User talk:Ingolfson/Archive2007A

Museum Ships

Just wanted to say that I liked the improvements you made to Museum ships. Just a minor niggle, while you are doing such a great job - could the ships in the table be listed alphabetically! Viv Hamilton 12:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you too could do that ;-) I would find it very helpful once I get around to improving the table further by adding country (located in) and country (affiliated with) columnns! MadMaxDog 12:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't want to jump in if you were still in the middle of improving it, and I'm struggling to find enough time for all of the projects I've got on, but I've done the sort now. Cheers Viv Hamilton 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An auto-sort function would really help! MadMaxDog 05:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myers Park

Are you working close to Myers Park? If so could you pop down there one lunchtime for me? There's a sign just in front of the kindergarten saying that the area was declared a free speech zone sometime in the early years of the 20th century. That's probably worth a paragraph in the article, but my interest is in exactly what did the sign say. Did it call it a free speech zone, or a Speakers' Corner, or use some other equivalent wording? I ask because I am arguing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Free speech zone that the term is generic and should not be used for a US-specific article.-gadfium 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pass by often, can take a picture if you like. Which side is the sign on - Queen or Grey's? Directly on the building? MadMaxDog 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall it being a signpost on the grass on the Queen St side of the kindergarten, but close to the building, not the street. I last looked at it a few years ago, so I hope it's still there.-gadfium 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, spent 5-10 minutes earlier this evening checking the area. No such sign visible. May check next week during daylight again, but unlikely it is (still) there. MadMaxDog 09:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks anyway.-gadfium 18:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cruised past Myers Park today and the sign has definitely gone.-gadfium 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck finding info on the Free Speech Zone itself? MadMaxDog 14:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It will be in some history books, but nothing I could find on the web. At some point I plan to take User:EdwardBennett's guided tour of Karangahape Road, and I'll ask him about it.-gadfium 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coords Eden Park

Yeepers, nice enough of you to give a link to explain your action, but WHERE on this talk page is what you cite in support?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Coor_title_dms

Cheers, MadMaxDog 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been offline.

The coordinate stuff isn't official to Wikipedia, so there is no official guidelines, however I point to that page in hopes that you would read it (and the associated pages) and come to a conclusion where you would be happy to leave coor title out.

The coor title title was made in the first place because people didn't like seeing the coordinates inline with the normal text, but generally people agreed that the info should be placed in an infobox if one exists. There are many "issues" with the title template and as such there was a vote to kill it. However, the vote ended in a keep because a lot of ill informed people thought the vote was for the "coor" template. If you have a read through the log you'll see a lot of good reasons for removing the template.

The coor title template is popular with a lot of people because they think it looks cool, or because it provides "a consistent location" for coordinate data.

Looking cool isn't a valid argument for using it, since it doesn't "look" cool on all media. Plus it breaks a lot (as it is now) with different layout themes, when different banners on shown by wikipedia, and even depending on if the user is logged in or not. Having the information "near" the top of the article, but actually grouped with other text, or even overlaying other text makes it difficult to associate the information with the content of article. Also, because of location of the tags in the markup there is even less association of the coordinates with its subject.

Not all articles can have the content in the title (e.g. Articles may have several locations of interest which each have their own coordinates.), which means that it's a bad place for consistency.

Authors and template creators can't decide on which template should be writing to the title. On the page that I pointed to you'll see people claiming that their template is the more important one and therefore it should have the privilege of writing to the title. So this also creates consistency/overlapping text issues. (as was demonstrated with one of the stadium articles "enhancing" my edits.

There is a big benefit for coor title, tho. By putting the info in the title, you don't have to provide any supporting text or infobox, so it's a great lazy-mans way of getting coordinates into an article. Note that this doesn't provide any reason to have title as well as infobox, tho.

Another argument for not having it in the title as well as the infobox would be that almost no other pages do it. (I'm sure there must be some, but I haven't seen any that are consistent and not random occurrences for cool factor)

Info boxes provide a consistent and context relevant location to put coordinates.

I'm sure there's more that I could write, but it's late and you didn't want to read the other page, so I'm not sure you'll want to read this. If there's some good reason to keep it in the title, please let me know.

