Hello Akld guy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! RJaguar3 | u | t 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I am sorry about the vandalism message because it was meant for someone who posted an edit from an IP address, not from your user account. This can happen if someone else uses your computer or if your signal is hijacked in a public place or for one or two other reasons, as I recall. I had a circumstance a few months ago where we could not determine why a message which was not intended for a user found its way to their computer. I apologize for the mixup. Please be assured that although such things occur, they do so very rarely. Human editors also make mistakes and I acknowledge that I have made a few. Please do not be deterred from using or posting on Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three of a Kind (1936 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harry Bradley. 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) 08:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created, The Lady in Scarlet, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, you removed all content from the page or otherwise requested its deletion.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC),[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I do intend that the page "The Lady in Scarlet" be deleted. A more appropriate name is "The Lady in Scarlet (1935 film)", by which it's known on YouTube and elsewhere and found in Google searches (no searches resulted in the former name being found). I created the latter page just before your notification and transferred the contents of the earlier page to it. Akld guy (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akld guy, and thank you for contributions. Normally we use qualifiers in the article title when there are more than one subjects with the same name - see for example King Kong. If there is only one film with the name The Lady in Scarlet, then I think we should leave the article at that name (and I have changed it to a redirect for the time being). Wikipedia recommends the most common name for an article title, and you are right that most sources seem to mention that it's a 1935 film. However, I still don't think we need a qualifier unless there is another subject with the same name.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Hand, thank you. The original name did seem appropriate as there is no other entity of that name. Unfortunately, that name got lost among "The Lady in Red", "A Study in Scarlet" and other similar names when searching with Google. I congratulate you on adding a redirect. I hadn't thought of that, and think it's great because it catches both names. TYVM. Akld guy (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Patricia Farr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

seems like notability will be difficult to establish

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Roanoke Colony has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. If your source(s) were left out in error, then please provide your source(s) for the addition to this article. Thanks GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rena oil spill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Napier. 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.

Re-linked to 'Napier, New Zealand'. Akld guy (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auckland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northland. 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.

Re-linked to 'Northland Region'. Akld guy (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meemo16, you and I seem to be getting into an editing war over pronunciations on the above page. You seem to be intent on insisting that 'graph' is often pronounced with the 'a' as in 'father' as is the custom in the UK, whereas I almost always hear it pronounced as in 'bad'. That is the custom on NZ radio and TV channels. You are giving far too much weight to the 'father' version, and I'd like you to justify why you think it is so common. You have also twice changed the Maori pronunciation of Te Kauwhata, despite my note that the 'wh' should be pronounced as an aspirated 'w' as in 'why'. That is why the early missionaries wrote 'wh' and not 'f'. I'm old enough to remember when this 'f' pronunciation came about (in circa 1980) when the NZBC announcers began using it and received permission to do so. It caused controversy at the time as it was perceived as a form of laziness. Please state why the 'f' sound (the current lazy NZ way) is more appropriate for the way Maori pronounce the word, as recorded by the missionaries.

Since we seem to be at odds over very minor differences, I must ask whether you are a New Zealander, or at least resident in NZ with close proximity to NZ speakers. There is a suggestion in a post above that because you used an -ize ending, you may be neither. Akld guy (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hello. I am a New Zealander; I was born in New Zealand and I've lived here all my life.

In my original edit of the ‘graph’ section, I wrote that both pronunciations were used, which is true; I have heard both. If you can find a source saying that the /ɡræf/ pronunciation is commoner, then I'd be happy for the page to state that it is. But until then, I think we should have something neutral that doesn't favour one over the other. The ‘both pronunciations are used’ approach I feel is best.

As for the Maori pronunciation, this is what the Wikipedia page on the Maori language has to say on the matter:

The pronunciation of /wh/ is extremely variable, … but its most common pronunciation (its canonical allophone) is the labiodental fricative, IPA [f] found in English. Another allophone is the bilabial fricative, IPA [ɸ][.]

The /f/ pronunciation is commoner, so it should at least be listed alongside the /hw/ pronunciation—which, strictly speaking, is /ɸ/—if not as the main one.

The ‘-ize’ ending is the Oxford spelling.

Meemo16 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You originally (before I came on the scene) had provided no reference for your claim that the /ɡrɑːf/ pronunciation is as common as /ɡræf/ but now you are asking for a reference from me that the latter is far more common? Well, I cannot win in a situation like that since it implies that you think you own the page.

I'm aware of the Wikipedia ruling on 'f' for the 'wh' sound, but you have missed the point entirely and so has Wikipedia. The missionaries in the early 19th century specifically transcribed the sound as 'wh', not 'f'. Were they stupid? No. The fact is that until circa 1980, the NZBC announcers took pains to make the 'wh' sound, but around that time they were under pressure to drop their BBC type pronunciation and 'speak as New Zealanders do' and they adopted the lazy 'f' sound that only the laziest New Zealanders were using. They got approval to do so, despite controversy, and soon this became ingrained as the correct pronunciation. Even some young Maori today do not appreciate how this pronunciation was hijacked. Wikipedia is simply repeating the modern version without consideration for what is correct. Disclaimer: I have not a trace of Maori genealogy. Akld guy (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that both pronunciations were equally common; I wrote that they were both used:

Like in the UK, the word and combining form graph is pronounced both /ɡrɑːf/ and /ɡræf/ in New Zealand.

Your edits are the only ones that claim one is commoner than the other:

The word graph is usually pronounced /ɡræf/ in New Zealand, in contrast to grass (/ɡrɑːs/).

The page should display the common Maori pronunciation regardless of your or others' view of it.

Meemo16 (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I loved your copy editing on that article. Keep up the good work! Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked, I can give you three sources to pursue, The People v. Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman and Steven Oney is a docudrama about the case (oddly enough, even given its name, it leaves out the super majority of testimony at the trial). Another source is Professor Alan Koenigsberg of 'The Leo Frank Case' yahoo discussion group which is linked at the bottom of his site, best thing to do is email him or post on his discussion forum. You can also contact 'The Temple' in Atlanta and speak with someone who knows about their history. SmittyLiver (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SmittyLiver: Docudramas do not meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources, so the docudrama you cited is unacceptable. Even worse, that docudrama is blatantly antisemitic, as even the most cursory reading of the review at the site shows. The second source you cite is an online discussion group, and therefore also fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria. As it happens, I did find the Temple's site which states that Frank was a member. The site appears to meet WP's criteria and it may be possible to work the fact that Frank was a member into the Leo Frank article. I have not yet found anywhere a statement that Rabbi Marx set or shifted Sabbath service to Sundays, or that Frank eschewed Saturday Sabbath in favour of Sunday. So the question still is, why was Frank not only working but handling wage money on the Saturday? Perhaps the answer is that Frank regarded himself as a Jew only by birth and was to all other intents secular. We may never know. Akld guy (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Ben Loeterman is Jewish-American film director-producer and journalist-author Steve Oney is married to a Jewess, so undoubtedly you are confusing the opposing film review from Amazon.com with the philosemitic docudrama itself. The docudrama itself is not at all anti-semitic, but quite the opposite, it argues from a Southern Jewish perspective the South was and is overwhelmingly philosemitic. The film tends to argue that Jews prospered in the South and embraced Southern culture with pride. Speaking to the philosemitism of the South, census records from 1940s and backward have been released to the public on ancestry.com and you can see for yourself that the Jewish population in the South grew significantly from 1910 to 1920, and that fact also contradicts the erroneous claim in the Frank article that half of Georgia's 3,000 Jews left the state after Frank was lynched. There is no verifiable evidence to support the claim that a great number of Jews left Georgia at the conclusion of the Frank case. The leofrank.org claim of "world's foremost expert" attributed to Dr. Alan Koenigsberg, he is a professor of the classics at Brooklyn College, in NYC and his true crime forum is a great place to learn about the Mary Phagan Leo Frank case, but you are correct under wiki criteria it's insufficient as a secondary source. Frank was definitely not secular, he was the 1912-1913 Atlanta president of the local 500 member Independent Order of B'nai B'rith (Gate City Lodge #144) and even after he was convicted of murder, he was unanimously re-elected president in September 1913 for the term of 1913 - 1914. Frank and his wife were members of 'The Temple' and generally attended service there every Sunday. SmittyLiver (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hulmem. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Drywall, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. hulmem (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hulmem: I understand your rationale for reverting my edit on Drywall. I can't be bothered searching for a source that says that in New Zealand, drywall is universally referred to as Gib board or Gibraltar board, but trust me, it is. I doubt that such a definitive source can be found, simply because usage of the terms 'Gib board' and 'Gibraltar board' is so pervasive in NZ that nobody has ever needed to record that they are the terms used. I would rather let the article stand in its present misleading state. This is another case where Wikipedia fails the truth test because an editor cannot be bothered fighting uphill and wasting time searching for a source that points out the obvious. Akld guy (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akld guy,

I'm writing on your talk page because you took part in the discussion about the extension of a range IP block, there're less than 2 hours left for the new block to start and yesterday I added some information making a summary at the end of the section: may you please join back the discussion and give your final opinion about the matter?

Thank you in advance!

Centocinquantuno (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you have reverted my recent edits to the David Bain page, saying the content is not supported by citations. The ODT article supported some of the content, but that has been removed too. With regard to the quote (memory failure) I asked a question on the Talk page about how to correctly cite a non-internet source (being the Pretrial Rulings). Some of the content is available earlier in the article itself (significance of Dean Cottle and his evidence) so I did not cite that again, my reasoning being that if a person had read the earlier part of the article, they would know who he was. I am happy to add in further citations to the Cottle content, and could you please help me by answering question on the Talk page, rather than just swiftly deleting content I have taken time over?. Thank you NZgreygoose (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to this post on NZgreygoose's Talk page. Akld guy (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akld guy: Serendipity33 started editing the David Bain page on 29 November 2015. Since then he has not edited any other pages. I challenged him when he removed the word 'wrongfully' in the term 'wrongfully convicted' even though wrongful is the correct legal term and I provided citations to back it up - on 10 December.

Serendipity33 last edited the David Bain page on 8 December. But two days later, on 10 December shortly after my last edit, NZGreygoose appeared and started editing the page. He has not edited any pages except those of David Bain and Joe Karam. His editing was challenged by you here: Akld guy.

Mr Maggoo started editing the David Bain page on 11 December 2015. His editing is also entirely limited to David Bain. You questioned him here: Akld guy.

In correspondance with you, Mr Maggoo outed himself as the author of the The Bain Killings Whodunnit? and has added a link to his book on the David Bain page which identifies him as Michael Sharp. His self-published book was pulled from the two bookstores in New Zealand that agreed to stock it after receiving advice that it was a highly defamatory work that would never have been published other than by a self publisher.

Michael Sharp's opinions also appear on Counterspin which is the hate campaign website against David Bain and Joe Karam. In April 2015, Karam successfully sued two protagonists on Counterspin for $535k plus costs for defamation. It appears that Serendipity33 is Michael Sharp and is using Mr Maggoo and GreygooseNZ as sockpuppets to edit the David Bain page and that his editing is a serious breach of WP:NPOV.

The plot thickens. On this link, Michael Stockdale says he is the author of the book. On this link, it says he is also the publisher. Stockdale appears to have changed his surname to Sharp to write the book and then reviewed his own book as Michael Stockdale. It seems he is quite experienced at using sockpuppets...

I think you have more experience than I on what action to take about this. Turtletop (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You raise some interesting issues. I also found it suspicious that Serendipity33, NZgreygoose, Mr Maggoo, and yourself all started editing the David Bain article around the same time.

Serendipity33 made a small number of edits (Special:Contributions/Serendipity33) from 2008-2013, then started editing the David Bain article in earnest from 29 November 2015 for a total of 29 edits to date solely on that article. This appears to be an account reactivated for a single purpose.

NZgreygoose began editing on 10 December 2015 and has fewer than 50 edits (Special:Contributions/NZgreygoose) at this time, all of which are on the David Bain or the closely related Joe Karam articles. This appears to be a single purpose account.

Mr Maggoo began editing on 11 December 2015 and has fewer than 50 edits (Special:Contributions/Mr Maggoo), all of which are on the David Bain article. This appears to be a single purpose account.

