I knew I'd forgotten something — thanks for pointing it out. I've uploaded a new version now. -- Vardion 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the Devonport/Davenport error — I've fixed it. -- Vardion 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, now that I look, I'm not sure if that was you or not. If not, sorry for any confusion. -- Vardion 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Well if it's not a big deal, why did you change it back? 70.109.98.190 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying its not a big deal. Your change removed functionality and improvements in style, therefore I brought it back, referring you to the WP:MOS to explain why. MadMaxDog 00:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grutness, say, you created all those maps gracing the various NZ articles, didn't you? Like the backgrounds of North Island, South Island etc... do you keep them somewhere where others editors can use them? I'd need a blank South Island map for Transport in Milford Sound.

it was me... I've just uploaded Image:NZ plain map.png, Image:NZ-NI plain map.png, and Image:NZ-SI plain map.png for anyone who needs them. Have fun! Grutness...wha? 01:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you guys in NZ publicate or publish. I'd expect that sort of stuiff from the Americans!!! Mark ;-)

I've got no connection to them, really. Just the usual tendency of a rabid Wikipedian who sees a red link and has to write an article for it... MadMaxDog 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the use of "publicate" as opposed to "publish" ;-) 85.22.30.222 13:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused as to what you are referring to/what you mean. Was the original comment criticism? MadMaxDog 09:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely asked because the word publicate does not exist in British English and wondered if people actually use a superfluous form of publish, in this case publicating as opposed to publishing. Here publicating does semm to lend a little more alliteration. Curiosity not criticism ;-) 85.22.29.120 05:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're requesting at the Esfahan Province redirect.[1] If you need to move the article into that place, then you could use WP:RM to take care of it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

thanks for you comments on my revisions to the AWP article, and i can see you've built on the structure i put in, which all seems good. As regards cherry picker, i can see no strong rationale for keeping it as it was basically a stub and you'll end up with a lot of repetition between the two articles. Certainly in my experience, the term cherry picker is used to apply equally to scissor lifts as articulated (whether correctly or not!)

If you don't like it, i suggest we return it, place a merge template on it, and people can have their say - wiki democracy in action!

Owain.davies 07:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the AWP article. Maybe an hour - or a day - as I'd like to check what you added and removed (no offense, I'm just obsessive-compulsive, and will likely end up rewriting quite a bit ;-).

As for the cherry picker, I do feel quite strongly that it should stay separate - in fact, in the long run, I think the AWP article should be the one that has only generic stuff like business model while cherry picker, scissor lift and articulated lift should all have their own articles. Some duplication is not a problem - just as deciduous trees will have some duplication with trees... I'd rather suggest that you point out what is duplicated, and reduce it to the required minimum to give context.

As for 'voting on it' (excuse me if I come across as lecturing here, I know I do) - decisions on Wikipedia are not votes, but should be as close to possible consensus while following Wikipedia aims and guidelines. We would also likely have the problem that rather few people would end up caring, I guess. Probably just us two have strong feelings about this at the moment, because we both invested time into it. MadMaxDog 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LETS CONTINUE THIS AT THE AWP TALK, OKAY? MadMaxDog 07:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made changes to my recent edit to this page (done on 12JUN07). Thanks for pointing out the details of the "thumb" setting I didn't realize that it was user adjustable if a size isn't specified. I still contend that the Ali Al Saleem airbase photo is a poor demonstration of hesco bastions. The Hescos are so old and worn out that it's hard to tell that they're even Hescos unless it's viewed at full size (plus the focus of the photo is more on the bunker than the hescos to begein with). This image is already used on two other pages Ali Al Salem Air Base and Bunker buster, I plan to remove it again. Take it easy, and keep up the good work! Ultratone85 14:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think the actual APPLICATION (i.e. protecting installations) should be shown. The fact that the image won't be lost only mollifies me somewhat in this regard. Why are you intending to ditch it when there is no need? Article is not overcrowded with images.

The setting I am referring to is in every logged-in users preferences (top right, 'files' tab). MadMaxDog 06:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the thumb image preference now and have no intention to change the sizes of the pictures again (although now that I think about it, I have to go back and fix a few articles I made the same mistake on). My wanting to remove that picture stems from two things. 1. I'm a photographer. 2. I'm a combat engineer. Combat engineering involves mobility, countermobility and survivability work in the field of combat. Out in Iraq my job largely revolves around the many applications of hesco bastions. The hesco bastions in this particular picture are a very poor representation of Hescos in this theatre of operations. I can gurantee that less than 1% of them look anything like that. The army normally requires their replacement long before they ever decay to that point (personally until I saw that picture, I'd never seen one that bad). There are literally hundreds and thousands of them on every installation. Surrounding every building, every observation point, and every other soft target. They aren't even always used for fragmentation protection. For example the ones in that picture are more realistically there to try to keep adventurous soldiers from climbing around on the dangerous and unstable ruins of that bunker. From a photographers' standpoint the Hescos in the picture are hard to see and not the center of attention, the picture is a great photo of a damage done by a "Bunker Buster" bomb or even a landmark at "Ali Al Saleem Airbase", a great picture of hesco bastions it is not. I agree with you that having a picture demonstating the application is a must, but this particular one does a very poor job of it. I will try to have a better picture that demonsrates the application, better focuses on the subject, and is better representive of the subject posted on the Hesco bastion page within the next week. Take it easy. Ultratone85 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Thanks for the effort. I know I should not be touchy about people changing 'my' articles (one of the big Wikipedia sins!) but when you were the person who changed an article from somewhat of a mess to a reasonable version, its sometimes hard to keep that in check ;-) MadMaxDog 11:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new Hesco bastion picture is up as I promised. Take it easy! Ultratone85 11:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not label an edit "revert" when it was a partial revert and you made new changes; this is confusing for other editors to follow. Red links are only good if you think the article is going to be created (WP:RED). Do you really think articles on Bowles, "plastic sheet", "mud box", and "gravity wall" are likely to be created soon or are appropriate to have a full article for? I think the removed image is of poor quality, it is hard to see the subject, and the type of retaining wall is not discussed in the article, so the added value is low, but if you insist on having it, that is ok. Headings do not need to have the same word repeated - "systems", and putting parenthesis in a heading looks funny. Writing in complete sentences is also standard, and the schematic needs to be bigger in order to see properly. These are fairly simple edits that should not need explaining in detail (maybe the image removal did), and even if a detailed explanation was requested, they certainly do not deserve to be reverted (Help:Revert). Please consider communicating your concerns before reverting good faith edits. Basar 19:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you have a Master's in engineering and are editing a retaining wall article, perhaps you are a geotechnical engineer. Consider joining our little project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geotechnical engineering. Basar 19:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basar, I must say that I find your comments somewhat patronizing (full disclosure, I wasn't in the best mood when I read them to start with). You say I cannot label the edit "revert"? I admit I could have noted that I did other changes (and I usually do), but then, anybody who cares looks at the diff anyway (as you did, it seems). To continue with my current feelings of irritation, I note that in your edit "add MSE section; cleanup of rest" you removed an image without giving any reasons. How does that square with what you ask of me? Removing images is often controversial, and should be explained.

