceptable. It is not for you to decide that some sources are "disgruntled apostates" (whatever that term means, and regardless of who decides one is such!) and are therefore unreliable. I have asked you to state any specific concerns at the article talk page and we can proceed from there. Please remember to sign your posts by concluding your message with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Maori culture Thanks for the encouragement. I started by removing stuff only to have it reverted and the old misspelled inaccurate stuff restored, which is frustrating. It's going to take someone with the patience and time to face down an edit war to fix this I think. Something to flag to the Maori Task Force maybe. Tirana (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for tidying Thanks for help in tidying up General Cameron's page and removing some repetition. There is a bit of detail removed that is important to the understanding of his situation ie being new to NZ and the politics behind the war.I have some more to add when I'm not so rushed at work-we are now in the silly(read boozy) season that always creates more than we can easily handle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC) IP block I have given you the "IP block exempt" right, which will allow you to edit while signed in even if the IP address you are on is blocked.-gadfium 22:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Excellent, thanks Gadfium. I've never had problems previously. BlackCab (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)