Thank you for all your major contributions to New Zealand-related topics. I wonder if you would be interested in nominating any of your new/recently expanded articles to Wikipedia:Did you know, meaning that a fact from an article can be featured on the front page. I suggest a factoid from History of the Dunedin urban area. It would be good to highlight the additions. Thanks again.--Hazhk (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hazhk, I will look into it.

anything in that department(s) is always appreciated! JarrahTree 00:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Mental health in New Zealand.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please be careful to use your own words when writing articles and not copy phrases and sentences verbatim. Some sentences in this article are very close to this source.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cwmhiraeth}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth:Thanks. I meant to get back to that page, but never did. I have seen pages on the delete list for less, so the polite reminder was appreciated. I have fixed the immediate problem.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Hello, Dushan Jugum,

Thanks for creating Julian Stanley Smith! I edit here too, under the username VQuakr and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Any sourcing available beyond the OBE announcement and his own paper?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|VQuakr}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VQuakr (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, all done. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

If you're going to the trouble of naming references, can you please name them logically and semantically, rather than using the obscure naming convention you're using? Thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am moving too fast for my own good, I will try to clean as I go from now on. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks for creating Pacific Islands home front during World War II.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

An interesting and worthwhile article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cwmhiraeth}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article at DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cwmhiraeth, if nothing else you have inspired me to do some much needed copy editing (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Nice article! Schwede66 20:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work you are doing. In case you haven't done so yet, please have a read of this page, and in particular please pay attention to the "more detailed criteria". If you decide that an article is no longer a stub, please do not simply change the WPNZ assessment alone, but change all other project assessments, too. Yes, there are different ways by different projects how to assess things but mostly they align, and if it's not a stub for WPNZ it won't be a stub for other projects either. If anybody from another project moans at you please refer them to this note or bring it to my attention. Furthermore, if it's no longer a stub, please check on the article page whether there are stub tags. If so, remove those stub tags. De-stubbing involves all those components. Feel free to ask any questions you may have (here's good); I'm happy to help. Schwede66 19:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Schwede66 that makes more sense. I shall be bolder in future. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi, Schwede66. I think I might be being too hard on pages that are between the Start-Stub zones. Frank Grose is a good example, what would you rank this page? I started on Stub but am now leaning strongly towards start. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

One useful indicator is prose size. DYK is quite strict on that; if it's not 1500 bytes of readable prose it's considered a stub by them. I generally concur and with 1230 bytes of readable prose, Grose is still a stub in my books. One more sentence (where did he go to school? what was he by profession?) and you've got the article over the line. I think "page size" doesn't show up in the left side bar by default but you need to install User:Dr pda/prosesize. Schwede66 09:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd found this pic, which says both Selle and Selles, and asked myself: if these guys were stationed in a village, why were they cooking in a makeshift tent (check what's holding the canvas up) using a makeshift oven?

Different angle. A bit later (picture reversed). Not only the same photographer in all four pics, but taken within three days – and, those last two both say Selle not Selles.

Clearly some way behind the front line; i.e., out of the trenches and into reserve that week. The trees were losing their leaves; but it was October, and they hadn't been shelled to bits. The ground looks to have grass on it, rather than being liquified mud. No-one is armed (the bugle doesn't count); and, more particularly, no-one is carrying let alone wearing a tin helmet, and no-one seems to be carrying a gasmask.

Military logic can solve many of these old puzzles. I think that between us, we came to a good WP:BOLD decision. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Narky Blert. You have opened my eyes to a world of possibility. Unfortunately the official history has many place names that differ from names of places. Medium term I plan to use more general histories of the battles to work it out. In the short term there are too many other pages with poor information and perfect grammar, I must right this wrong. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Even regimental war diaries can't be trusted. There's no reason why a unit fighting abroad should be aware that there's more than one place with the same name, even if they get the spelling right. Military historian John Elting, in a book about the Napoleonic Wars, remarked that every village in Poland seemed to have at least four names: the Polish one, the Yiddish one, and the mangled French version of each.

That regimental history, especially the photo in the infobox, gave me the shudders. Evidence that us Brits were willing to fight to the last colonial. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was this edit all about? Moriori (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Moriori, bad link to good ref, will fix. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

All done, thanks. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi, I worked a bit on your article Haast Schist, which I think is quite important as such a widespread and long-lived unit. Unfamiliar with the geology of New Zealand I added what I could, but there is more to do. See the comments in the article. Ah, and I saw your travel boxes, Colombia is still missing! But so is New Zealand for me... Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tisquesusa. I first started editing a few months ago and thought I would only be able to comment on my area of expertise. However, the editing community is far more thinly spread than I imagined and there are many areas where I can help. My occupation is going to swing back to geology briefly and my editing must follow. I find it hard to gauge notability in these academic subjects, but the Haast Schist does deserve better than it has gotten. It is a grab bag term for all NZ Mesozoic Schist, so if you continue, it can help to think of the Alpine and Otago schist as two separate things (though they have a related history). The parent rocks have very poorly defined stragraphy as well which does not help. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I agree, the editing community is small. I honestly do not have much experience with New Zealand geology, apart from the Taranaki Basin, my focus is mostly South American geology and paleontology, but try to help out with the other regions, mainly with categorization and filling the infoboxes. So I'm learning from your work. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I like to separate the publications on which the articles are based into a Bibliography section, to make it easier to read the text in edit mode, see for an example one of my geological articles Honda Group, Colombia. If the text in edit mode is filled with references, it becomes very hard to read/discern the article text from the references. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love it. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Don't thank me for Geology of the West Coast Region Tisquesusa, I had great dreams to make it good before going away, but it never happened. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Just FYI, ship indices are considered list articles, not disambiguation articles. Llammakey (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Llammakey, I will check all the ones I moved. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

You got all of them, thanks, should they have an importance designation or should it be NA? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks for creating Banks Peninsula Volcano.