On looking at your history (Special:Contributions/Turtletop), I see that you began editing on 14 November 2015 and have fewer than 50 edits, of which 20 are on this (my) Talk page. The remaining 28 edits are exclusively on the David Bain article.

It seems there are multiple accounts, including yours, being used for a single purpose. I have noticed that recent edits to the David Bain article, while not untruthful or misleading, tend to be pushing a strong line towards a particular resolution of the case. I propose to do nothing at this stage, but if a deterioration into a blatant POV situation develops, I might initiate an ANI sockpuppet investigation. Akld guy (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Akld guy Akld guy (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Auckland guy. I am not a sockpuppet of Mr MacGoo or anyone else. I have one account only. I am therefore happy for Wikipedia to investigate me a a possible 'sockpuppet' of any other entity. Thanks NZgreygoose (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NZgreygoose: I have indented your text (with the colon characters) to show that you replied to me. There has to be more suspicion of sockpuppetry than the mere fact that you started editing the same article as the others on about the same date, so relax. I simply wanted to record here the time the editors began editing, and their respective Contributions pages as a convenience for those who might want to look at them. Akld guy (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo Auckland Guy. I would just like to answer some accusations that turtletop has made against me. First of all any edits that I have made to the David Bain Wikipedia page have been made by me and no-one else. So turtletop is incorrect when he says I am using sock puppets. My name is Mike Stockdale and my book The Bain Killings Whodunnit was published under my birth name mainly because I did not want some of David Bain's more irrational supporters contacting any members of my family. My book was being sold by two bookshops. The manager of one of those shops was approached by a David Bain supporter and advised that I had referred to a defamatory website in my book, namely Counterspin. This was incorrect because at the time my book was published all the defamatory material had been removed by the owner of that website. What's more that website is still in operation. However the bookshop manager told me that she would not sell any more copies of my book until I had had it legally vetted. I did check to see how much that might cost me and was told it could be up to $10000 so I decided not to have that done so the manager paid me for the copies that had been sold and returned the unsold copies to me. The manager of the second bookshop was sent an email by a person using the name Grant Hargreaves telling her that I have breached a name suppression order in my book. I had my lawyer check that out and it turns out no name suppression order had been breached. That bookshop did stop selling copies of my book until she received a letter from my lawyer, but then commenced selling them again. My lawyer emailed Grant Hargreaves but that email address had been disabled. However , and at some cost to myself, I might add , I was able to find out that there was no Grant Hargreaves, and that the person that sent that email lived in Lower Hutt. My lawyer sent him a letter requesting some compensation. He had his partner contact my lawyer by phone , and she used a false name, I might add, saying that it wasn't her partner that sent that email, but I knew it was, by way of a Trade Me link. When my lawyer asked her why her partner had not contacted him, she said that he was too upset to do so. However since sending that letter my lawyer has told me that there was no way he could guarantee I would receive any compensation so for the time being I am not taking any further action against that person. The reason I started editing the David Bain Wikipedia page was it had been brought to my attention that there were some inaccuracies on it. Also there did seem to be a tendency for the page to be biased towards David Bain, in that only one side of the story was being told. I have tried to correct this, but many of my edits have been removed. One edit that I feel should definitely be there is the paragraph relating to Michael Guest's email to Judith Collins re the glasses that David Bain told him and his co-Counsel that he had been wearing on the Sunday evening prior to the killings. I would put it back up but I suppose if I did turtletop would only delete it again, so what would be the point? Regards Mr Maggoo

@Mr Maggoo: Thank you for setting out your case. In good faith I accept that you have not sockpuppetted. Your explanation, that in writing and self-publishing your book you used a pseudonym to avoid harassment, seems acceptable. I understand that you need to defend yourself on this page against the accusations made on it. Let me say, though, that nobody should regard me as an arbitrator. I'm not an admin, but only an editor, with a great deal less experience than many others. Please sign your posts with the four ~ characters so that your name and the timestamp are shown. Akld guy (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auckland guy. Thank you for your reply. The reason I sent you that message was because Turtletop sent you a message referring to me, which I happened to see. Sorry about not signing with those 4 characters, I had read where I was supposed to do that but forgot. Regards Mr Maggoo ~ ~ ~ ~

Hi Akld Guy, If the comments you posted on the Bain talk page about four editors collluding in FB are true, can I suggest you report this. This behaviour is called meatpuppetry and is just as unacceptable as sockpuppetry. See WP:Meatpuppet Turtletop (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please post a link to the Facebook page so that everyone can see what you are referring to. Turtletop (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Turtletop: I did not say that any editors colluded. In fact, they all seem to have different, highly polarized opinions about how the David Bain page should read. So this is probably not meatpuppetry. If a group of people are discussing an issue on some other medium, and they each decide to edit a Wikipedia article on the same topic, there's nothing wrong. Meatpuppetry is when an editor enlists the help of another to back him up by enforcing edits he wants retained, eg. by reverting on his behalf so that he doesn't reach 3RR. Akld guy (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auckland Guy. I appear to be in some strife because I keep removing the word wrongfully. I am still trying to find my way around the system. Apparently i am supposed to discuss this on a talk page. My reason for removing that word is that,in my opinion, the Ministry of Justice have not agreed with the defence claim that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. It has been discussed and there is a link to that discussion but what I would like to know is where the Ministry of Justice have ever agreed that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. Just because a person is acquitted after being convicted of a crime does not mean they were wrongfully convicted in the first place. There was a case in the USA where a person was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, then two years later he was acquitted, then a few years later he was convicted again of the same murder and once again sentenced to death. Would you say he was wrongfully convicted at his first trial? Regards Maggoo Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Guy. From my book. Timothy Hennis

A not guilty verdict does not mean the person who has been found not guilty is in fact innocent as some people believe. Take the remarkable story of Timothy Hennis, for example. Timothy Hennis, a 27 year old soldier based at Fort Bragg was convicted in 1986 of murdering of Kathryn Eastburn and two of her daughters,aged three and five, in nearby Fayetteville in 1985 and sentenced to death. However his lawyers appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court and the judges ruled that the graphic police photos had wrongly influenced the jury to render a guilty verdict and ordered a retrial. At his retrial in 1989 his lawyers attacked many of the prosecutions most damaging accusations one by one. [Ring any bells?] The end result was that Hennis was acquitted. As a free man Hennis re-enlisted in the Army and served a dignified career,eventually retiring in 2004 with the rank of Master Sergeant. He raised two children and and became the scoutmaster of his son's troop. However the prosecution continued to pursue the case. In 2006 vaginal swabs from a rape kit taken from Kathryn Eastburn's body yielded new evidence. DNA testing was an imperfect science in the 1980's and the semen found in Mrs Eastburn's body wasn't pursued as evidence at the first trial. In 2006 it was was found that the DNA from that rape kit was consistent with Hennis's DNA. The sample was 1.2 quadrillion times more likely to be from Hennis than from any other white person in North Carolina. Due to the Constitutional prohibition on double-jeopardy North Carolina could not try Hennis again. But the Army could. A team of military attorneys evaluated the case and the Army decided to pursue it. Hennis was recalled to active duty two years after his retirement and promptly arrested on three counts of murder. The prosecutions case hinged on the DNA result. The jury composed of men and women in uniform rendered a guilty verdict and Hennis was sentenced to death for the second time. He is now in solitary confinement on death row at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison in Kansas awaiting appeal. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to debate this issue here on my Talk page. Take your case to the David Bain Talk page please. Akld guy (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akldguy, I have referred Mr Maggoo to the Wikipedia:Administrators'noticeboard. You are invited to discuss. WP:ANI Turtletop (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for posting that message on my Talk page yesterday - although it really belongs on David Bain Talk page. I see you have now posted a message elsewhere indicating that you will take a break from editing the DB page. That's a shame. In my opinion, 90% of your contributions were positive and helpful. Admittedly we disagreed over what to include over Laniet's alleged pregnancy, and I acknowledge I might have been a bit hardline about my view. But I have no hard feelings about any of this and I could back up my truck and be a bit less staunch. Perhaps we could help everyone reach a compromise. What do you think? Turtletop (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded what I hope to be an accurate replacement. Unfortunately, I don't have the original file I used to create the map in question immediately to hand, so I've had to recreate it. I've tried to keep it as close as possible to the original, but there may be a few things I've missed. In addition to the things you pointed out, I have also changed the line colours, changed the Eastern Line to terminate at the new Manukau station, and removed the line to Waitakere, Huapai, and beyond (all of which I base on what I can find on the official website). Additionally, the new map does not show suggested/proposed construction (other than the no-longer-hypothetical City Rail Link, of course), since I am not up to date with current proposals and am unsure whether or not light rail should be shown. (Given that there seem to be ideas for light rail heading south from the CBD, but multiple proposed routes, the map would probably be cluttered if I attempted to display them all.) I hope the map is an improvement, at least. Vardion (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, any continued display of the old image is just an issue of caches, yes — though I could be wrong, so I'll keep an eye on it. Let me know if any errors have crept into the map. Vardion (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a version which hopefully illustrates the fare stages. I've also shrunk Parnell to normal size — the reason it was larger is because I was trying to have the dot cover all three lines which pass through (which a regular dot wouldn't), but you're right that it gave the station more prominence than would be expected. Vardion (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labels for Westfield and Otahuhu should now be moved. Vardion (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akld guy, thanks for your message. I had actually never heard of David Bain until I came across this wikipedia article and saw some of the contention on the talk page and then the request for some uninvolved editors at ANI. So yes, I'm not aligned with any "side" and have no opinion on the matter, just trying to help out by keeping an eye on edits that seem to me to breach wikipedia policies - you'll see I've done some copyediting (grammar etc) as well. I've added it to my watchlist and we'll see how it goes - I'm definitely not looking to get caught up in any arguments about what actually did or didn't happen! Cheers, Melcous (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion on the "Suppressed evidence" question on the DB Talk page?Turtletop (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time[1] at the Bain article you have accused an editor of editing with a potential conflict of interest. Bias is not a COI, so I am not sure where you are coming from (do you think Turtletop is David Bain?). Anyway the correct place to take conflict of interest suspicions is WP:COI/N. Continued accusations of COI can be constituted as a personal attack, and should not continue. AIRcorn (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Are you an admin? I'm not challenging you, but simply asking in case there are any sanctions you are considering against me. Akld guy (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No not an admin, so no danger of a sanction directly form me (I would probably consider myself involved if I was anyway). I am seeing a lot of problems with editor behaviour at this article though and have considered bringing it back to ANI. Basically accusing editors that you disagree with of a COI without any evidence can create a chilling effect and I have seen editors topic banned or blocked because of it. Consider this a friendly warning. AIRcorn (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: I have hung around ANI for a very long time and have never seen an editor topic banned or blocked for making an assertion of COI. That's because taking someone to ANI for making a COI assertion is so rare that it virtually never happens. You accuse me of disagreeing with Turtletop, as though we are on opposite sides of the 'David-Bain-did-it versus the Robin-Bain-did-it argument. 'Disagreeing' is not correct. Almost the entirety of Turtletop's editing has been pushing the POV that Robin was the perpetrator, but I have no opinion on it. What I am opposed to is his continual edit-warring to get his POV across. Just in the last couple of days, he reinserted the claims that Laniet allegedly made about her father back into the 'Family background' section, despite that section being stable for a week or so and consensus by everyone except Turtletop that the claims be kept out. His action was edit-warring.

Lastly, you may think that the case is a done deal and we are merely debating how the article should look. Not in the minds of some. David Bain has a claim for compensation currently active. Millions (yes, millions) of dollars are at stake, and then there are millions more to be made from book sales. Turtletop has been edit-warring on the article so strongly that it is hard to dismiss the notion that he might have something more at stake than how the article looks. Also, if an editor is being paid by some entity to make edits, he MUST declare his COI. He does not have a choice, he must declare. You will notice that the first editor that I asked for a COI statement has disappeared and has not been seen editing the article since. Akld guy (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion there right now. You previously accused Moriori (talk · contribs), an editor of over 10 years experience with tens of thousands of edits over diverse topics, of having a COI. This is starting to look like a pattern and I can assure you that while ANI can be a lottery, a reasonable case could be made against you if you continue this approach. I have linked to the COI noticeboard and suggest you take turtletop there if you think it is so obvious he has a COI. AIRcorn (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belated update: Turtletop was found to be operating sockpuppet account Thefundermentals and another account while editing the David Bain article, and was blocked on 27 April 2016. See here. These accounts, along with many others, were socks of banned user Offender9000. Akld guy (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on the topic!!!