Did you also realize that I did in fact actively remove several redlinks, like crib wall etc... As on Bowles, "plastic sheet", "mud box", and "gravity wall" - I did not add any links for plastic sheet or gravity wall at all. What are you talking about? As for redlinks in general, I may be somewhat less strict than some people feel WP:RED should be handled. But "are likely to be created soon or are appropriate to have a full article for" is an unclear judgement call if I ever heard one. I might just as well ask why you feel that mechanically stabilized earth needs a separate article? (But I won't. I'm fine with added articles, I do not think everything needs to be merged).

Next: "and putting parenthesis in a heading looks funny." No clue what you are talking about. Which parentheses? "Writing in complete sentences is also standard," Again, what are you talking about? In my edit summary?

As for the sizing of the schematic (which I created, BTW), I feel that this will be difficult to size correctly within the article. There is too much info and small-scale text in there. I'll try and see what it looks like.

Finally, for the mudbox image, I disagree with your comment. The lack of description within the article is, for me, not reason to remove the image. This image has two main advantages for the article - it shows a type of retaining wall not yet covered (added info) and it shows that retaining walls need not always retain soil only (added info, though this IS noted in the lede, so an example is good). I do agree however that the gravity wall image was better placed to go on top, at the article start. That is why I did not simply go back to the simple original version (and then some other changes sorta grew from it).

In summary, what really got reverted is the deletion of an image (all the other changes as I noted above, are small fry, and I have in fact taken your comments on board in some regards - see article now). As for reverting the image deletion - If you can delete it without discussing it on the talk page, why can't I restore it? Please don't get too hung up on the use of the word 'revert'. While I agree that we should not reflexively revert changes we do not like, I consider it unrealistic to demand Don't revert! when you clearly feel that the article is worse off with the change. As I noted, your deletion was not explained, so I felt it appropriate to restore, and still stand by that. Cheers. MadMaxDog 10:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the geotech project - no thanks. No offense taken (well some, but as I said, I was in a grumpy mood at the time). Joking aside - I am a traffic engineer, not a geotech person. My knowledge about the stuff (from basics learned at uni) goes about as far as the diagram I created, and with all the other stuff on Wikipedia that could really use my work in areas I know more about, I am unlikely to spend much more time on related articles. MadMaxDog 10:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about being patronizing; I was a little irritated and it came across. The reason I was angry is that it was a wholesale revert of my edits and not simply a restoration of an image or other targeted changes (which would be completely understandable), and I encompassed these things as "cleanup" in the edit summary. The things I listed, which are things you said you did not know what I was talking about, are things which you reverted or were added by you, and you can find them in your diff. Perhaps this is all just a misunderstanding: did you realize you reverted all of my changes and the edit in between us? As for what deserves a whole article, MSE is a completely different subject area whereas the term gravity wall only implies a slight variation in design. Cheers, hopefully this is all getting cleared up. Basar 18:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that I went back to an earlier edit, and then reintroduced some of your changes I considered sensible. Not the most pleasant way of disagreeing with your edit - fair enough of you to get irritated. I am still confused about some of the claims you made in your first post here, but I'm not too keen on continuing to discuss the past. I hope you agree with the changes I have made since, and I promise to try and be open to any changes you make. Cheers. MadMaxDog 06:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Basar 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should remain separated. On the French version, we have both fr:Catégorie:Gouverneur de la Réunion and fr:Catégorie:Préfet de la Réunion. Thierry Caro 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also Image:Britomart Denis Wilford 02.jpg, Image:Ports Of Auckland Jellicoe.jpg, etc.

Yay! I replied on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the EL headers, I am removing the bold formatting done with ''' and replacing it with ;, they achieve the same visual effect (with ; bolding the entire line) but the latter helps certain contexual analyzers realize that its intended to be a non-section header. --soum ^talk 09:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at other city articles such as Hong Kong, Brisbane, Vancouver (although none of these are 100% perfect). They contain less POV. this Auckland article seemed to have too much commentary on the failings of plannings and public transport, these are issues but it seems like commentary and opinion to me.

I will take your opinion into account. Some more stuff can be moved into the sub-article, I guess. MadMaxDog 08:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Michellecrisp 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information and pictures from the above article. They are an important facet of the architect's work and very relevant to the page. By all means link to your new page but not at the expense of the arcjitect's bio. Thanks. Giano 09:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remove them. This page is very long, and can stand some moving of material to other articles. Don't get defensive - nothing is going to be lost. MadMaxDog 09:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a FA because it is complete and comprehensive. Please leave it so and do not remove information. In short do your own research. Giano 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MadMaxDog, could you find some more useful pursuit in Wikipedia than bulldozing featured articles and destroying their integrity? Have you seen Wikipedia:Pages needing attention? --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's this now? A little witch-hunt? Bulldozing featured articles? (multiples, no less!) Is WP:BOLD suddenly out of the window? Are FAs holy grails? Is condensing and moving out material to other articles vandalism?