Cheers, Nosilleg 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Sorry about being too lazy to read the whole discussion - but I do get your point now. At the end of the day I still feel that coordinates should (eventually) end up in one single place, at least for certain categories of articles, and that the top right would be a good place once the bugs are worked out. But sure, no need to force that now while it still breaks other things, so infobox will be fine with me. MadMaxDog 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn

MadMaxDog, I was removing links to the disambiguation page "summer solstice." Normally I changed the link from "summer solstice" to "summer solstice," because there is no article page for summer solstice, but there is for solstice. However, in the case with the autumn page, there was already a link to the "solstice" article in the previous paragraph, so I felt that it wouldn't be necessary to duplicate a link. Let me know what you think. Dkreisst 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. (Thanks for the suggestion.) Dkreisst 10:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Meetup 2 Scheduled - Feb 10 2007

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - SimonLyall 08:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Evil Bastard

I'm fairly certain that the banner at the top says "fuck" not "hell". [1] I wasn't reverting your revert, I just noticed that the article says "hell" whereas the site says "fuck". Sorry for any confusion. —Dylan Lake 07:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egg on my face. You are right. MadMaxDog 07:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-scarcity

Thanks for the compliment. The topic is quite interesting. I think it could make a very good article down the road but it has a long way to go... --babbage 09:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, in fact probably several centuries ;-) MadMaxDog 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Mott

There is nothing stopping the original creator from recreating it if/when they come up with sources. It is not unusual for articles that are extremely short, or articles that do not establish the notability of their subjects, to be deleted speedily. FreplySpang 10:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently re-created the article David Mott, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. JuJube 10:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you twice. First off, I disagree with what happened. The article should have been tagged with a speedy delete template as you did, NOT directly deleted immediately after being created. Heck, at the spped it got deleted, the user could have still been working on it! So instead, I placed a notice on the original users talk page to please provide notability references, went to the deleting admin and explained my actions - and then you come along and give me a talking-to... Loosen up people. Not every noob must have his articles deleted half an hour after he created them. Give them a blimmin' chance to provide notability. MadMaxDog 11:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say, recreating the article yourself seems somewhat pointless to me. If I don't delete the article, some other admin probably will, as it still meets our Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, specifically WP:CSD#A7. But User:Jujube beat me to it. FreplySpang 10:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? he did what should have been done in the first place, placed a tag instead of deleted it. MadMaxDog 11:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is why editors can't just wait to create an article until they get the proper sourcing required. It would save admins a lot of trouble. JuJube 11:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was a noob? I think the chance is high that it was a vanity article, but assume good faith! MadMaxDog 11:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Britomart transport centre

not really but i fort it was a great idea of putting a template on like they do with british,irish,american,canadian,austrailian,ect railway station templates that tells you what is the back and next stations. anyway pals :D thanks, User:Jonjoe

Réunion

Hi MMD - you wrote:

...to complicate things, if the decision to apply UN areas to Wikipedia is implemented, and Madagascar moves to East Africa (it appears on both maps, which is what tripped me up), then wouldn't Reunion sort of have to move as well?

Mmmm. Maybe. Not sure - probably depends what happens with Mauritius, since it's so much further out. It's probably academic anyway; slowly, all African countries are getting their own geo-stubs (Réunion's one of the last places that doesn't have one), so it'll simply mean changing the categories on the templates if the UN standards are adopted. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robbot

Re: your comment on my edit page. I had the bot remove this link on purpose, because simple:assassination is a redirect to simple:murder. By linking to the former, in effect we are linking to the latter. However, I have now changed the link so that it can remain. - Andre Engels 08:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Image

Supposing the user who captured the image was living in England I though the hospital was in England. Sorry. Thank you for reverting and I explained. --Mocca Latte (Talk) 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britomart

Re the info box, sorry, but I'm just a drive-by tweaker. If you find the answers, I'd be interested to know - they're a useful way of presnting this information. Happy editing! Birdhurst 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Culture ships

Sorry for the stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.227.193 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Apology accepted. Just slow down a bit when deleting or reverting. Getting a Wikipedia account would also be recommended. Happy editing. MadMaxDog 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. Currently, I want to work anonymously. --217.235.209.158

Virtual classroom

Edits are welcome at the VC. Feel free to edit to your heart's content at any time. By the way, what do you think of the current discussion on deletion and censorship? --The Transhumanist 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Museum Ships

Thanks... But Belfast definitely was a Light Cruiser :-) Pibwl ←« 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"HMS Belfast, the Royal Navy's heaviest ever cruiser," doesn't quite seem to agree with your statement.. MadMaxDog 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to understand it (and how to change it, retaining author's idea, but avoiding confusion) - I guess, only in terms of displacement :-) HMS Belfast had 6-in guns, so she was a Light Cruisers (according to London Treaty definition). Pibwl ←« 11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a try at it. MadMaxDog 12:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genarlow Wilson

Max, "OTRS" is for the people who answer Wikipedia's e-mail. It is not open for general reading.

The letter was from Mr Wilson's legal counsel; they feel that any perceived association with Mr Drake would do Mr Wilson far more harm than good, and I am forced to agree with them. Furthermore, Mr Drake really isn't relevant to the case. I have removed it from the article again; if you still feel it should be in the article, you will have to convince me as to why. DS 20:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert this very action, but I do have some substantial misgivings about it anyway.