Hope you are OK with KITTENS!!!!!!!!!!!!! You could have had "food and drink" or barnstars (?) but who doesn't need KITTENS!

Carolynimhoff (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Britomart Transport Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newmarket Railway Station. 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) 11:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated to Newmarket Railway Station, New Zealand. Akld guy (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Akld guy, thanks for your message and for spotting that error, I had just somehow not noticed it - all fixed now. Hopefully merging the multiple refs has been helpful and made the page a little bit more manageable. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The announcement said "Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT)". These are all clearly time zones even if you don't know each abbreviation, they are much more common time zones for editors (plus most Americans may be helped by getting EDT or PDT even if isn't their own zone), and it was a quickly read or skipped parenthetical remark in the existing announcement. The average reader may spend a second extra scanning through the parentheses if they are not interested in time zone convertions but actually started reading that sentence. A new post by another editor takes much more attention. Imagine 20 people added a post with their preferred time zone. If 20 extra posts is an unnecessary distraction then so is 1, just less so. Including every time zone in the original post would have been too much. Including a few common zones in parentheses seems OK to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Auckland Transport customer service centres has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

What is notable about these service centres? Maybe merge with the article on Auckland Transport.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Schwede66 05:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waterview Connection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Party. 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) 10:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated to New Zealand National Party. Akld guy (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akld guy,
Just mentioning that I think the info. in the paragraph you added here was already covered in the 2nd last paragraph of the lead.

The 'Koganites' still seem to be trying to 'control' the page, see here. - 220 of ^Borg 07:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@220 of Borg: I'm not one of them and have never worked for DSE. I thought it was important (and might placate the Koganites) if the online successor was mentioned more prominently. The alternative is to start an article about Kogan's online business. Not much chance of that happening yet though. Cheers. Akld guy (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I have created the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dan_Eisenberg case, of which you may be interested, since you once engaged with him on the grounds that reports about New Zealand's antisemitic attacks may not be subject to the RfC from analogous American article. If you have some time please state your opinion in that COI case. Thank you! -- 178.121.228.214 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Akld guy! First of all, thanks for your help in the text. There are two sections that needs expansion, and I got some sources for. Take a look there, please.

• Rousseff self-defence, inquiry by senators and final arguments by lawyers
• Decisive voting and outcome

Regards! PauloMSimoes (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PauloMSimoes: Hi Paulo. Sorry, but I can't expand those empty sections because I'm not familiar with the situation, or the history of the case, or the political situation in Brazil. My only interest is in cleaning up the English. Some of that English is very hard to understand (sorry if it's yours) and this has meant trying to interpret what the editor meant. I want editors, including yourself, to closely watch my edits in case I make a huge political mistake that embarrasses one of the political figures. By the way, the article seems very large and I wonder whether it goes into too much trivial detail. Regards. Akld guy (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of text I had edited. I wanted to show what actually happens in this case, since the "start-up", with the accepting of the Request for impeachment (translating topics of this long document), because the article had likely to be a political platform. I tried to do it impartially, describing both sides, and the important steps along the process. But now I'm afraid to commit more grammatical errors. Anyway, I'll try to edit those sections per NYT sources, without "copyvio". Thanks, in same way. I wait for your corrections, after. PauloMSimoes (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akld guy, for your analysis: the Request for impeachment included the "case Pasadena", however this indictment has not included in the process, for the reasons explained in article (the purchase was when Rousseff occupied the board of directors, before the office as President of Brazil). This situation is described on lead section and on section "Omission". In this last case, is described because its part of the Request (not for that she had indicted by). I'm afraid that, when is cited on the first section on article, may induce to believe that this is also one of the charges against Rousseff in the process. PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PauloMSimoes: I have reverted my own edit on that matter. This was an unfortunate misunderstanding that I fell into. Akld guy (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are aware that the dispute about whether Joe Karam believed David Bain to be innocent has been posted on the disputes resolution board. This is your formal notification in case that's what holding the process up. Histrange (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem regarding duplicate ref for Phil Goff. It's easy to miss things which are so minor. Regarding Northern Busway, the see also link regarding Ritchies Coachlines , I thought there might be a better way to publish the content but I'll leave that up to you.Ajf773 (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: How would you have gone about publishing it? Perhaps there's a better way. I did wait more than 6 hours after your last edit to see whether you were going to do something. Akld guy (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy:. I was thinking it could be included somewhere in the article (as opposed to the See Also section) as it has been the first and only operator since the NEX was established.Ajf773 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning 27.252.142.124 is the name person who keeps making disruptive edits on New Zealand articles. I undid all their edits on Sylvia Park and Botany Town Centre. Ajf773 (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: Yes, I've been doing the same at Onehunga Line, Onehunga Branch, and Downtown Shopping Centre. He's a pest and is back from block. Akld guy (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your comments on the talk page for List of people who disappeared mysteriously demonstrates a failure to assume good faith, and borders on personal attacks. We can have a difference of opinion without you getting all bitey. Calm down. We can sort the matter out, but if you keep acting like this, it won;t be easy to edit collaboratively. And since I am neither leaving the article nor attacking you, it will eventually cause you more problems than me. Let's work together to find the right way to go, okay? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Sebastian: I don't see any lack of AGF on my part, nor did I get bitey. But I do see this in an edit summary by you, directed at me: grouping what appears to be a tantrumish display of frustration; I haven't made a single remark about your demeanour or behaviour; it's all in your own mind. Akld guy (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe I misinterpreted the following comments:

• "Intentional versus unintentional is irrelevant and is being put up as a smokescreen" - intimating that I am trying to hide something behind a smokescreen.
• "You're attempting to impose your criteria on the list and you have no mandate, and certainly no consensus, to do so" - suggesting that I have ownership issues with the article, whichis a pretty nasty accusation. The criteria isn't actually mine, but steady, long-term wiki policy and guidelines.
• "after you removed it on the made-up criterion that he should be delisted because he was a fugitive fleeing from justice" - suggesting that I am making up shit as I go along. It's called logic.

Looking at those phrases, am I supposed to presume that you are being all chummy? It was fucking unfriendly, and you should know that when you treat people that way, you damage the collaborative editing environment. Most editors grow inflexible with your edits when you treat them poorly. I recognize your editing behavior as something I used to struggle with a lot back in my early days. You need to keep calm, or editing grows to be unpleasant - for you in the form of blocks and topic bans and others, who won't back your edits, even when you are right.

Lastly, what you did by setting up several different sections to try and make your point over and over and over again - clearly because I disagreed with your definition of 'mysterious', and you thought that introducing a number of seemingly solid examples appeared to be borne out of frustration with me not toeing your perceived idea. So yeah, it seemed pretty much like a tantrum (and that was AGF, as my initial reaction was to call it disruptive and tendentious editing).

Now, you can admit that you were a bit snarky and I will let the matter go, and we can try to find some common ground, but don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding Jorgenson and removing Earhart. There is one place - and one place alone - where you can go to convince myself and others of the strength of your edits: the discussion page. I get that you might find that frustrating and slow, but it is the only way that Jorgenson could possibly be added. I find it amazing that people think that they edit something in and it gets removed and they add it back in - like that's going to solve the problem. It adds fuel to the fire, Akid. You desperately need to learn and absorb that lesson, because if you keep using the edit-summary to make your case instead of the discussion page, you will end up blocked.
Build a consensus of people who feelthe same way that you do by talking about it. Start a new discussion section if you really want. Don't edit-war, okay? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are disallowing Jorgensen (1984) because you think he was a fugitive from justice. That's not so. This reference says "Both killers served their time." This reference, which is a New Zealand government history website, says that Jorgensen had been released from prison at the time of his disappearance. Akld guy (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's what the reference said in the entry, that he was on 'parole' (which might mean a different thing here in the States than it does in NZ - I come across that all the time, as my Dad is a Scot). Just create an article for Jorgenson (I think the NZ booking photo is free to use) and add the entry after you create an article. All entries have to be connected to an article (if you look a tthe page, you will note that this is the case). Again, good work on rolling up your sleeves to find some better sources - you are to be applauded for your effort. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorgensen is not notable enough for a standalone article. Also, most everything known about his early life happened 50 or more years ago, long before archiving of online news sources. You win. Akld guy (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell you what. The machine gun murders mention his disappearance, right? Why not sub-link that? Its never about winning or losing, Akid Guy - its about making the article stable and better. Stuff that isn't very solid wiggles under the pressure of a GA review. I'd like to prevent that from happening. If you thought this was me versus you, I am really sorry you took that impression. When people make the edits about me and not the content of the edit, I tend to get pissed and lash out, which is what led to us bickering at each other before. Hopefully, we're past that, and can work through disagreements. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to add Jorgenson with the references you found? You can wiki-connect him to the Bassett Road machine gun murders; that should be more than enough to stand the test of time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Sebastian: I'm not sure that I understand you. I presume you mean that I should create the Ronald Jorgensen article and wiki-link it to Bassett Road machine gun murders. Jorgensen himself is not notable for anything much except those murders. OK he became an artist of sorts, but he's not notable enough for a standalone article. Details of his early life, and even his year of birth, don't seem to be available. Akld guy (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but - as you pointed out, Jorgenson is something if a Thing there, because of the murders. Create a wikilink like this [[Bassett Road machine gun murders |Ron Jorgenson] ] (remove spaces). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I don't understand. Akld guy (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you are trying to solve a page layout problem on the article 2016 Kaikoura earthquake. Page layout problems are dependent on device, screen resolution, and browser. It would be most expedient if you could screenshot your problem so that others can help you solve it. It's likely most people aren't seeing the problem you are seeing.

Most of the time these steps work:

• go to the page in question (or the revision of the page with the problem)
• press F11 for full screen,
• press Print Screen (a button on your keyboard),
• press F11 again to close full screen,
• then go to http://imgur.com/, press Ctrl and V at the same time (the 'paste' shortcut), then follow the prompts
• copy the URL and give it to me as a reply on this page.

If you think you can fix it yourself, most of the time adding {{clear}} to the correct place on the page will solve the problem. What I usually do when solving a problem like this in a page is I screenshot the problem, edit the page to solve it, and include a URL in my edit summary to the screenshot (like "adding {{clear}} to solve this layout problem: http://example.com"). Hope this helps. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BurritoBazooka: I have no account at imgur. The problem I'm seeing is a large amount (half a page) of white space in the middle of the article. Things were fine until another editor entered 'intensity' level of 'Severe' in the infobox. To re-establish the page, I removed what I considered to be the unnecessary entry 'Areas affected = New Zealand'. I have no unusual display settings or resolution and because I had never encountered a situation like this before, assumed everyone could see the problem. Akld guy (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not require an imgur account to upload an image there, as long as you don't want to publish it to the gallery. An image doesn't need to be in the gallery for others to see it through its URL. I guess another option is: https://imagebin.ca/ --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BurritoBazooka: OK, Ctrl-V didn't work but I'll try it again. Akld guy (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... If you are using Microsoft Windows and you want to use the second option (well, image hosting sites other than imgur), you will need to paste the image (also Ctrl+V) in MS Paint and then save it to a file, then uploading that file. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BurritoBazooka: OK, I go to imgur.com and do nothing except press Ctrl-V, right? Just did it again and nothing happens. Akld guy (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me it works just like that. I guess you would have to paste the image in MS Paint, save the file, and upload it normally to imgur (using the green upload button at the top of the page). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BurritoBazooka: This edit by My Chemistry seems to have fixed most of the problem. Thanks for trying to help. Akld guy (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, glad it got solved. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, i see you reverted my edit on severity for lack of references. Each of the three references states a severity that is cited back to the same source: the USGS. All I've done is put them into a list. What would be sufficient sourcing for you? Cheers Somej (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Somej: I did not revert for lack of references, but because the claim was not stated in the references. You added this: The Kaikoura earthquake's maximum intensity of IX made it the world's most severe earthquake in 2016. No comparison was made in the two USGS references you supplied, which simply consisted of statistics about two 7.8 earthquakes elsewhere in the world. Akld guy (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on a recent article you tagged as unreferenced and note you have done it on a few, dont have a problem with the tagging but just to let you known that I think the 48 hours is a bit quick to remove content after giving notice, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: I tagged four edits by the same user with citation needed within minutes of his edits. The onus was on him to provide references. I also advised him on his Talk page within minutes that references were required. It's not like the posts were made a long time ago with the editor long gone. These edits were caught within minutes and the editor notified, so if he doesn't provide references within 48 hours, they're going to be deleted. He's lucky I gave him so long under the circumstances. Akld guy (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK thats clear, sorry I misunderstood what you were doing. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akld guy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akld guy. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the infobox I added to New Zealand English? I added it as other similar pages such as American English and British English and Irish English pages also use the infobox. --121.219.99.173 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I wasn't sure that you were serious, especially when I saw that you had entered the number of second language speakers as 150,000 million. You corrected that to 150,000. I'm still not convinced that that number is appropriate. It would be more correct to say that the number with English (not NZ English) as second language is 150,000. I also don't see the point of drop-down listing of all those English language precedents. Akld guy (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I created the page about Leading Seaman Timmy MacColl. Fully agree about the caps, but I was told (and I cannot remember where) that only the first letter of the first word is capitalised (see Squadron leader, Wing commander, Flight lieutenant etc). This really grates me because as a serving member of the Royal Air Force, we do capitalise rank names fully when we are communicating in any written form. There is something about MOS:CAPS (which is ironic as all of that is in caps) that determines lower case for the second names in a rank. I think it's crazy, but trying to change that would be a whole lot of stickiness.