You could accuse me of something if I had started an edit war over this. Get off my back, and don't tell me what I can do constructively. MadMaxDog 10:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not accused you of vandalism. The article is featured for a good reason. I assure you that it does not require "condensing and moving oout material". --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the architect talk page, I do not feel that it needs condensing strongly enough to fight those people who worked on it / watchlisted it. However, this is fast evolving into plain accusations, see Lawson talk page (No, I am not the calm voice of reason either). Lets stop that. MadMaxDog 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this discussion as closed here and will not respond to any other messages. I however will continue to discuss it on the Lawson article if anyone is interested. As for me, I'm willing to let it go. I need some sleep and yes, I could be engaged more productively than arguing about this.MadMaxDog 11:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't be touching it for next 30 mins. thanks Michellecrisp 06:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a closer look over the next few days at all transport articles relating to Auckland, thanks for putting up more references. I don't mind you balancing out or adding additional referees to my inclusion that's all part of NPOV and the Wikipedia process. thanks. Michellecrisp 07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Madmax, that doesn't apply to lead images and also I believe a strong argument can be made that landscape images should also be allowed to be set wider (in order to actually be the same size as 180px wide portrait images) Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not general style on Wikipdia to increase the lead images. There is an exception that lead images MAY be wider, but this is not generally done. I feel rather strongly that haveing a large and then a smaller image detracts from the article. MadMaxDog 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when not necessary for some other more important reason, this would still break the logic of allowing users to have their own settings (for example for bandwith reasons). MadMaxDog 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many people disagree with you on this as can be seen with the huge number of articles that have large lead images and indeed many landscape images that are not 180px wide (which is so small you might as well not have any landscape images). I hardly think bandwidth issues are such a major problem- even with dial up these images would only take a very short time to load. And as I pointed out, in order for a landscape image to be even the same size as a portrait one 180px wide it needs to be larger. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim that this does not exist. But it is certainly not general consensus usage.MadMaxDog 23:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would actually say it is. Look at nearly all the featured articles and they have large lead images and non portrait images that are set wider than 180px Hatshepsut, Shuttle-Mir Program. I know you think that you are doing right by the rules, but really I think this rule is one so often broken in featured content that it cannot be really accepted as consensus. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I see that about 1 article in last months featured content used an image that was above 300px. Why would you force it to be that big (350px)? I propose a compromise at 300px. MadMaxDog 23:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are referring to? I made the two pics 250px and 300px wide? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My aplogies. You did. As noted, I think that the different sizes do detract from the article. So if are set on using forcing to make the landscape images better readable, we'd be better at at least keep both at the same size.

Hi, as the lead images are normally bigger, obviously the other images are usually smaller - I agree that perhaps the other images should be generally the same size, but not the same width. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may sound rather touchy about this, but I got lots of flak for some disputed edits to an FA article while creating this one (I condensed the Seacliff section on Robert Lawson (architect) because I felt that details would be better covered in this article). I then spent a lot of time getting this article just right to show that I certainly was able to produce good work (this article is 99% my work). So while I obviously do not 'own' this article, I have a lot of investment in it. MadMaxDog 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the article is improved by having larger images. Having tiny images just makes it hard for the user if you have to click on every one to actually be able to see it properly. Obviously this really needs to be added to the MOS as it is really a slightly ridiculous situation when most articles that get approved to be featured are ignoring it (for a good reason). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly get your factual point in wanting large images - though I feel that users should just up their thumb settings. What about users who (may one day) have *really* large screens, and would LIKE their images at 500+ pixels? They will be force-shrunk, then. Anyway, I hope we have reached a compromise here. Cheers. MadMaxDog 00:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this cat is intended only for mayors of Auckland City, not for mayors within the region. Case in point: Tim Shadbolt. If you disagree, feel free to restore the Shadbolt article, but add something to the category to make its definition clear.-gadfium 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium, I was following the logic we have in Auckland and Auckland City. Maybe the category should be renamed?MadMaxDog 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mayor of Auckland does explain that the title covers only Auckland City. It should not be renamed, since that is the official title. I think a note at the top of the category would suffice, whether you want to make it cover all of Auckland or just Auckland City. I have a mild preference for Auckland City only, but I'm happy for you to decide either way.-gadfium 00:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted the argument about Mayor of Auckland article, based on the official title. I think the category should be renamed instead. Either to Mayors in the Auckland Region, or to Mayors in Auckland City. Unless you do it first, I may eventually get around to proposing the category rename, but I have other things do do atm, only changed some cats on the side. Sorry for any that are considered misplaced now. MadMaxDog 00:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, you have just made me realise that, of course other people have created a page and how annoying it is when someone else adds extra content. I did look at the other page where the photograph has been placed and I think there is already a better picture of the lighthouse on that page. I'm going to remove it. I think I'll stick to creating my own pages on items that don't already appear on Wikipedia. Cheers Hedgehogmouse 09:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hedgehogmouse, please do NOT assume that you need to be cautious about editing 'other people's articles'. WP:BOLD and WP:OWN explicitly encourage you to do so. Seeing that you were a new editor, I did explain as good as I could why I removed it, because I don't want to discourage anyone. Create new articles or add/expand existing ones! There are few articles which couldn't be better (only some that are harder to make better than others). Images, however are a bit of a different thing, as, in the first place, this is an encyclopedia, not an image gallery, so its good to keep an eye on not swamping an article, especially not with similar photos. I do admit that on ocasions I have simply dived in and researched a lot of material or created new articles from the original justification of wanting to use an image i took ;-) So carry on, and we hope to have you here as an active contributor. If you have any question about anything, feel free to ask me. MadMaxDog 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh...wikipedians might realise I take photos of things other than aircraft... Sorry 1996 is correct - I wrote early 1990s before remembering events round when I'd actually taken it. Will have a look for other shots from the same day, which might show the tree a bit more clearly...(also have some recent shots of Acacia cottage I should upload...:-)Winstonwolfe 01:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I LIKE that shot, dubious about you wanting to replace it. The contrast and all - it just looks great. I'm just wondering if cropping the right and bottom would make it a bit better yet... MadMaxDog 06:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words...and making me rewrite an infobox :-). Shot really needed a red filter to darken the sky, and for the purposes of the article, the trees just beneath the summit are confusingly close. If you want to crop, feel free, (original was trying to frame the hill with foreground features, but most of the foreground tree has already been cropped out, undermining that idea). :-) Winstonwolfe 06:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MadMax,