Lovely job! Can't believe there wasn't an article on this yet... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Elmidae}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Geology of the West Coast Region.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Impressive job again...

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Elmidae}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I think this was a valuable discussion. While some deprods can be waste of time, we can easily tell if they are or not by looking at the discussion resulting (if any). IMHO if there's is a discussion, than the time is not wasted (much), as others, like yourself (and myself too) have learned from this (I do hope that the article creator did, and not just left Wikipedia due to many of their articles being challenged). The only time I would say a deprod wastes time is if the resulting AfD is obvious 'delete', with maybe only the deproding party and/or the creator refusing to agree with the consensus. This was clearly not the case here. PS. I'll be nominating Anna Brown (designer) by the same creator, also another of Massey's faculty members, for AfD soon. See the talk page of that article for a short discussion that you may be interested in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Geology of China at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does "the modern regions of Otago and Southland" mean in this edit you made a little while ago? Moriori (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moriori. I meant that the service men came from the area that corresponded to the old Otago Province, the modern Otago and Southland regions. But that it had no clear formal name in 1914. I am happy to drop 'the modern' even though Otago and Southland regions were not really a thing at that time; no one will get confused. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Your explanation is even more confusing. Best to simply delete the word "modern" and leave it as "regions of Otago and Southland", small r of course. Moriori (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

be bold. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I could have been bold and simply removed the word without asking why you had added it. But I thought I should ask you personally. Now you tell me to be bold. Wiki editors don't exist just to run around after you. You made the problematic edit, you fix it. Moriori (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Moriori, you seem to misunderstand me. I do not think that this edit is a problem, however, I will not fight you for it. So if you want to change it, please do. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I will fix it. Believe me, I do not misunderstand you.Moriori (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moriori, your behaviour on this page and others does not seem in line with my alleged crimes. I have for some time had the impression that I have offended you in some way, beyond what you are saying. If this is so please feel free to contact me at kikitangeo@hotmail.com. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Interesting turnaround. Last week you said to me "I have never seen one of your edits I disagree with.". Now it's "I have for some time had the impression that I have offended you in some way". Moriori (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Christ Church, Russell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Geology of China at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello D.J. This is an interesting and compelling story. I have called it to the attention of the folks at the Ships project, who may have some suggestions for you. (One from me: the rediscovery of the wreck could be expanded and put it its own section.) Thank you for your contributions. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ventnor (ship) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ventnor (ship) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and agree it should be deleted. I then had another look at the page history and find that I actually created the article ha ha ha! But I still agree it should be deleted. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Thanks for the feedback re: my edit.

My idea was basically just to follow the example set on the List of anthropogenic disasters and atrocities by death toll, where a geometric mean is calculated for each estimate range. I agree with you regarding the lack of consensus on what the upper and lower bounds are for the Nanjing Massacre; that's why I only included it fairly deep in the article (as opposed to the infobox), and only for a clearly specified range. Within that context, calculating a simple average is, in my opinion, more a case of data presentation than of original research.
Given the unusually strong disagreement about the death toll of this particular conflict – with discrepancies sometimes spanning several orders of magnitude – I think it would be useful to include a geometric mean for all of the most common ranges cited in the article. A table might be useful (rows = sources; columns = upper bound,lower bound, geo.mean). What do you think? Adrianrorheim (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrianrorheim. Hmmm I can't decide if I have a real problem or just consider the whole idea a little glib. Have a look at The Holocaust#Death toll if you have not yet. I prefer the idea of a table to a geometric mean, but that would take some work and I fear you may be knocked back, try the talk page first or be bold. I however will no longer stand in your way on this issue in any respect. A geometric mean (correct me if I am wrong)does not weight the number based on the perceived credibility of the source. A table would allow readers to do that for themselves. My concern with geometric is who decides 'the most common ranges cited'. I note for geometric mean List of anthropogenic disasters and atrocities by death toll^[1] uses "72,111 (all victims) 22,361(civilian massacre victims)" you used "110,000 deaths". Thank you for taking my comments in the way in which they were meant, I hate being reverted.Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was only aware of one talk page, are there others. Can you post the links? I think its an important discussion especially in portraying historical events accurately. Jjfun3695 (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Jjfun3695 I too am aware of only one talk page although one of the following discussions have been mentioned on the Military History group talk page. At the moment we are discussing "Should the Chinese leader be there", "should the royal family be there" and what "factions should be there" there are probably more in the archives or further up the current page for all I know, the Soviet-Axis alliance people probably want a change. As all of these have not yet gone through, your edit of the info box adding different Prime Ministers of the UK seemed worthy of discussion.

My revert comment "There are 3-4 ongoing conversations about the info box on the talk page, do one of them relate to this change?" I still do not understand your question are we talking about the same thing? The talk page may seem like a useless place but I would place good money on the "Should the Chinese leader be there" change going through. Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added a graph at Archaeology_of_New_Zealand#Population_growth_rates. May I ask where the data comes from? Koopinator (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, removed, Koopinator, no refs given and when I looked into how I made it, I would now say it breaks WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." or any source I could quickly find. Thanks and sorry. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sort travel logistics soon; 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 08:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]