Basically, you are asking me to trust you on the basis of email I am not allowed to see. This case is not really all that important, but... you can see the implications, surely?
Are we compromising neutrality here? Again, the case in point is not all that important to the article. But again, we are removing referenced data, on the request of a party which is NOT concerned about the NPOV of the article. Censorship?

To give some perspective to my own involvement, I have asked Genarlow's lawyer to be allowed to put Genarlow's picture on the article (and received a friendly answer but no permission so far, she noted that Genarlow himself would have to agree). Part of the idea was to improve the article in a acceptable, NPOV view. Part of it was because I DO think his conviction is unfair, and his case would improved (a tiny, tiny amount) by having a good picture on his article. But the distinction is that this would be adding to the article, not removing from it. MadMaxDog 04:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly - yes, I am asking you to trust me on the basis of an e-mail that you are not allowed to see. OTRS access is granted to individuals who have been judged trustworthy. Since you are in contact with Mr Wilson's legal representation, I feel certain she will confirm to you that she requested mention of Mr Drake be removed from the article.

Secondly, one of the criteria to whether one is granted OTRS access is how one responds to this sort of situation. I judged that Mr Drake's offer was such that it was neither pertinent nor relevant. Yes, it is referenced, but as you yourself described it, it is data, not information, and it is as relevant to the article as is the fact that Mr Wilson's first name has 8 letters. The removal was not censorship, it was editing. DS 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did my question (or the words I used) irritate you? To repeat, I do not consider this SPECIFIC matter to be censorship, nor do I object to it enough to start reverting your edit. I am more concerned about the wider implications. Still not satisfied that this (private email => article edit/content delete) will never become an issue - but then, if it ends up becoming an issue, by its very nature it will cause discussion, so I shouldn't worry too much about it now, I guess. MadMaxDog 03:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion from "Solitary confinement"

my addition was to highlight that we would never talk about a wrongly convicted prisoner as an "it" but as a "him" or a "her".

I don't know how anyone could possibly have written "the prisoner itself" except who was so detached from his own humanity that prisoners are to him no longer even persons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.99.175.84 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Didn't catch that drift. Have now changed it to "himself" (somewhat less than the full sentence you added). As for the comment behind it, I do not believe that language was used that conciously as a propaganda tool in this context. Acceptable change, but not really a biggie, in my mind. MadMaxDog 01:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics NZ and the "New Zealander" ethnic group

Hi MadMaxDog, I didn't think that Statistics NZ were discouraging people from putting "New Zealander" as their ethnicity. Where did you hear that? -- Avenue 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it from a Herald article previous to the actual Census, where some statistican was warning that it would screw up the results (as it did...). Can't remember in more detail. MadMaxDog 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to track it down. We should only attribute it to Stats NZ if they were speaking in an official capacity. I replied to your question on my talk page over there, by the way. -- Avenue 08:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the article you meant? 'Kiwi' a dinkum response for next Census, NZ Herald, 13 January 2006. The closest thing I've found to an official position is this press release. -- Avenue 09:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Sorry for slightly misinterpreting the 'dicourage'. Though it was obvious to me they didn't like it too much. MadMaxDog 11:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja does come across as only grudgingly accepting it, but there's still a big gap between that and actively discouraging people from saying "NZer".

On another issue, avoiding "&" in section headings isn't just my idea. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) for the full scoop. -- Avenue 12:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that rule. I just hate it and consider it unnecessary, that's all. MadMaxDog 13:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image

Thanks for uploading Image:Waitemata_Auckland_Harbour_47.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! I replied to your Tank Farm question on my talk page, by the way. -- Avenue 11:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Inclusion

Hello, Regarding your recent inclusion "she broke up with the publication (reputedly under acrimonious circumstances[citation needed])"

According to : Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2] He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."[3]

You should remove this inclusion until there is a verifiable source.

Thank you.

"she broke up with the publication (reputedly under acrimonious circumstances[citation needed])" excerpt written by user MadMaxDog and only used as reference to subject matter.

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons excerpt is property of Wikipedia.com and used only as reference to policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vevrier (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Requested References"

You are editing a subject (porn) where, for obvious reasons, it does not have many verifiable sources. There are a few 'respectable' fairly well-known resources for porn news- however, your obscure references both have unknown authors, are not interviews and subsequently can not be a verifiable source of fact.