Cool, sorry if I was rude. It's ironic, my user page only has personal info because I made some people on the biofuels article mad by insisting that the section about environmental costs be included. They thought I was out to trash the environment, I thought I was out to include an import aspect of the topic. I know that sounds familiar. OK, just wanted to send out an e-olive branch. Speaking of the article, I would like to possibly change the format, so instead of criticism as a section, it grows into a pros and cons kind of thing. Maybe if it comes back across your radar you can make sure I get things right, since you are the pro. I just really like bus lanes, since one of them cut my daily commute from 90 to 45 minutes last year. Also, this may be a whi8le in happening, since I would like my real life to squeeze in some time against my virtual life. Envirocorrector 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free - not fixed on calling it criticism, though that certainly fits the bill for the section. And as noted, yes, the positive effects should be expounded better. Cheers MadMaxDog 05:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you tag on image or article as a possible copyright violation. Do not forget to also warn the uploader about that. Perhaps it's not a copyvio and they can explain why. Either way, this way they can discuss and are warned instead of being surprised to find their image/article is deleted. Garion96 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On July 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seacliff Lunatic Asylum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Excellent work MadMaxDog and you've earned yourself the pictured slot on the main page. Enjoy, and feel free to self nom infinitely. We have hardly any NZ stuff on DYK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I'll get us known for our lunatic asylums. Serves them right for granting me residency ;-) MadMaxDog 07:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly a good article but what you've got to understand is that it's DOC that has a problem with the noise and not the tourists. They've been trying for years to ban planes from Milford on that basis. I think they once sent out a survey that said 'What do you find most annoying in the air while you're in Fiordland' and people wrote "Sandflies".

Two things: First - I was at Milford Sound (walking the Milford Track and staying a full day at the Sound) just this April, and I WAS surprised (and maybe borderline annoyed) at the amount of aircraft, especially when you spent a few hours two km from the airport. Summer must be worse.

Second - what do you claim? That DOC is misrepresenting their visitor survey, or lying? That would need a reference, not a delete of a referenced statement. DOC is also charged with administering the park, so their word carries a lot of weight in any article concerned with it. You are welcome to add what you'd consider balancing opinions (maybe from aircraft operators) to DOCs opinion and their survey, but please make them relevant and referenced.MadMaxDog 09:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please sign your posts using the ~~~~. MadMaxDog 09:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue with you. Infact since you're a prolific Wikipedia who's based in New Zealand and a pilot, I was wondering if you would be interested in doing some editing on our wiki which is queenstown.net.nz. We can't pay you much, but we can give you some free flights - with or without you at the controls, according to your preference.

--Andrewrutherford 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, arguing is fine as long as we are all polite (not implying you weren't). As for my flying license, it is for gliders, though I should probably say was, been a couple years ago, with no flying since, and I never made more than a handful of solo flights... Glenorchy Air? Think I have heard of you guys. I'm going to have to pass on your offer of working on your wiki though, as I'm trying (not very successfully) to spend less, not more time in front of the computer. Also, I'm in the North Island and get down to the South Island maybe once every two years only (if for no other reason than that most of my holidays are spent visiting my family in Europe). Looks like a nice enough wiki you got there, BTW. I've toyed with the idea of proposing one (for internal use only, though) at my company. MadMaxDog 12:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for you to license this image for use on the Glenorchy Air article here on Wikipedia? MadMaxDog 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, being a glider pilot explains how you could still be against airplane noise. It's all right for you to use that image along with anything else that is on the queenstown.net.nz wiki After all that's only fair since much of it consists of stuff from Wikipedia! Is there anything else I have to do to licence it? Keep up the good work.

--Andrewrutherford 02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, as noted, it didn't really bother me as in 'got me mad'. I do like flying small planes in general too. But I could certainly see where these complaints came from (and anyway, I was just, as always, hunting material for my pet articles, so having that material appear in the Herald it was a foregone conclusion that I would add it).

As for the image (its the 'airvan' isn't it?), you would need to place a copyright note on the article page, just as on Wikipedia, so I can then 'move it over'. See example of appropriate license ('licensing tab') here and or simply state on the page that it is either Public Domain or an appropriate creative commons license. Please note that we can't use licenses that specifiy 'non-commercial use only'(if only because some poeple copy Wikipedia for commmercial use). MadMaxDog 02:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ref is Nigel Benson, "Seacliff asylum's [lower case A] painful and haunting history" Otago daily Times, Dunedin 27 January 2007. I gouldn't make the refs look nice so I put them in <!>Nankai 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see that you recently deleted the link that I only recently added. I believe that it is a legitimate link for the following reasons:

1. Many other places (cities and countries) have links referring them to travel guides which are useful for that area, as they contain information regarding that area which is not included in the article. Hence there should be no reason why my link to the Rough Guides website should be any different. Unlike many others, the Rough Guides website does not have extensive advertising on it, but rather, it provides a large degree of useful travel information.

2. As you are probably aware WikiTravel has a number of external links referring people to their own travel guide. In the Auckland example, I added an external link as Wikitravel has failed to do so for this location. Surely if adding external links can be done to a series of other locations such as New York by Wikitravel, it should not be restricted for less well known places?

3. The fact that there are links to Wikitravel would suggest that information regarding travel is considered to be appropriate for the Wikipedia website.

I fully understand that there is a need to prevent people from merely advertising on Wikipedia, as this is not it's purpose. However, I hope you will agree with me that in this example, it is not a matter of advertising, but of providing a highly important link that is legitimate as it has a basis in precedent.