I feel aggrieved because here in England, we do not capitalise the word line in Bakerloo line because TfL don't do it. So my argument is always that if the RAF write it as Squadron Leader, Wing Commander et al, why do we not on WP?

Anyway, not a complaint on you, just a note to say that you may come across some wrangling from others on the caps front, but I hope that you do not. Regards (and I hope all is well in NZ). The joy of all things (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The joy of all things: Hi. The MOS:CAPS ruling is another absurdity for which Wikipedia is famous. I'll probably get reverted but at least I've tried to make the point. We are enjoying(?) the worst summer that I can recall since the 1982-83 one, when we had to run heaters during January/February. Not so bad this time but it's a truly mediocre summer. Temperatures are well down. Usually my flat runs about 22 deg in mid-January and on several days gets to 24, but this time it has not gone over 18 and is struggling to lift above 15. Unbelievably, the ski resorts in the mountains have had snow this month, in mid-summer! link Akld guy (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm at a loss. Why did you remove my contribution from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases ???? I mean, is this page yours personally? I worked on a Hungarian entry and submitted it. The material is relevant to this page. What's wrong??? Kyanzes (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry, I forgot to add a headline to my previous message. I have added content to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases But you removed it. Why? My addition is relevant and I created the content myself. It's not protected material, it's not vandalism and I saw that some entries are just as long as mine. Why did you remove it? I mean one tries to enhance content, add entry for an unlisted country and someone just throws it in the rubbish bin. Come on! I feel kicked in the head on this one. I really can't find a legit reason for the removal. Please do give me a hint as to why you did it. I also did not add references because all material I have managed to find are in Hungarian and nobody would care to follow them up when they don't speak Hungarian. Seriously. Why? Kyanzes (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition of the Hungarian case because: 1. you had already been reverted by another editor and yet you still added the same content with no reference. The perpetrator of the crime has no Wikipedia article. 2. The perpetrator and the victim are modern day people with Facebook pages, so it seemed that you were playing a practical joke on those people. If you genuinely believe that your addition should be kept, please add references. Any unreferenced material is likely to be reverted immediately because the two people named are subject to WP:BLP. Akld guy (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

And how do I add references when they don't exist in English? If I add Hungarian references you'll check them and confirm they are fine??? These people are long dead. One died in the 80s the other in 1968 (and the victim in 57). Also: you removed it because someone else also removed it. What??? How is that an explanation? So you want me to add Hungarian references and then I'm allowed to add content? I thought Wikipedia welcomed content creators. It seems I add something and it just lands in the trash. I also find it sickening that you thought it was a joke. If I read the content it doesn't feel like a joke. ALSO: there are other entires without references. Are you going to remove them as well? I can see them right now on that page. Why aren't you removing them as well? How about I remove the names? I could use letters. E.g., "K. P." is that fine? What are your rules? And my intention is not to hurt you. On the contrary: I feel hurt by the removal and I'd simply like to make sure that you know about it. If you say I cannot contribute here then I'll just leave and that's it. I won't force the issue. Will try to find some other page where my content is not erased without explanation (that is, no explanation next to the removal message, I had to ask you what the issue was). Well, there was a short explanation: vandalism. Good to know that I'm a vandal. Brilliant. Awesome feeling to be a vandal. No, not really. Also, looking at your talk page, it's not the first time you *think* someone was joking. You just think "hey, think it's a joke, let's remove it". Come on.

Instead of venting off at me, the remedy is up to you. Provide a reference to prove that this is a genuine miscarriage of justice case, otherwise your edit will be removed because it names two living people who have Facebook accounts. Akld guy (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, keep your page and have a good reign. I don't give a damn about Facebook accounts. You know what, I made it up. The whole thing. Never happened. It was a joke. Obviously. I will not add Hungarian references to an English content. That's for sure. Also, you have not answered: why aren't you removing the current entries without references???? Edward Splatt, David Szach, Derek Bromley etc. etc. and the others. Not a single reference. Why are they allowed? Because they were not made by a Hungarian nobody? Ah... those are Australian entries. They are okay. An important and big country. Also close to you. It's okay to let some entries slip through without references.

For what it's worth, you're doing a good job fixing that article up. I hope you can see why it was excluded, however, given the massive amount of work still left to do. If it means anything to you at all, I believe I'm one of the only people I actually know to have seen the treaty in person itself. I know plenty of Kiwis who haven't. I found it (and still do) incredibly depressing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you. I have seen a copy but can't remember where. Maybe Auckland Museum or in a public library at some time when it has been on special display. I have been inside the Treaty House. A fascinating place with much memorabilia. The grounds are magnificent and photos don't really do them justice. Akld guy (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went to a place not far from a pub with loads of MPs caricatures on the wall. The treaty was behind some one-foot thick safe door, properly guarded. Was hoping to go the Treaty House but by the time I got there it was inordinately expensive and I was on a serious budget. So I watched the Super Bowl in a pub instead... I know..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the clutter the NPOVN with argument, so will ask you here. How is New Zealand independence less defined than Canadian or Australian? The article you linked to shows the same milestones (self-government, dominion status, membership in the League of Nations, Balfour Declaration, Statute of Westminster 1931, etc.) The only difference is that there is no date that New Zealand federated, since it is a unitary state. TFD (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was not always a unitary state. See Provinces of New Zealand. It originally (1841) consisted of 3 provinces which had their own legislature. These were reformed in 1853 and abolished in 1876. See, in New Zealand's case, it may be more complex than you thought. Akld guy (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that New Zealand independence less defined than Canadian or Australian? TFD (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. What I said was that New Zealand's case may be more complex than what you had thought. I'm not going to respond any more here. I'm very leery of getting involved in side discussions on my Talk page that aren't seen by other editors taking part at the discussion page. I'm beginning to perceive this conversation as harassment. Please confine yourself to addressing me where the main discussion is taking place. Akld guy (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Minister is another phrase for prime minister. don't you think so? The category I started is suppose to include heads of governments with all various titles.--Midrashah (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Midrashah: I have no idea whether the functions and powers of David Marshall as chief minister were the same as those of a prime minister of Singapore. I believe you have no way of knowing either. He was never prime minister. The first prime minister of Singapore was Lee Kuan Yew and Yew's article states that. It would be WP:OR to include Marshall in the category of Jewish prime ministers on the basis that "Chief Minister is another phrase for prime minister". Also, you may have intended the category to include "heads of government with all various titles", but the category is named "Jewish Prime Ministers", so it would be misleading to include Marshall when he was never prime minister. Akld guy (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have seen you have changed what you said on the talk page where the article Kathleen McCormack Durst that I have posted has been nominated for deletion. Thank you for your input. It took a lot of effort to write that article and I don't want to see my effort go to waste. Also I thought of changing the title to that title too, can that be done now, or do we have to wait until the discussion about its deletion is closed?

Davidgoodheart

@Davidgoodheart: Yes, I did change my mind. It dawned on me that the problem is that the article is directly named after the person. If it was changed to Disappearance of Kathleen McCormack Durst, the problem wouldn't exist. I don't know whether the Deletion discussion has to run its course or not, sorry. Akld guy (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aaron Hopa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coromandel. 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) 10:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated Coromandel to Coromandel Peninsula. Akld guy (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quay Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newmarket Train Station. 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) 09:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated Newmarket Train Station to Newmarket Railway Station, New Zealand. Akld guy (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you written any articles about any of the people from the List of people who disappeared mysteriously? Some of the years only have one entry and could use more. I am going to write one soon, do you plan on writing any?

Davidgoodheart

• @Davidgoodheart: Hi. No I haven't written any of them but have heavily edited some of the New Zealand articles. I don't plan to write any new ones, but here are some disappearances in New Zealand that don't have articles:
  • Jim Donnelly - 2004. Never found
  • Cissy Chen - 2012. Body found a long time later and her partner charged with murder
  • Amber-Lee Cruickshank - 1992. Two-year-old toddler
  • Leo Lipp-Neighbours - 2010. In April 2017, his car with his remains inside was found in the water at Nelson wharf
  • For all the above, see here
  • Wendy Mayes - 1961. Disappeared after meeting a man for an interview to work as a photographer's model. See here
  • Peter Boland – a 9-year-old New Zealand boy who disappeared in 1957.^[1]