Kind regards,

Answered on the Auckland talk page. MadMaxDog 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MMD, yes I probably should've edited it first. I have the actual statistics on modal share somewhere, for an economics paper I wrote once. I think there needs to be a general section on freight movements though, but we can add that in the future. --Lholden 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, your account has been renamed from User:MadMaxDog to User:Ingolfson. --Deskana (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grutness. You recently linked me some blank NZ maps I had been asking for. However, I'd really need one that is a bit more detailed in the Fiordland area, i.e. a larger scale one. From looking at the blank South Island map, it seems that it may have been saved from a much larger one (Lake Wakatipu looks a bit like a jpg-blurring?). So would you by any chance have such a larger map, or a cutout of the Fiordland-Queenstown area? With the crappy software I have here at home I can't even 'trace' another map, because none of my programs is able to do layers (tells you how much you got used to what you have access to at work...)

I've uploaded one as Image:NZ-SSI template.jpg. It's a bit rough and will need a little bit of tidying around the lakes if you can - that should be possible even with fairly crude software. Hope it helps. So why the change from MMD? Grutness...wha? 11:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the image. Noticed it had some transparent spots that messed up with the resizing script. Jhattara 19:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingolfson, Any chance you guys would find out the copyright status of NZ stamps under 100 years old? Cheers GrahamBould 11:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We/I ain't experts, but I will ask around. PS - its quite likely in here, though possibly not in very plain terms: Statutes (I can't link directly - search for the "Copyright Act 1994"). Ingolfson 11:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more direct link to the Copyright Act: [4]. To get such a link using Firefox, right click, choose "This Frame"->"Show only this frame".-gadfium 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me? What are wrong with my sources. If I publish an essay on my site can I use that?

Answered on your page.Ingolfson 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the article history of movie theater correctly, I understand you're proposing a split of the article. I support this. What do you think the title of the new article would be? Maybe this could be discussed on Talk:Movie theater#Split? — WiseKwai 02:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume its the shoulder, due to the solid yellow line. --Tom (talk - email) 13:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Diffeent countries, different logic. Rarely seen an inside shoulder. Ingolfson 08:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll upload it again but it'll look like the way you requested.--Robors 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Thanks Ingolfson 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I only have one reference from the booklet I received shortly after the Axe-Murder Incident, so I'll add that. There might also be something on the JSA web page, I'll check and see. For some reason, that incident never seemed to get much in the way of headlines, even though it was pretty egregious happening during a MAC meeting. wbfergus 10:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the booklet for the crucial points would be a very good start, even if its obviously not available online. Ingolfson 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I thought you were going to tag and move on, so I went and referenced, but you were doing that at the same time. I hope we didn't clash too badly. Thank you! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We did. I am sorting it out now, give me 20 minutes, and you can go at it again if you like, okay? Ingolfson 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I'll stop until I see you haven't edited for at least 20 mins. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you this, though - without clashing :-) - do you have any images? Because it seems to be a beautiful place. I found these http://flickr.com/photos/mocean/124887708/ http://flickr.com/photos/mocean/126784475/ on Flickr and was thinking of asking the photographer if she would release them under CC-BY-SA, but if you already have images (or plan to ask him yourself) I won't bother. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have one of the front entrance outside, and I will look for it as soon as I am done with the text and hand that back to you for the next round. You could contact the Flickr user yourself, while I will upload the main entry pic. Cheers. Ingolfson 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailed. Could take a few days. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update on the image status - the Flickr user responded that they would be happy to release the images, and may even be able to find the originals, which would be of better resolution, but would be busy for a few days. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr user changed the license and uploaded larger images, but her comment was doubtful about removing the non-commercial status. I want to make sure she knows what she's doing, and doesn't feel we've tricked her in any way, so sent, what I hope is a better explanation, and am giving her more time to let her respond or at least to let it sink in. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could drop by some day and maybe take a photo. Might not be soon, but can do. Ingolfson 05:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got them. Take a look, I think they're stunning, especially full size, but even at reduced scale in the article. The atrium is a beautiful place. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting them sorted! I am just worried that we are now overloading the article with images a little - I use 300px thumbs, and on a vertical scale, that makes them pretty big (but I generally oppose forcing size forcing on people, so...!) Best thing to dial back the dominance of the images would be to add more text then! But I'm not going to do it today. Cheers Ingolfson 06:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use the default, and at that scale the images reach the bottom of the Medical section. But nothing against more text. Perhaps something about notable cases Starship worked on? They seem to get a fair bit of mention in the NZ press. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles Nest, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Eagles Nest satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagles Nest and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Eagles Nest during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Russavia 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re AfD comments: I've had personal experiences which lead me to doubt Lonely Planet's veracity on anything (but that might just be me being bitter). If there's any other sources, then I'll reconsider. Malathos 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

size forcing to be avoided [according to] WP:MOS, you say.

Hmm. In its section on images the Manual of Style not only directs to sample pages in which every image is "size forced", but to Wikipedia:Picture tutorial which teaches how to resize thumbnails, and where the only forcing mentioned is that of a line break. -- Picapica 11:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your page. Cheers. Ingolfson 11:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to delete the List of notable glider pilots. Please register your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable glider pilots. I think it is an interesting list and useful when publicising the sport. JMcC 09:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, i'll certainly be in Auckland next week, just sorting out some of the minor details now (like how to get there). And thanks for the support, i'm not sure what i'll do, but i'm going to keep going. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. As a student I have access to a range of general and industry press which easily meets WP:RS, and the links you've provided will also be useful - thanks heaps for that. Orderinchaos 14:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just saw your edit for the Waiheke Island airport page [5], not quite sure why you decided to remove the links for the Waiheke tourist site, it obviously offended your sensibilities. Particularly as your profile states

I consider 'content-pruning' (as opposed to pruning non-verifiable or commercial material) to be one of the more unpleasant experiences of Wikipedia. Even more so where done without explanation to a newbie

That would be me then!!

Fair comment on the telephone numbers, I was unaware that that was not OK, but the tourism links I thought where of some utility.

Thanks for your work on these. I improved or created most of the Banks novel articles when I had just started here and I blush at how bad they are now. It would be great to improve referencing throughout and tighten up the writing. I invite you to review them all. Best wishes, --John 06:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I have a few years of free time, mate ;-) Got my hands full, so I am unllikely to get around to looking at the others soon (it was just that this one was the latest I had read). Ingolfson 06:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope it is ok that I copy and pasted across the main content of what you put on my talk page (if not just let me know and I'll remove my own edit). When I have more time I'll go through the references and add it in to the appropriate articles. Thanks. Mathmo ^Talk 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, sure, they are there to be used. Ingolfson 05:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just thought it would be wise to double check it is ok to copy and paste it across to the AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, shouldn't you have asked BEFORE? ;-) Ingolfson 09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, yeah probably! But I presumed it would be ok (the info was posted to be used after all), and I was offering here the chance to revert it just in case. Mathmo ^Talk 10:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I have no problems, really. Though I might have written it a bit more lucidly if I knew that. And maybe a link to it on your talk page would have been best, not to clutter up the AfD page. But I am niggling. Cheers. Ingolfson 10:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally thinking of putting it on the AfD's talk page, but I decided it wouldn't be noticed there. However, now I feel that would be the best compromise. Cheers, I'm off to do that now. Mathmo ^Talk 10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what the bots problem is with this image Image:Smith Caughey's Building Queen Street.jpg. It does not recognise the fact that the Commons version exists and ist the same. Ingolfson 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was because the apostrophe in the name was not handled correctly by the bot. I'm going to fix it now :-) Thanks for reporting. —METS501 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. However, WP:MOS does state that "Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include ... On a lead image that captures the essence of the article" so my change was in line with the MOS. I generally start an article with a large thumbed photo and leave any other images at the default size. For those of us who haven't set our preferences to larger than default thumbnails the image of Canterbury is rather small given that the ship only occupies a small proportion of the photo. --Nick Dowling 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the over-categorisation, I used the automated summary-generating-tool for photos from flickr, and assumed that it would do it properly. I'll be a bit more careful next time, I was a bit annoyed there were so few images of Auckland International on flickr that I sort of rushed when I found the two that I did, and didn't double-check.

Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why you deleted the panoramic photo from the Franz Josef Glacier. Your Edit summary doesn't say. The pictures can be found on my user page. TobiasK 10:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I probably should (Upload to commons instead of wikipedia). On the other hand, what kind of license should I choose if I want people to ask me before sharing or using my pictures?

TobiasK 09:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to be smart - but if you really want that as a requirement, you should not upload to either Wikipedia OR Commons. None of the licenses acceptable at either project require anybody to ask your permission (though you can put a note on their asking them for the courtesy to tell you when they use it). All you CAN require via license is that they either attribute your name, and/or use the same license for derivative works. Ingolfson 09:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please be aware of this edit. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingolfson - sorry to butt in on this, but I noticed your comments on Peter Entwisle's User talk page re:Seacliff. FWIW, Peter is one of southern New Zealand's top historians, with specialist areas of architecture and art. If he removed those sections from the Seacliff article, chances are there were good reasons for it. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grutness, the fact remains that he did not reference a few edits (minor matters, okay), and that in the specific cases I cited on his page, he DID change the relevant sections from what the references said. I wrote the article, so that wasn't exactly an idle comment of mine. If he disagrees on specific matters with what the references say, he is welcome to provide other refs that support this. Ingolfson 07:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have left a friendly explanation adding to my previous comment on his page. Ingolfson 08:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. One thing though: the line "unless you wrote published books or articles about this, when it would be another matter". Have a look at the references on Waikouaiti, which is the nearest town, 3km away from Seacliff. Grutness...wha? 10:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but he should still cite them - how is anybody else to know, otherwise? And an explanation where/if he contradicts the other references would be good too. Ingolfson 11:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ingolfson,

I'm having difficulty finding a way to reply to your remarks. I hope you get this.

Original material is great but you do have to see it in its context. The tower may have been justified at the time as an observation point, but obviously that wasn't why it was really there. (It's like the recently proposed tower for the expanded settlers' museum). The design required it and some paymasters have difficulty with purely aesthetic justifications. As a result they get supplied with pseudo practical ones, which it seems is what happened with Lawson and Seacliff.

On the matter of the soil mechanics: your comments weren't presented as merely those of some contemporary source but as if they were fact, or general opinion at the time. They were neither. There was another view, that usually believed now. Unless you want to go into the whole discussion it's probaly best to leave such material out.

Regards,

Peter Entwisle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Entwisle (talk • contribs) 05:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter, yes, I received this. Please sign your comments with ~~~~, this turns into your signature and a timestamp - otherwise, longer discussions may get confusing, especially if multiple people are involved.

As to the content of your comment, we may have a little bit of a misunderstanding about one of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability (of sources). See the first lines of Wikipedia:Verifiability. In other words, if something is well-referenced, it may have a place on Wikipedia, even if other sources contradict it. Wikipedia is bound to present opposing points of view as well, NOT to 'decide what is best/correct/true'. This is different from most other research where the quest for "truth" is the goal (but then Wikipedia is NOT about research - it is about DOCUMENTING research and information).

You may ask, then, how this is handled when some contradictions, some two sides of an argument, are clearly NOT equal? This is handled via WP:Undue weight. If one crackpot believes - and publishes his claim - that New Zealand was first settled by stray Norwegians in 300 BC, who then later turned into today's Maori, while hundreds of scientists can point to various scientific and historical disciplines showing otherwise, i.e. that Maoris are of Polynesian origin, and came here much later - then obviously, the article about Maori history should not be half the crackpot theory, and half the well-suppported and generally accepted theory. At most, the crackpot's theory should get a couple of lines explaining what he believes, and how he attempts to support it. Maybe give a little context to his claims and how they were received in the public as well. That would be the correct 'due' weight, at most.