Akld guy (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waiatarua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grafton. 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) 09:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated Grafton to Grafton, New Zealand. Akld guy (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re Drury Station, Juliet Scoble says by the Drury entry “Auckland-Waikato” (Railway), but I wanted to link to the present name. The article Southern Line, Auckland has a section labelled “Stations on the line” which includes Drury and other closed stations. So the Southern Line seems to refer to a section of line or section of the North Island Main Trunk as well as to the trains running on it. Hence could station articles like these say “The Southern Line section of the NIMT? NB in Wellington Kapiti Line refers to a section of the NIMT which was formerly the Paraparaumu Line or Paekakariki Line before the electrified suburban section was extended. Hugo999 (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a response to comments I made at Hugo999's Talk page here. Akld guy (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to thank you for the information that you have supplied me on missing people and the edits that you have made to the articles that I have added. I have been really good at remembering "who for people that for objects" and the term "who" can also apply to a dog or cat that went missing as well! I was wondering if you could help me write some articles on missing people as I find it very time consuming to write articles alone and could really use some help with it, and I plan to write some articles on missing people foe New Zealand as well. Take care! Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for removing Natalee Holloway from 1986 list from the List of people who disappeared mysteriously which I thought was a 1986 case, I didn't realize it was a 2005 case and was already listed there as I was careless, I'll be more careful next time. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brewster Twins has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing useful is an edit war... The Banner talk 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the switch is described as from the Western Electric 7A system (ie the first version; replaced by the 7A1 then 7A2), and the photo should come out of the Stepping switch” article not the Rotary system article as the article refers to uniselectors! And most NZ SXS exchanges used sub’s uniselectors (1 per sub) rather than linefinders with the higher NZ calling rate with free local calling. Interworking registers (made by the British manufacturers) used about 4 uniselectors which were running all the time, one call after another. And made a hell of a din. The rotary exchanges had two stages of linefinders (first then second) while I think the NZ step exchanges with linefinders (UAXs; usually rural, although Mangere started with two large cosited UAXs; 600 lines each I think) Hugo999 (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugo999: On looking at a large version of the image, it does look like a Rotary system line finder. Do we agree on that? In that case, I don't agree that the image should come out of the Stepping switch article, because it is a type of stepping switch. What should happen is that the description of the file should be changed from "Strowger" to "Rotary". Then we could undo my edit, restoring the image to Rotary system. I remember the sound made by the Rotary linefinders, a whirring clacking sound. Quite pleasant, and much better than the awful machine gun sound made by 10,000 line SxS exchanges (Birkenhead, Glenfield, Takapuna. I worked at all 3). Akld guy (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, agree with that, though the text below the pix does not say “Strowger”. The first Wellington rotary exchanges (Courtenay Place & Wellington South) cutover on 18 October 1919, and there are some pictures (probably of Courtenay Place, which with Wellington Central served the Wellington CBD) in the Free Lance of 22 October page 15 (search Papers Past for “exchange”). Re noise, I recall the interworking registers in the old Wellington Central II in Stout Street; very noisy. Made by the British suppliers, they had 4 or 5 uniselectors. During setting up a call, one u/s was working all the time, if one u/s stopped another started. And during the busy hour after one call it would immediately start on another call! PS: with rotary linefinders, in the whole group of 60 or 100? Lines all the free ones looked fopr a new caller; in UAXs I think one linefinder was allocated to a new call. Hugo999 (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugo999: It's easy enough to change the file's description, but I haven't done it because the filename itself needs changing too. The original uploader User:Thatbrock made his last contributions in 2010 for a total of only 3 and a half dozen edits. He's obviously inactive, so no use asking him if we can change the file. I have reverted myself at Rotary system in order to restore the image. I'm not happy that we can't get the file name and its description corrected, but at least the Rotary page is restored. At Takapuna, there was a rack of interworking uniselectors for calls to Devonport 1 and Devonport 2 exchanges. I remember the rack made a lot of noise but it never gave trouble. We used to get occasional complaints that subscribers were dialing Devonport numbers and not being answered. That was because the interworking and the Rotary system itself took between 20 and 30 seconds to complete the call and begin ringing the called line. The Fault centre staff usually dealt with those complaints pretty well by asking the caller how long they had waited, but the occasional operator was inexperienced and sent the fault straight through to us. Of course we had to act on it. Akld guy (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently this page's name got changed to the list of missing people and then back. I read that you wanted to call it List of who disappeared, which I think would also be a good name. Do you think we should change it's name? Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: I felt, and still feel, that List of people who disappeared is more appropriate. But the recent name changes have been contentious, so we cannot just change it without going through a consensus process. The proper place for that is on the article's Talk page. Don't be surprised if you ask there and get no support. I already tried and there was no support. The consensus was to change it back to List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Akld guy (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above was written, a redirect from the name that I wanted to the "mysteriously" name has been created. Akld guy (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you broke up the solved cases on the List of people who disappeared mysteriously, great job! I have been adding people to the solved cases list, but there are just so many people too add. I am also upgrading articles on the list and upgrading articles that need to go on the unsolved cases and them adding them. As well I need to write some article for the years with only two cases such as 1981, 1987, and 2015, and I just can't do all this work by myself. Could you please help me out by adding solved cases to the list? If so here is the list you will need to find cases that need to be added Category:Formerly missing people found dead, Category:Formerly missing people. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: I'm very busy, having just got back a few hours ago from a two-day trip to Hamilton. I'm trying to rewrite part of another article. Akld guy (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from your trip, how did your rewriting of the article go? If you have time please add articles to the solved cases part of the List of people who disappeared mysteriously, as I just don't have the time to do it all by myself. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Thank you. The rewriting was a major rewrite at Harvey and Jeannette Crewe, where it was not clear that the pair were missing for 2-3 months. I don't have a strong interest in the missing people article, so I'm content to simply watch it for bad grammar etc. Akld guy (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	thank you
	Thanks for the feedback. Will make those changes ASAP SophAkl (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	reply
	That's ok. Just remove the tire sentence. I was only trying to update the figure that was previously shown which came from something in 2014. You're right - it's probably not relevant. SophAkl (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I changed the word on List of people who disappeared mysteriously solved cases from "of" to "after" and you changed it back. I think after is a better word to use because we may know why they disappeared, but not might not find out after until later, since they might not have been found. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: This is the sentence:

• This is a list of people who disappeared mysteriously, but were later found dead or alive, and/or the circumstances of their disappearance became known.

Your version, "the circumstances after their disappearance became known." is imprecise because it doesn't include the circumstances at the time they went missing, only the time after. Whereas "circumstances of" includes everything from the time they disappeared and afterwards.

Also, your version results in a grammatical ambiguity because it could be read as:

• and/or the circumstances, after their disappearance became known, [missing verb and phrase here]. Akld guy (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then if you put it that way then it makes sense, cheers! Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If not, then no, you don't see the same page as me. Lighten up. You can't break the internet. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: Peeking again? Isn't that a 'when did you stop battering your wife' question? And no, I wouldn't peek through your window even if I knew you were female (I've heard you might be) and you left your curtains open. I do respect someone who speaks more than one language, even if your posts are sometimes a little offbeat. Akld guy (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: Wikipedia is how I relax after a long day of standing on street corners in heels. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: I'm starting to get a pleasing mental image. Please take care --> Jayne Furlong. Akld guy (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why, that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me on WP. G'night. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have created the Disappearance of David Guerrero article, which is worthy of inclusion to the List of people who disappeared mysteriously, yet some people are trying to have it deleted, there are sources for this and is featured in YouTube videos, so it is worthy of inclusion, can you please help me combat this? Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend not voting at the AfD; this is blatant canvassing and I will report it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Can I invite you to take part in this discussion. I notice you previously reverted an edit that has been under discussion on this talk page stating "This content has been stable for weeks with no objection raised until today". This is not true, though I accept no one has made you aware of the ongoing discussion, so I thought it appropriate to include you. Thanks 90.217.235.240 (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akld guy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Downer EDI Works Limited, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Curtis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated to Barry Curtis (mayor). Akld guy (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying to others this has not been classified as a terrorist attack. But does that aspect of my comment make more sense? Notice how many editors assume this is terrorism and have voted with that in mind; I can only imagine how many readers are making the same mistake.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: Thank you. What's even worse is that use of the word "attack" in the article is prejudicial to any court action the driver might face. Akld guy (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I replied to your post at the AfD page, I thought it had been established that this was an attack, because it is being reported in the media here that it is. On reading the article and references, I found that police only had suspicions about it. So we needed to remove any suggestion about it being an attack. Akld guy (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

New Plymouth (New Zealand electorate) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jonathan Young

Northcote (New Zealand electorate) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jonathan Coleman

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated to Jonathan Young (politician) and Jonathan Coleman (politician) respectively. Akld guy (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on cleaning up my formatting mistakes on the Auckland transport pages. I'll probably keep working on these over the next few days.

Akld guy (talk)Jarbury (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@Jarbury: OK, thanks. You could have replied to me on your Talk page by using the {{ping}} function. See how I did it at the start of this reply. That would notify me that you had replied, so I would go to your page to read it. Akld guy (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In % calculations the total number of valid party votes (informal votes are included in results table but do not count to any candidate) in West Coast-Tasman is 37,724. Total votes including informals is 37,873. This brings percentages of 37.15% and 40.09% (to two decimal places). The +/- change needs to be reflected in the change from 2014 (this table also appears to be incorrect). I will fix when I have time. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: We should go by what the reference gives for the percentages, and the reference is here. Akld guy (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference only gives proportionate results for two parties (no candidates) and also does not follow the same convention used in previous results tables. Your changes effectively make the rest of the % and +/- results incorrect. Ajf773 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the percentage figures except the two that I quoted from the reference, are WP:OR. Somebody has been going through and working them out on a calculator. And they have done it for previous elections too. Akld guy (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are fields as part of the Template:MMP election box. If we aren't going to use them, or going to dismiss them as WP:OR we shouldn't have them. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They should be present in the Template in case the Electoral Commission ever decides to publish them. It hasn't been inclined to do that for many many elections, so we're stuck with WP:OR entries that someone has worked out. I'm not going to ruffle feathers by removing them; there are 120 electorate articles every 3 years going back at least to the 1980s. Akld guy (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays and new year and all the best in 2018! Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Thank you and the same to you. All the best in 2018. Akld guy (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your changes to the SH seasonal observance categories. If "Virtually all" are northern hemisphere observances, it means that some, logically, are southern. Also, many of the observances are found in both hemispheres - take December for an example: six of the eight subcategories relate directly to observances found in both hemispheres. Given that those which aren't are generally restricted to individual countries, classifying them for the whole of the northern hemisphere would be equally wrong. In any case, this is only the first stage of a more far-reaching scheme to sort observances by both month and hemisphere which should, in doing so, sort them more effectively by season. Once that is complete, both the northern and southern hemisphere categories can be removed from individual months Grutness...wha? 02:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating the SH summer category, by the way. I'm surprised it wasn't there previously. If you'd like to help with the task of categorising all observances individually by NH/SH and season, it's would be very useful! Grutness...wha? 02:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: See my post on your Talk page, which was posted about the same time you posted here. I'm willing to sort out the observances that apply in summer for the Southern Hemisphere that currently appear in the Northern Hemisphere category and move them. Simply cross-linking categories is not appropriate. Akld guy (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, the crosslinking is temporary until the categories are sorted Grutness...wha? 02:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Akld guy,

referring to your comments and my reaction here, I first of all wanted to explicitly apologize and make clear that I never meant to harm anybody. When speaking of a “terrible misunderstanding”, I was just trying to say that your interpretation was in a, to me, very regrettable way (I hope that is correct English; otherwise please feel free to correct me!) deviating from my actual intention of trying to understand the English grammar. @Medeis: This and my question about whether to say "it was I who" is correct or not is what you regarded as a violation of AGF. However, as I can and want to assure you and Akld guy, this was really not at all supposed to express disruptive purposes. As for the "terrible misunderstanding", I just meant to say that I felt sorry for your insinuation, Akld guy, I were “an argumentative troller or someone determined to mock the English language”, and as to the "it was I who", this was really just a question out of interest! (Please keep in mind that I am not a native speaker, trying to improve his grammar skills.)

Anyway, what I, unfortunately, didn't get in the end is why a construction like “… about which I’d say I’m proud” can be correct – as, in reversion, it would become “… which I’d say I’m proud about”, and to my mind “proud about” is not a valid collocation in English, or am I mistaken here? Otherwise, if we left out the “about” after “proud”, there would be missing a preposition referring to “proud” in that sentence, wouldn’t there? And, after all, I guess that’s the point I was actually trying to make the whole time…

Assuming the phrase were e. g. “That is a place about which my son always says he really loves it” – Consistently, wouldn’t you have to call the “it” at the end redundant [or even wrong?] here too, since “about which” also already points to the object (“a place”)? But if not, where exactly is the difference to my original sentence then?

I very much hope you do see my good will, and we can finally clarify this issue despite the previous misunderstandings (as, to tell the truth, I’d be very unsatisfied if we didn’t).