Getting back to the case here, as I noted, the Seacliff parts where I reverted your edits were referenced. You are, again, more than welcome to add references (including from your own published sources, if they include the needed material) that contradict those other references. You are also welcome to provide context on why the other references are likely wrong. I can certainly see that the observation tower claim is likely to have been simple embellishment and was never really intended for the purpose (I already weakened the corresponding statement in the article). However, at the moment it is referenced and an interesting tidbit adding to the article. We should put the claim in context, not delete it. As for the soil mechanics issue - why should we NOT have the discussion (and IN the actual article)? That would shed important light on whether or not (and how) Lawson was made a scapegoat (which also, I can certainly envisage - just as I could envisage an architect "damning the torpedos" and going ahead with his masterpiece against sound advice - references, always references...)

Hope that gave you a better understanding of the issue, and my views on it. Cheers, Ingolfson 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why did you revert my edit of the photo? --John 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because I believe it was worse than before, mainly regarding the clarity of the covers. One can debate that the cropping was okay, but the first image was superior in its other aspects. I don't remember clearly anymore, but I think I was also pissed off about the fact that this change basically sneaked by me (even though the page was watched, this did NOT show up on my watchlist). Which isn't your fault. Still, changing other people's images IS a bit of a touchy area.

Finally, I will be uploading a new version showing all current covers (i.e. including Inversions) soon. I will do my best to ensure good lighting for that one and no need for cropping, so getting into a discussion about this one may be pointless. Ingolfson 21:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Sorry if my edit annoyed you, I was only trying to help. The image is rather a doubtful asset to the page at the moment; I may take it down until the better one is available. Would that be ok? --John 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I had several positive comments about it, and I don't see the "doubtful" part as being serious enough to merit removal (surely the image does not become useless or ugly simply because of some minor faults). Don't worry, I will upload the new version this weekend. Ingolfson 23:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great. --John 03:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos have been taken, once I get through my other workload, I will upload the latest batch (including this one). Ingolfson 03:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Unless somebody with much better equipment comes along and goes to the trouble of taking a better picture, this is likely as close at it will get. Ingolfson 06:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I didn't actually write the page (merely posted it for who did but I have passed your comments on to them and one of us will hopefully get back to you.

--Andrewrutherford 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I just thought the unobscured image that was from further back was better. Also thought my dusk shot of the sign came across better than the one there. You're the expert though.--IanRitchie 07:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have the feeling that you're being a little sarcastic? I just felt that replacing (instead of just adding) a number of images without explanation isn't the right thing to do - and I disagree with some of your choices. I support keeping two of them, so there's no reason to be all negative, I hope. Ingolfson 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming by and saying hi. I don't have any connection to New Zealand, actually - I went looking for the worst fire disaster only because your Seacliff article mentioned it was the second worst and I decided that since I'd gone and looked it up, I might as well make a page about it. --Tsewukong 06:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me. I will go down to the library in a day or two and get the Judaica reference for the article. I also recall Robinson telling a Maori gathering that they had better "hurry up", as three hundred Jews had produced five mayors while 80,000 Maori were still waiting.

Until I find the Judaica references, there are a few others :

This source says that Auckland's first Mayor, Philip Philips, was Jewish.

So was Sir Arthur Myers, according to this. So that's at least three Jewish mayors, not two. I'll get back to you with the others in a couple of days. David Cannon 11:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm supposed to respond to my talk page or yours (I'm new at this), so I've done both.

The relevant bit about the General Board is in a single paragraph on pages 122 and 123 in my edition of Look to Windward, in the chapter "Peer Group." I'll just quote the whole thing here - I don't think that's a copyright violation:

"The General Board was supposed to represent the inhabitants of the Orbital to Hub at the highest level; it was pretty much an honorary office given that each individual could talk directly to Hub whenever they wanted, but as that carried even the most thinly theoretical possibility that a mischievous or deranged Hub could play every single person on an Orbital off against each other to further some unspecified nefarious scheme, it was usually thought sensible to have a conventionally elected and delegated set-up as well. It also meant that visitors from more autocratic or layered societies were provided with somebody they could identify as an official representative of the whole population." -Iain M. Banks, Look to Windward

However, I would agree that this insurance doesn't cover all eventualities - a truly evil Hub could probably kill everyone on an Orbital before anyone even realized what was happening. So maybe there's a better way to describe what the General Board is for. I thought the original version of the text made the Hub sound like an autocratic ruler, whereas from what I can see it's more of a worker and administrator: it makes the trains run on time, operates factories and shipyards, organizes parties, handles traffic control, etc. When it comes to public affairs, though, the Hub is still subject to the democratic norms of the Culture, both in the form of the General Board and through the processes of initiative and referendum. There's a paragraph about this in "A Few Notes on the Culture", and a practical example is discussed in the LtW chapter "Pylon Country". -Father Inire 11:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re Flagstaff Hill, New Zealand, I'm curious why you think "Main article: Flagstaff War" in the middle of the section is better than the usual WP practice which would be an inline wikilink for "Flagstaff War" where it occurs in the next paragraph. cheers Nurg 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the subject is directly and very importantly related, a bigger 'Look here!' link seemed appropriate to me. 10:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Very many other articles have directly and very importantly related articles but inline wikilinks suffice. "Main article" templates are usually used in pages that contain a summary of a detailed subsidiary page, which is not really the case here. In this article, I think it unnecessarily breaks up the flow of the text. Nurg 08:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't feel strongly enough about it that I need to argue. No problem with leaving it to your version. Ingolfson 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Nurg 06:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Audiobook Ver.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Avon Reprint.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Gollancz Simple.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Marygay Potter.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Prefered Edition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Robin Williams.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman SFBC Edition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Starships Battling.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Weidenfeld Nicholson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message for you at your Commons account about an error that I made that you caught related to Category:Racing vehicles of New Zealand. Royalbroil 14:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Thanks for your note on my user talk page. I don't recall doing the merge, I think that was someone else. Kindest regards, Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markypoos (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Expedition 16. Thank you. MBK004 00:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. It was only adding a simple missing space... I do not think that lack of an edit summary for that kind of edit is all that problematic. After all, people check the change anyway. And it needs little explanation. Ingolfson 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The depth reference likely refers to the whole cave, connecting through to the bottom exit, not only the hole and original cave. The info is also found that way in the reference - please do not change referenced material unless you have a conflicting reference. Cheers. Ingolfson 01:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah; I see the problem now. Please note that "HH" and "Harwood's Hole" are not the same cave (I've been in both caves). I have recorrected the Harwood's data and removed the reference to it formerly being deepest in NZ, as that distinction belongs to HH, not Harwood's Hole. Ian mckenzie 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and I stand corrected on Harwood having previously held the depth record, and have restored that bit, but not the second website reference as that ref mentions HH but not Harwood Hole. See http://caves.org.nz/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/NZSS/DeepestCaves for a ref that includes both HH and Harwood Hole in their proper places. Ian mckenzie 00:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