Warm regards,

Herfrid (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Herfrid: You start off with a bad construction and then try to argue with me over which ending would correct it. The sentence "That is a place about which my son always says he really loves it" is not grammatical. All English speakers who know what they're doing would write or say "That is a place which my son always says he really loves". There is no need for the "about" and using it turns the sentence into a really really clumsy construction. There is only one way that that construction could be made to work, and that is by redirecting the target of the sentence by making it into a quote: "That is a place about which my son always says, 'I love it.'" Akld guy (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, aber Du bist so Deutsch fuer mich! Wale, heppy neewyeeah, yih bleewmin Kiwi. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: I figured out the 2nd sentence despite the heavy accent but can't translate the German because I'm on cellphone and you know what a pain cellphones are for copying and pasting. Akld guy (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess, I used google translate for the German, so I can't vouch for it's accurateness. I typed in "But you seem so German!" Literally it says "Ach! but thou art so German for me!" At least you have "guy" in your name. For years I thought MarnetteD was a she, til I read his user page. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a curious thing to say. I am of German descent on my mother's side. Akld guy (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Akld guy, thanks for creating Westfield Junction!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you. I see you've reverted a few edits to electorate articles based on WP:OR. Are you aware of Wikipedia:About valid routine calculations? Because those percentages are either correct or wrong (I haven't checked), and if the former, then the essay would apply and it's not OR. Schwede66 22:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: All the best of the New Year to you too! That was a WP policy I was not aware of. Another user has started a discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics. I would be willing to self-revert at each of the articles I edited, pending outcome of the discussion. Akld guy (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, have just seen that other discussion and commented there, too. Nobody knows every WP policy, guideline, or essay (this being an essay), so don't feel bad about it. Schwede66 01:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akld guy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language.
Message added 03:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Talk:Viaduct Basin a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Talk:Viaduct Harbour. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoffreyT2000: Thank you, I knew all that and in fact have done it by the proper process in the past. This time, it was in the small hours of the morning and I had forgotten about the page history not being moved. Akld guy (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you are doing well. I would just like to let you that I am currently creating The list of people who disappeared and have been working on it for a while now. This will differ from the List of people who disappeared mysteriously as it will focus on the fact that the person disappeared not why they disappeared. When you drop the word "mysteriously" from the title it gives more reason to keep people on the list, because if they were kidnapped, went into hiding or were known to have been killed, but their body was never found they will still belong on the list as those ARE disappearances. To me if we know why someone disappeared, but do not know their later whereabouts then the case is NOT truly solved. The list will remain unpublished due to libel issues, but will be viewable by me and a few other editors that I will grant access to it, which you will be one of if you would like to be. One of the reasons why I will give you access to it is because I was very impressed with how to broke up the solved cases list in the List of people who disappeared mysteriously section, and the name of the list is what I will call it as I know that is what you think the List of people who disappeared mysteriously should be called, which I completely agree with you on. I also plan to recover articles that were wrongfully deleted and add them to my list. Please let me know if you are interested, and take care and have a great Easter! Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Where do you plan to publish this list. It seems that it will not be on Wikipedia, because you say that it will remain unpublished due to libel issues and also that you will allow me access to it. Akld guy (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Hi, sorry for that late response as would have got back to you earlier, but I got sick. It will be in my own private microsoft word document, and it is a private Wiki which will look very close to the real thing, and with any luck I should have it done soon. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Sorry, but I don't want to contribute. A limited circulation wiki wouldn't gain me as much credit as the fame and admiration that I achieve here on Wikipedia. Akld guy (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's fame and admiration to be had by editing WP? Mind if I received some of that, too? :) Schwede66 05:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You undoubtedly have admirers, but I refuse to say whether I'm either of them. Anyway all NZ editors are world famous in New Zealand. Akld guy (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! deisenbe (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of rail accidents in New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stuff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by changing link from Stuff to Stuff.co.nz in this edit. Akld guy (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akld guy!

I see you recently edited the article Vicki Lin (October 2017). I am unsure on it's notability. But don't want to make a decision on Afd or not. I added one source but I believe it's quite old. What do you think? --TheDomain (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated ! Ive seemed to have found sources :) Was not updated for over 11 years. --TheDomain (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello. I noticed that you created the article Céleste Albaret, . . ."
Have you yourself experienced this difficulty such as you suggest lies in wait for Charles01? I've had a look at his list of 585 substantial articles he has written and there is no sign of any rejection there that I can find. Has he been lucky or is he good at his job. Cheers, Another ("south shore" so real) Auckland Guy. Eddaido (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: Yes, I was aware that he's an experienced editor. To answer your questions, he has been lucky, and he is good at his job. Which probably means that he has become careless. Take a look at Celeste Albaret which was deleted years ago on grounds 'Not notable' and you'll see why I was concerned. Links should not be changed in expectation that a new article will survive. End of story. Akld guy (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you see it to be your responsibility to make such comment? Eddaido (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Key, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Hazhk (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating List of fugitives from justice who disappeared, Akld guy!

Wikipedia editor Jamez42 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Categories needed.

To reply, leave a comment on Jamez42's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Jamez42 (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re this revert, I got that info from the acre article, which says it's the definition of an acre. I don't care if it's the definition, but it does seem to be a more clear and common way to describe an acre than 10 square chains is. Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I thought that's where you got it from. It's blatantly wrong. What happened was that at the chain article, it was stated that a furlong is 10 chains and an acre is 10 square chains. Some bright spark of an editor linked the two by saying that an acre was one chain by one furlong, which is true. That then got twisted into a definition of the acre. Then somebody changed the acre article too, so that an acre was defined as a chain by a furlong. None of this "definition" was referenced, and it's not true. The acre is simply a measure of area not linked to the furlong at all. I'm going to change the acre article at some stage to remove the misleading definition, but am waiting till the dust settles at Chain. See the Chain Talk page for the views of many editors who have been unhappy with the article and its lack of referencing. Akld guy (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll be patient about all that. When I read 10 square chains, I immediately wondered whether that was correct, since it seems so odd to define an area using a square measure that has an irrational square root. Finding that it seemed to be right, I felt that it could be made clear that it's so. I bet it wasn't done that way historically, but I have looked into it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This 1841 book comes close. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

@Dicklyon: I'm not saying that the acre wasn't originally defined as one chain by one furlong. That was probably true, but nobody has come up with a reference for it. Meanwhile, that definition implies that an area of say, 200 acres, must be defined in terms of furlongs to this very day. That's plainly nonsense. Here in New Zealand, the "quarter acre" section of land is the traditional plot that was sold for housing. It was everyone's dream to own a house on a quarter-acre. The definition would imply that a quarter acre would be a furlong long and a quarter chain wide. The property would thus be five and a half yards wide, far too narrow for a house and plainly nonsense. Akld guy (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a chain wide by a quarter furlong long, or any other shape of the same area? Noting that an acre is one chain by one furlong doesn't make it not an area. And I'm not suggesting it as a definition, but more as a clarification of how the dimensions of an acre might be interpreted sensibly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Absurd. What about irregular shapes, such as a circle or oval? Stating that 10 square chains is equivalent to one acre is sufficient. Akld guy (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand it's sufficient. Still, it sounds so odd that clarifying what it means doesn't seem to hurt. Dicklyon (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I like your new page, here is one article which you can to it and I even wrote the sentence for it and added a source for it

William J. Sharkey, a convicted murderer and minor New York City politician who earned national notoriety in the late 19th century for escaping from a New York City prison disguised as a woman. He subsequently fled to Cuba in 1873, which had no extradition treaty with the United States. His ultimate fate is unknown as he was never found.^[1].

I tried to add it myself, but was not successful as I don't know that format. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Thank you. I have added your suggested entry to the article. Akld guy (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, glad I could help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, here are another two articles which you can also use

• Five Confederate prisoners of war disappeared after the Shohola train wreck on 15 July 1864 in Pennsylvania, and were never seen again.^[2]

• Rafael Caro Quintero (61), a Mexican drug trafficker who was freed from jail on 9 August 2013 after a state court concluded that he had been tried improperly. However, amid pressure from the Federal government of the United States to re-arrest him, a Mexican federal court issued an arrest warrant against Caro Quintero on 14 August 2013. He is a wanted fugitive in Mexico, the United States and several other countries. The United States is offering a $20 million bounty for his arrest.^[3]

Your page is off to a great start! Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: It's not my article. If it was, I would sell it or put it up for auction as I need the money. I have added the Caro Quintero case to the article. The disappearance of the 5 POWs at Shohola is not notable and I have no plans to add that as an entry. Akld guy (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Ha, you are a funny one Akld guy! I would like to make a suggestion being is that you could add a section to the article about fugitives that were caught by the police or were later found dead, what do you think of my suggestion? And also Eduardo Ravelo who is currently on your list under the year 2000s section, was captured on June 26, 2018^[4] and is no longer a wanted fugitive, so if you do make that new section he could be your first entry to it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: I have created a new section at the article and transferred the Ravelo case into it. Akld guy (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Hi, I am glad that you taken my suggestion! Here are two more articles which you can also use

• Luis Macedo (27), American fugitive wanted for the 1 May 2009 murder of 15-year-old Alex Arellano in Chicago, Illinois, was last seen on 24 Nov 2015. In 2016, Macedo was added to FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, and was captured on 27 August 2017 in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico without incident.^[5] Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark "Chopper" Read (54), Australian convicted criminal, gang, and author, who was wanted by the police for being involved with murders^[6] was caught on 25 August 2008 by detectives, but was later released.^[7]

@Davidgoodheart: I have added Macedo to the article. I see nothing in Read's article to indicate that he disappeared. Akld guy (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Hi, I came across this article about the disappearance of a girl in 1988 which could be added to the List of people who disappeared, could you please add it, and as I said before that I don't know that format, and I liked the article that way it was before the table was used.

• Amber Swartz–Garcia (7), was kidnapped on 3 June 1988 in Pinole, California while she had been playing jump rope in her front yard.^[8][9] Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: That article has been nominated for AfD. It looks like it's heading for "keep", but let's wait until the outcome is known. Akld guy (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that article has been kept so you can now add it.

@Davidgoodheart: Amber didn't disappear mysteriously. She was abducted. Nothing mysterious about that. Akld guy (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Here are two articles that you can add to the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared

• Santiago Villalba Mederos (26), American alleged murderer and gang member from the sate of Washington, known for the alleged killing and woundings of multiple bystanders on different occasions in Washington in 2010, was added to the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list on 25 September 2017.^[10][11]

• Eleanor Jarman (35-36), American runaway, fugitive, and robber who was jailed, escaped from jail on 8 August 1940, was placed on the FBI ten most wanted fugitives list, and remains missing. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Hi, your right about Johnny Ringo's fate being known as I shouldn't have added him to the 1800s section, but it says in his bio that he escaped from jail which is a disappearance, so shouldn't he be in the fugitives who no longer wanted section? Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some text and citations to the Patricia Farr article. Unfortunately, I didn't find as much as I hoped to find. Perhaps someone else can discover more information and build on what is currently in the article. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Teblick: Much appreciated!! TYVM. Akld guy (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I just saw you reverted me [[2]]. I bolded the word silks in the Queen's Counsel article because the silk disambiguation page sends people there, and per WP:ASTONISH, I thought it would ensure that readers are not surprised that they landed on that page. You can also see what happened before I updated Essex Court Chambers with this edit: [[3]]. Silk piped a counterintuitive redirect to Queen's Counsel, and I had to read for a bit before seeing why silks had anything to do with the article. Bolding makes it easier should there be other similar redirects. You can always undo the revert if you agree. Cheers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: WP:ASTONISH doesn't apply, because it's not linked from "silk" in an ordinary article. It's linked from a disambiguation page, where the meaning (Queen's Counsel) is made very clear. So unlike a normal page where the reader might be surprised after clicking on "silk", there would be no surprise by clicking "Queen's Counsel" at the disambig page. Akld guy (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the other piped redirect which is the same as a redirect for all intents and purposes. It originally said:

It has 71 tenants, of whom 35 are Silks.

That's why I bolded silks. I didn't want to hunt for every article that might be doing the same. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: I checked that article but didn't see the problem, so I didn't mention it. You had already changed it. Akld guy (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Hi, I had recently added some articles to the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared and the List of people who disappeared, but only because I had help doing it, as I don't understand that new format. Is there any chance you will be using the old format? The old format is much easier to use. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Hi. You do not need to ping an editor if you post something on their talk page; they automatically get notified if you simply type your post. I am not the authority on what the format should be. I was simply the creator of the article and used the current format. It seems to have met with approval and you are the only person objecting. For a change to an open text format, which is a major change, you would need to seek consensus on the article's talk page. Akld guy (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its not so much that I was objecting its just that I don't now how add to the current format right now. Could you please add the entry below to List of solved missing persons cases.

• Kirsty Bentley (15), teenage girl from, Ashburton, New Zealand disappeared on 31 December 1998, while walking her family dog on the afternoon. After an extensive search lasting several weeks, her body was found in dense scrub approximately 40 km away.^[1] Police consider the case to be a homicide, and it remains one of the highest-profile unsolved murders in New Zealand. Her killer has never been identified.

This is article is about a girl from New Zealand, where you are from. I would add it myself, but must learn how to and I will learn in time. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Done. Akld guy (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Akld guy, you are a great wiki editor! Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akld guy. You have new messages at WP:ANI.
Message added 20:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Swarm  talk  20:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reason that I added the solved death person cases to the List of unsolved deaths would be so it would have a list of solved deaths which could include death from murder, suicide, natural cases, or accidental death. I admit that I wasn't sure exactly what to add, but anything that seemed notable and not known at first seemed fine to me to add to it. What do you think should only be included on it? Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: I think the section shouldn't even be there. The article is List of unsolved deaths. It doesn't make sense to me to have a list of solved cases in an unsolved cases article. As to your question, routine deaths like the wrestler who died of a heart attack don't belong in that section. Where would it stop? Would we list all notable people whose cause of death was not immediately apparent, but a couple of days later were found to have died of natural causes? What's notable about that? Akld guy (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have removed the solved death cases from List of unsolved deaths as I you have be right about the section shouldn't be there as it might not be the right section to be included and I am not sure what should be added to it as well. Also I think this article Laurens de Graaf should not be on the list of people who disappeared, but on the List of unsolved deaths as it is not really a disappearance, but more of an unsolved death don't you think? Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: I think de Graaf is fine in the List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Most likely he faded into obscurity or changed his name before dying of natural causes. On the other hand, the List of unsolved deaths is about deaths that are known to have been not natural causes, such as murder or deaths that may have been attributable to someone's actions, such as suicide or misadventure. In de Graaf's case, there is nothing to indicate that he died prematurely. So I think things should be left as is. Akld guy (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akld guy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akld guy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the email from Wikipedia on the copyright for the image, this is what they sent to the author (not me).

"Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2018112810000223]."

The part about "If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later," I am guessing that is referring to you repeatedly deleting the image. Granite07 (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Granite07: Makes no difference because you or anybody else could have faked that email. You have described the file as your own work, which appears to be a lie. Get proper permission as per WP's policies, not informal correspondence. Akld guy (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She lives in Glenfield,_New_Zealand. Do you know where she can find an express mail post office? Thank you. 50.68.237.196 (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an NZ Post shop in the Glenfield Mall. It's on the lower floor, under the escalators. If she takes the item and the packaging in, I'm sure they will discuss express delivery with her. Akld guy (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akld guy. Please do not re-do the Bill English Article and wipe my edits, as I have re-cited them to prove my sentences right. If you still do not find the citations correct, do not delete my edits- simply re-re-cite them. Thank you. --Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leavepuckgackle1988: You were told to discuss on the (article) talk page before readding. Instead, you chose to make a post here on my talk page, and immediately readded content that is problemmatical. Akld guy (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Akld Guy. Take care and happy holidays! Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Akld guy, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 01:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Akld guy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Dear Akld guy. I you must change extracts from sources that you aren't familiar with, you must expect expect these to be corrected, and if you then revert the corrections in continuing ignorance of the source you must expect to be called out on it.

Firstly, I greatly doubt from your location that you have ever seen ^[1]: O can conform that I have and "it is not unlikely" conveys the sense of what was said, not your off-the cuff, unsourced version "likely".

Secondly, the plea of "nolle prosequi" is not unprecedented, as your revert claims. Had you troubled to read the article of that name, you would see it has been used, even if rarely, so "unusual" is correct.

Thirdly, Patrick Devlin was the trial judge, check if you like.

So you are wrong on each count and, dare I say, rather petty not to accept correctionsSscoulsdon (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Akld guy. I assume that you agree to the second and third points, as you haven't tried to revert them. However I will repeat that "it is not unlikely" conveys the sense of what was said in the source. The presenter of the programme quoted is a barrister and the double negative that apparently confuses you was an expression of the uncertainty that arises when commenting on events of over 60 years ago. If you can find a source that says something different, change the entry and quote the source, otherwise leave it as an accurate record.Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scoulsdon: You seem to be very angry, so all I will say is that the double negative "not unlikely" does not confuse me, but it is followed by another negative, which on first reading of the sentence makes a second reading necessary in order to get the meaning. Akld guy (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. This is the sentence: "In view of police methods of the time and Hannam's book expressing the opinion that the law sometimes must be ignored by detectives, it is not unlikely that the confession had not been obtained as Hannam suggested." Rather difficult to understand on the first reading with all those negatives. Akld guy (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Akld guy. Don't presume to make judgements, as irritated rather than angry (much less very angry) would be more accurate. What does tend to irritate me is when edits are made that alter the sense of a sourced passage without good reason. A good example is the edit you made in Death of Edith Alice Morrell at 19.35 on 27th December, which does alter the sense of of the source and which I have reverted.

This was one of a dozen edits you made to two articles largely written by me on that evening with links to the John Bodkin Adams case shortly after the above exchange. Some might call this action petty and spiteful, but (where they don't alter the sense) if it makes you think you are doing useful, I don't wish to disillusion you.

It does seem your interests are mainly centred on New Zealand and, if you do intend to become interested in the John Bodkin Adams case, I suggest you bother to read some of the sources before expressing your opinions.

Meanwhile, I'll be keeping an eye on your contributions. Sscoulsdon (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

You would, of course, be unaware that this article falls a good deal short of Wellington. I will replace your reversion with a note pointing this out very shortly. Is that OK with you? Eddaido (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: I'm not suggesting that the section isn't needed. My objection was to the placing of a section header with no content under it. Your edit summary asked whether this part of the NIMT should be described. Your question should have been asked on the NIMT talk page, and you shouldn't have added the section title as a way of asking for it to be filled in. Akld guy (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You like the word Shouldn't? Eddaido (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do. That's how we have encountered each other before. You could, in this case, carry out your preferred solution yourself. Or just wait. Do I sound unfriendly? Eddaido (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

e/c

@Eddaido: I see you're an argumentative type who is unable to debate the merits of your edit, which was this. Let me spell it out. You added the section heading at 10:42 UTC but added no content under it for more than nine hours. I came along at 20:05 and removed the heading. We don't have empty sections at WP. The proper place to ask editors to fill in the details, which you didn't seem inclined to do, was on the talk page. We don't add an empty section and ask via the edit summary for it to be filled in. Akld guy (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? do have empty sections at WP. Is your (again) policeman-act any better than self-appointed? Eddaido (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I was totally unaware that we had interacted before. I don't remember and I do not keep lists of people I have interacted with. Akld guy (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here are three entries that you can add to the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared, Frank Blackhorse, Sebastiano DiGaetano and Mieczysław Kosmowski. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: According to his article, DiGaetano was not wanted for any crime at the time of his disappearance, so I will not be adding him. The other two, I'm thinking about. Akld guy (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Blackhorse does not seem to have disappeared. From this site it looks like he fled to Canada and has simply not been extradited. Akld guy (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here's a good entry to add to the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared Jerry Balisok. What do you think about adding this one? What about the other two that you were thinking about adding, will you be adding them? Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Hi, thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about Kosmowski. His alleged disappearance is a problem because his article has hardly any refs and has been tagged for cleanup. I'm dubious that we could make a good case for inclusion. Akld guy (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Someone added Blackhorse some time ago. I have just added Balisok. Akld guy (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but I think he should be in the section of fugitives no longer sought, as he was captured and died in prison in 2013. Also there is an entry on the list called Catherine Kerkow which has no link. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a good point. But on that basis we would have to move all the historical cases where there is no hope of the person being alive. Everyone like Henry Every and William J Sharkey and Boston Corbett who all died centuries ago, and many others. You could ask about Balisok on the fugitives' talk page. Details about Kerkow are sketchy. There's not even an article about the plane incident. Unfortunately there was nothing to say entries like this could not be added, so I guess we'll have to live with it. Akld guy (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here's a great one that you could add Davy Crockett (outlaw), it is very detailed and well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crockett wasn't a fugitive from justice and he didn't disappear, so I'm not adding him. Akld guy (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source here it says he escaped jail and disappeared https://truewestmagazine.com/the-outlaw-davy-crockett/. Don't you consider that a fugitive who disappeared? He wasn't seen for years, and an escape from prison is still a disappearance isn't it?. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a reliable source. And of the 3 refs in the article, two of them aren't online sources and the other, "The Other Davy Crockett", doesn't even say that he evaded custody. I'm not convinced that we have irrefutable evidence of a disappearance. Not gonna add it, sorry. Akld guy (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here is a major entry which you could add to the fugitives no longer sought cases Saddam Hussein^[1] source claims that he went into hiding. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: You could add him yourself. I think you once said you weren't comfortable with the table format, so you could try copying and pasting an existing entry and then simply edit it to suit. Akld guy (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added it, though I found it difficult and it took me many tries before I got it right, yet I was able to do it. Please check it out and let me know what you think. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Well done! Akld guy (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here is a source that says Laurens de Graaf death cause is not known. http://brethrencoast.com/pirate/Laurens_de_Graff.html, It may not be viewed as a reliable source, but since he was only about 50 when he died, which is untimely, I think this is still an unknown death cause, and not really a disappearance. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NZ Transport Agency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chorus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated to Chorus Limited. Akld guy (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Akld guy, I remember some back-and-forth a couple of years ago relating to why Waitangi Day hadn't made it onto the main page through quality reasons. I note that you overhauled the article, and I'm pleased to see it's going to be featured tomorrow. Just thought I'd pass by and say thanks for fixing it up, and have a great Waitangi Day! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you! Yes, I did a major rewrite two years back, but I think it got omitted again last year. I didn't complain then because the complaints I made in 2017 rebounded on me. Once bitten, twice shy. Anyway it'll be another hot, sticky day tomorrow and most workers will be glad to have the day off. Cheers! Akld guy (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have gotten the "who" for people, "that" for objects info from you which I have found to be very helpful, but what about animals? The reason I ask you this is because in the Akbar Salubiro article which I wrote about a man who was eaten by a reticulated python (what a horrible tragedy) in Mamuju, Indonesia the phrasing was changed. I had written the snake "who" had eaten Salubiro was changed to "that" had eaten Salubiro by another editor. I know that animals aren't people, but they are not objects neither. Should this be considered to be a "who", "that", of maybe a "which"? Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: "Who for humans, that for everything else" is a clearer way to put it. So the other editor was correct. "Which" is optional for everything else, but seems to be becoming obsolete. The important thing is that "who" should always be used for humans, never that or which. Akld guy (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your info and quick response. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on your user page you say that you know the difference between its and it's, can you please tell me what this is, as I am not quite sure of it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can replace either of those with "it is" or "it has", then it's is correct and its is wrong. Examples of correct use:

It's only a paper moon.

The committee rejected the proposal, saying it's been assessed as too expensive.

The cat jumped over its basket.

Akld guy (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edits to Terrorism in New Zealand. You may have missed checking the cited source in the original sentence. Although the source did not support that sentence, it may have done so earlier only to be corrected subsequent to later reports. I have accepted your reversion as an opportunity and made other edits. These slightly expand the section so that it provides a short summary of the event. You are welcome. Te Karere (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Te Karere: And I have reinserted the content about improvised explosive devices that you deleted. This info is in the source, so your edit summary of Unverifiable content was not true. This is the second time that you have deleted this IED information. Are you trying to suppress this and why? Akld guy (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you revert my initial edit by mistake? You have reinstated the content of my original edit bar the last four words. Before my edits, it read:

Two improvised explosive devices were found in the car of the alleged perpetrator after it was forced to a stop by police.^[2]

I edited it to read:

Two improvised explosive devices were found attached to a car that were subsequently disabled.^[3][4]