just to say i'm sorry, but i had to revert one of your edits to Aerial Work Platform, where you'd changed "safe working load (SWL)" to "Safe Working Load (SWL)". Unfortunately, this is against the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which generally always favours lower case (and not just in abbreviations) unless a proper name, as this usually makes reading documents easier. If you want to look at the policy for yourself, you'll find it at: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations.

Thanks

Owain.davies 10:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I am a bit dubious about it being always applicable in situations such as these, but as I don't feel strongly against it, and often enough use the MOS rules myself in changing other's stuff, so that's fine. Ingolfson 10:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I draw your attention to my comment there.Nankai 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC) PS Just saw local school principal running off multiple copies of your Asylum article for his kiddies[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Aljažev stolp, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aljažev stolp. Thank you. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 08:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi nach Auckland,
Habe die Grafik garade unter http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gold_production_in_New_Zealand.jpg online gestellt.
Gruß aus Dunedin --Ulanwp German Wikipedia 22:44, 28. Nov. 2007 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.220.243 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Ingolfson 09:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aquablue BlackCorals.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa... well now that I've stopped reeling from the upper cuts and kicks to the groin, let me 'fess up and admit that, yes, I am indeed just a bumbling rookie editor trying to learn the ropes.

I have been trying to fill in some of the gaps and tidy up the entries on historic RNZN ships. One glaring problem was inconsistent formats with the ship pendant numbers. Australian and British practice seemed to be to exclude spaces or dashes so I asked an established editor of Royal Navy articles to confirm this, which he did. Then I committed the first of my sins. I thought I could do this by copying and pasting (I have asked for this to be repaired).

My next sin was to remove some details you had apparently entered concerning preparation for the sinking of the Canterbury. This was because the event was over, the ship was sunk, and a lot of the contemporary details were now past and receding into history. If that offends you then just restore your text.

My third sin, it seems, was to "set it up to be published on the main page in the DYK category". Well that was the last thing on my mind, and I was completely surprised when that happened.

And my final sin, it seems, was that I claimed this article "as an article "which you (myself) created or substantially expanded"". Well that again was the last thing on my mind. When I "created" the article I put a summary there that said that it was redirected from Canterbury (F-421).

So please accept my apologies Ingolfson if you feel trampled upon. I would like us to work together rather than in opposition like this. --Geronimo20 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept the apology. I forgot that you would not necessarily be the person who nominated it for DYK and apologize in turn if I came down a bit harsh. I was away from Wikipedia for several weeks, and found a few things that had changed on various articles in the meantime which I didn't like, and by the time I got to this one, I was maybe a bit pissed off. Ingolfson 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MadMaxDog, it's been quite some time. Have you thought about submitting the above article for FA review? It's pretty good now, and if I recall correctly, you had a lot to do with its present state. Perhaps you would like to submit it in your name? I've just recently returned after a long break and I'm once again enthused about my work here. When I went back to this article to continue where I'd left off, I realised there's not much else left to say. I'm sure it would rank as a GA at the very least, with the overall lack of size probably weighing against it. But who knows... maybe you'll get lucky. I'll leave it to you. By the way cougharchiveyourtalkpagecough. Gamer Junkie 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments on the article. I am somewhat of two minds about this - because I react less well to criticism than I should! ;-) If I want it to have a chance at FA or even GA, I will need to spend time on it, react to criticism and improve it etc... - and currently I simply do not have the time. I have a watchlist backlog of over 2 weeks, which I am only slowly regaining and then I will be gone for two weeks on holidays, which creates another backlog...

All said and done, I will mull your idea over, and possibly GA or FA-nominate sometime early next year. As for the talk page - hey, its only 1 month more and then I can in good conscience archive all that stuff as per the other 6 month-archives above ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whenever you decide to nominate, go for the FA. Might as well shoot for the top. Gamer Junkie 06:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been reviewing my past history on wikipedia and have noticed that you and I have had a few unpleasant run-ins with eachother, I was wondering if there was a way we could mend out fences so-to-speak, as I consider you to be an established Kiwi editor on Wikipedia (a rarity I am beginning to notice). Aniway, Thanks for listening. Cheers (♠Taifarious1♠) 01:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Taifarious, I must admit that I don't quite remember what our quarrels were... ah, just found the discussion on your talk page! Well, thanks for the concilliatory words, and sure, no problem. Happy editing! Ingolfson (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am currently somewhat less active (which probably is only less in comparison to my editing frenzy over much of this year) because I got lots of stuff to do off-line and have found an almost as addictive e-vice in Wikimedia Commons. Ingolfson (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, cheers (♠Taifarious1♠) 01:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingolfson - I noticed your edits to State Highway 8 (New Zealand) - thought you'd like to know I've now started similar articles for SH 7, 6 and 5 (hoping to do 4, 3, and 2 sometime soon). They'll also probably need a bit of tidying, but at least they're started - you might like to take a look at them. BTW - small world - I notice a comment on your talk page about an ODT article on Seacliff written by Nigel Benson... He's my boss :) Grutness...wha? 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your recent change to Auckland volcanic field, I am pretty sure that "an" is correct in this context, it really depends how you say the words out loud. It should be "An eighteen fifty nine German map..." as opposed to "A one thousand eight hundred and fifty nine German map...". I see you have been a major contributor to the article, so I will leave it up to you. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]