The differences between your new edit and my original are (1) use of the initial source ("Christchurch mosque shooting kills 49"), and (2) no mention that the IEDS were subsequently disabled. I am probably going to edit the section again to say the IEDs were disabled (so it doesn't read like they caused any physical harm). Te Karere (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Te Karere: In the first of 4 edits, you removed the IED stuff completely with the edit summary "Unverifiable content". However, the source did confirm what was stated (if you scrolled down far enough). So I readded it. Anyway, it's all good now, with your defusing details added. Akld guy (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was being polite, but you are obviously trying to justify your revert of my first edit here where you suggested the offered sources were "notorious for linkrot". I recommend careful consideration of future reverts, but do not care either way. Te Karere (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Te Karere: Oh, I didn't realise you were referring to that revert. Well, TVNZ is notorious for linkrot and is only worth citing if you expect to update the info soon. Almost always, their pages are changed to something completely different within months. Sorry if you think I wasn't polite. I spent a lot of time debating with Americans in chat rooms a few years ago and learned you had to be a bit assertive. Akld guy (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akld guy, I understand that as a blog Greater Auckland isn't normally reliable, but the actual statistics are from Auckland Transport. As far as I can see Auckland Transport don't publish these stats anywhere else, so Greater Auckland is the only source. I could OIA them out of AT myself, but I suspect that breaks WP:OR. --LJ Holden 07:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LJ Holden: Greater Auckland isn't a reliable source full stop, so it cannot be used. Auckland Transport don't publish boarding figures for rail stations, and this is why many stations' articles show very old statistics. Editors such as myself who try to keep them updated are forced to rely on news media snippets, such as Stuff or the NZ Herald, where boarding figures sometimes appear. Infrequently. Akld guy (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, noted. BTW the statistics for Britomart come from Transport Blog, which was the forerunner to Greater Auckland... --LJ Holden 07:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Greater Auckland a reliable source where they give statistics from Auckland Transport. These are not statements of opinion, nor are they material about identifiable living people, which are the two big concerns about using blogs.-gadfium 08:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what if I was to request the boarding statistics by OIA request? --LJ Holden 21:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would you link to a source? And Greater Auckland is not an open blog where opinions can be freely expressed. It is a lobby blog, with almost certain connections to at least one political party, though it will never admit to that. I would not trust any statistics they publish. Expressing opinions or trying to debate alternatives to GA's stances will result in termination of email subscription with no prior warning, apparently as a first step that will end with not publishing your posts. There is a small group of central sycophants who monopolize the comments section, some of whom are almost certainly sockpuppets. In my case, attempting a reasonable debate resulted in a barrage of replies, most of them off-topic or misquotes, and when obliged to rebut each of them I was accused of being disruptive. A nasty tactic. Akld guy (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably use the FYI website ([4]) and it would be published there. Since it's publishing a primary source. I'll put the request in now. --LJ Holden 00:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made the request here --LJ Holden 01:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you edited a quote from the source, don't you? Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Take another look. The end quote punctuation is missing from the end of the sentence, so it's not obvious that it's a quote. Akld guy (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see a quote mark at the end; however I went to the trouble of adding a period just to make sure. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a quote mark there, so I was wrong. The small text formatting made it merge into the link symbol. Your addition of the period made it stand out better. Up to you whether you reinstate the "indeed". I've lost track of the number of times I've removed indeed or in fact from British articles where they have been used for emphasis, when the sentence conveys the opposite sense, or expresses uncertainty. Why Brits feel the need to use this inappropriate emphasis is beyond me. Akld guy (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an American source, actually, in this case. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, maybe the sentence here is lacking context. The point I think the "indeed" is trying to get across was that Brittanee was being deceptive—instead of being on the beaches of Lake Ontario near where she lived, where her mother thought she was, she was actually 800 miles (1,300 km) away in Myrtle Beach, so they maybe wouldn't have seen her the very next day.

Or is this what you're complaining about? Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: No, it wasn't any interpretation of the misunderstanding. My objection was along the lines of "why the emphasis"? With the word left out, the meaning is still clear, and probably less likely to force the reader to re-read, as I had to in order to get the meaning. If it can be left out and be clearer, leave it out. I do take your point that this was a quote, which I missed at the outset. Akld guy (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Disappearance of Brittanee Drexel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while investigating the case of Brittanee Drexel, who disappeared 10 years ago today, the FBI brought federal charges against someone who had already served state probation for the same crime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Brittanee Drexel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Disappearance of Brittanee Drexel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this talk page of yours is getting very long so perhaps you should archive it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Good suggestion, but it helps to keep driveby posters away. Only the determined can be bothered. Akld guy (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary, I never knew this. Fascinating. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Schwede66 02:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: I'm astonished! Your post at the Gayford talk page currently has three colons, which is inappropriate. When I fixed mine, I could have reset yours, but I wasn't sure who you were addressing, me or the thread in general. If addressing Snori's thread, you should have one colon. If addressing me, it should be one more colon than what I used. You really didn't know this, or is it April Fools again? Akld guy (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not kidding you. Schwede66 03:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: OK. Note that while it's unacceptable to change another editor's post (even to correct grammar or spelling), it is acceptable per WP:TPG#Editing other's comments to fix the indenting where it's very clear who the editor was addressing. Akld guy (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new map at Jewish population by country, you might be interested in this discussion at List of countries and dependencies by population. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: Thank you for the heads up!! I'm dangerously close to 3RR and it's great to see your support! His edit summaries (elsewhere in his contribs too) are pretty offensive because there's no way of replying to accusations of disruption. If I have any more to say, I'll say it at that discussion page. Cheers mate! Akld guy (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My page may not be serious, but I am serious. Don't worry. I'll make my edits on the wellington page cater for your needs.Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leavepuckgackle1998: Your user page is nothing but lies, therefore I do not believe you when you say you're serious. I did not revert your Wellington edit because you're a liar but because of the reason stated. The rest of the edit summary about your seriousness was intended to indicate to other editors just how much of a liar you are. Grow up and be taken seriously. Akld guy (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I had decided to add that to the general Scooter-sharing system article instead, forgot to remove the header, and didn't realize my change had published. :-) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: No need to apologise for a mistake. We all make them. Akld guy (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed that Thomas DeSimone has been added to the List of people who disappeared and I spent time improving the article, but I then noticed that is said that he had killed someone before he disappeared. Don't you think he should listed be on the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared instead? If you say yes then I will add him to that list. The reason that I am asking you this is because you are very knowledgeable when it comes to subjects like this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awful article. Hardly any references for what are very serious allegations. Two reasons why I wouldn't add him to the list of fugitives article: 1. There are allegations that he committed murders, but no satisfactory sources for the claims, 2. No mention of police or FBI seeking him. Akld guy (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response and information on this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Allan Nadler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Gazette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated to Montreal Gazette. Akld guy (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, should this person Austin Tice be on the List of solved missing persons cases? He is currently on that list. The reason I ask this is because even though people filmed a video of him being kidnapped that was released to the public, the events that followed and his current whereabouts are unknown. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he should not be on that list. The solving is based on the fact that he was kidnapped – which is bizarre, because it means that the case was solved before his disappearance even began! I would remove it. His fate is unknown, so he's still missing and therefore the case is unsolved. Akld guy (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my apologies for missing the the rule that List of people who disappeared mysteriously: post-1970 required a pre-existing article on the subject. I have since created an article Georgina Gharsallah, but as it's a stub, I'm not sure if that would be enough to allow an entry on the list. What do you suggest? Autarch (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Autarch: Hi. Stub status does not rule it out. Your article has survived a week, so it's likely to become permanent. Go ahead and add it as an entry! Akld guy (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Done. Thanks! Autarch (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Autarch: You do not need to ping users when leaving a message on their talk page - they automatically get notified. Ping is used for notifying users who don't watch, or aren't believed to watch, your talk page. Akld guy (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help expand for article Akane Yamaguchi from 山口茜. Thanks you. Ghyuw5 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghyuw5: I do not read Japanese, sorry, but I did find and correct two cases of misplaced commas in the English article. Akld guy (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a criminal Frank Freshwaters who you can add to List of fugitives from justice who disappeared list. I would add him myself, but please understand that I can only do so much editing at a time. I have currently been busy editing the List of unsolved deaths by adding sources to the entries that don't currently have them. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: There's no urgency. You can do it when you find the time. Akld guy (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what disappeared list do you think that Liu Sung-pan should be on? I am not exactly sure what disappearance his article is making clear to as if he was evading the law before going to jail, or after he fled the country. Davidgoodheart (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: In the "Fugitives who are no longer sought" section of List of fugitives from justice who disappeared. He was convicted and sentenced to jail while out of the country, never acknowledged an offer to receive medical treatment while serving his sentence, was made a fugitive from justice, and died years later while still a fugitive. No longer sought due to his death. Akld guy (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, you are very helpful. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please tell me if this person Robert Nairac who disappeared is a solved case of not. The article says men were imprisoned for his death, but is unclear to if they had killed him or what caused his death. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: I think he doesn't belong in a disappeared list at all. There seems no doubt that he was murdered, it's just that his remains have never been found. Liam Townson and Fearon and Morgan were convicted of his murder, so his fate is established. I would put him in List of kidnappings and nowhere else. Akld guy (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dominici affair shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether it was a "big edit" or not is irrelevant. We cannot send out notifications any time an article is edited. The article was flagged on the appropriate noticeboard by Dweller as having "reams of unreferenced text, appearance of significant OR, massive POV and many of the people named in the article are presumably still alive"; in a BLP that is a serious matter. Dweller and I are both admins and have sworn an oath to uphold the BLP; for you to revert with a bogus reason that bypasses the cause of the edit is disruptive; it's certainly unwise. If you are interested in the article being as good as it can be, you should consider editing it in such a way that it does not fall foul of our policies. That, you may take up on the talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of unsolved serial killer murders, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hii Akld guy, greetings. stand alone list articles do need source just like any other article - see WP:STAND. Group sources are acceptable for stand alone article and sources can be in any languages. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: I intend to take no action whatsoever. The contents survived for years as part of the List of unsolved deaths article, without references. It can stay in draft forever for all I care. Akld guy (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, should this person Assata Shakur be on the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared? She did disappear, but we know she is now living in Cuba, but is a major criminal who is still wanted by the FBI. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: I think one meaning of disappeared is "fled", so yes I think she should be in the list. Also, sources may say that she's in Cuba, but they may be months or even years old. Who knows where she actually is right now? Akld guy (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this person Miran Hrovatin murder cause known or not? His article says someone was sent to jail because of his murder, but the article also says it is unsolved which confuses me. Do you know which one it is? Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: See my edit to Miran Hrovatin. The Somali man convicted in 2000 had his conviction overturned in 2016 and was awarded 3 million euros. So no perpetrator has been identified and the case is unsolved. Akld guy (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this person Boris Nemtsov was killed and the people who killed him were found guilty of killing him, yet they say the case in unsolved, since his article says unsolved murders in Russia on it. The reason they say this is because they don't who "hired" the hitmen. Do you think this is solved or not? Also regarding the Death of Akbar Salubiro an editor said his birth date was either 1991 or 1992. Can we accept that type of format? Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart:

Re: Nemtsov – I am going by what the article says; I have not read the sources to confirm that what it says is correct. The article says that five Chechen men were found guilty of agreeing to kill Nemtsov for 15 million rubles. Note that this is a conviction for forming a conspiracy, not for the murder itself. In other words, these men were hired to kill him, but evidently were not the ones who did. This may mean that two or more teams of assassins were hired or approached. These five men were not convicted for the murder and the murderer(s) are unknown. Therefore it's an unsolved crime.

Re: Akbar Salubiro – I presume that his birth date is unknown and the years 1991 and 1992 have been calculated from his age (25) and the date of his death (March 25, 2017). Either year would match that information, depending on where in the year his birthday was. For example, if his birthday was after March 25, then 1991 would be correct as he would have turned 25 in 2016, before his death. If his birthday was before March 25, then 1992 would be correct as he would have turned 25 in the early part of 2017. So both dates are possible and there's no discrepancy. Akld guy (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, should this person ‎Brendan Simbwaye be on the List of unsolved deaths or the List of unsolved murders? Around the time he disappeared he is said to have been murdered, but this isn't proven as he wasn't found dead. I think he should he should be on the List of unsolved deaths, but I thought I should ask you to get a really good opinion on this matter. This article Héctor David Delgado Santiago also has different idea about who was killed or if the killing took place, so I am not sure what list this should go on either. Please let me know what you think. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 November 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Murder of Grace Millane, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Akld guy
	Hi Akld guy, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010talk 00:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Akld Guy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of unsolved serial killer murders, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akld guy. I notice you suddenly stopped editing on 24 November 2019. I hope all is well and you're just taking a break. Meanwhile, I hope you don't mind that I have added you to the list of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Nurg (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. Are you OK Akld Guy? And YES you ARE missed. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Akld guy five weeks ago. I have not received a reply. I fear we may not see his hand again. Nurg (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about Akld guy's well being, I hope he is alright. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akld guy. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of unsolved serial killer murders, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Double decker bus at Albany New Zealand 24Sept2018.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hibiscus Coast busway station, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hibiscus Coast busway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]