In your other posts/edits it appears as if you do make an effort for accuracy in references; surprisingly, here you do not. Perhaps it is the subject (porn) where you feel it doesn't necessarily need reliable sources. Fortunately, Wiki does not discriminate between subjects and the need for sensitivity towards 'living persons' is held in high regard. Whether it autos or porn, both subjects require respect and policy.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.178.5.154 (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do not need admonishments from a proven liar, page blanker and POV pusher who now has suddenly decided to go anonymous, 'Vevrier'. It is quite amusing (and oh so typical!) that somebody who so blatantly disregarded the rules now tries to use them as a moral club. MadMaxDog 09:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazmat suit

Good question - and I don't have a ready answer whether this is a U.S. or international designation. The Level A and B designations are widely used by hazmat suit manufacturers and fire departments, and come from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (There are also Level C and D designations, C being light protection such as a splash suit and respirator; D being just regular work clothes and goggles, essentially no protection at all). This link has a rundown of the four levels: [2] I've seen these Level A and B designations used on some European websites...but I found another link that says the European standard has six levels and the U.S. ANSI agency is using, or proposing, a six level designation that corresponds to the European standards. See here [3]. For now I'm going to note that the A/B designation is a U.S. one. Do you know anything about the European standard and can add something to the article on it? Dragomiloff 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, my knowledge of this matter has all the extent of some volunteer firefighting experience 15 years back, and what I did so far for this article. Feel free to note that its an EPA standard for now.MadMaxDog 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, good work on the tweaking. We (or someone who knows more about it) can add something about the European standards at some point. Dragomiloff 12:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Political Studies (Auckland, New Zealand)

Restore proposal

Please note that I have requested that this page be restored following the recent deletion. I note that you have previously commented in favour of retaining the page Talk:University_of_Auckland#Proposed_merger. Please see the restore request (under 18 February 2007) on Wikipedia:Deletion_review. Your support would be appreciated. Nicknz 09:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, I supported the article previously because I hate deletions in general, and consider notability a bit less stringently than many other people. Therefore I don't see much use supporting this at the moment. Seeing that it ain't a vote, and I cannot propose any specific reasons why it should be kept (I know way too little about it), my voice would not help. Can I suggest that you instead spend your time rewriting the article, seeing that it is not recreate-protected (but keep it on your own user page subpages until ready, so as to not tempt another deletion) until you have established notability to a better degree? MadMaxDog 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kea

No offense taken to your deletion of my photo - as you pointed out, it is flawed. I'm still a bit of a novice with the camera (I got it last month), but I find it's good fun, so I'll carry on with it. On a more positive note, wasn't Saturday just smashing! Seems like everyone was either on or around the harbour...what one bloody big ship will do to a city :) FPV F6 TYPHOON 05:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One million of economic 'damage' (Uh, eh, *GAIN*, actually ;-) for New Zealand in fact! See Ports of Auckland. MadMaxDog 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant submarine

Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed that article - extremely well-written, and a fascinating piece of history. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, you're welcome. Just a little ad-hoc translation project from the German version that sorta got 'out of hand' ;-) MadMaxDog 01:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab cleanup (Gypsy)

Hi,
You're right that Gypsy is hardly the kind of basket case that we expect to find in Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. However, please see my comment here. --Smack (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I spent a lot of time fixing it in the past, I'd be rather disappointed if it was! Fixing what you noted now. MadMaxDog 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Merchant submarine, 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.

--Yomangani ^talk 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. When I first saw that article, I headed directly over to DYK to nominate it, only to find that you'd already done so.-gadfium

How embarrasing to realise it would have made it even without my un-humble actions ;-) How did you find it? (As in "how did you come across it"?) MadMaxDog 01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From RJASE1's comment above. My watchlist is large, but it isn't infinite. It's normal that article writers do the nomination for DYK, but I hadn't realised you knew about it.-gadfium 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Forever War (comics)

Thank you for your note; I appreciate the courtesy. I figured the comic was unclear as to which Masaryk was the namesake, and I actually spent some time trying to decide on how to redirect the dab link. In the end, I decided that Tomáš was slightly more likely and, in any event, Jan is also mentioned in his article. However, looking at it again today, I think you are correct that this is one of those rare wikilinks that should be left pointing to the dab page. The only downside is that someone else will probably come along in a few months to "repair" it again.--Kubigula (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I haven't read the graphic novel yet; I just stumbled across the article. I have to say that it's a pretty good article and makes me want to read the comic!--Kubigula (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to War memorial

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, MadMaxDog! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! 75.117.234.53 11:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial platform

You moved an article before looking at what linked there. It has existing links from E-One and Fire apparatus. I changed this back. Majorjc 01:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Buck Danny

The B-52 is shot down in "Mission Apocalypse." --Dthaiger 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pa building

I added that from lecture notes - basically after the Maori population hunted Moa, seal and many other animals to extinction or near it there was very little food and other resources, and combined with other factors like the Little Ice Age (which made kumara growing very difficult) warfare began. The figure in the lecture has a footnote that I can just make out, ending with 'Davidson 1984', but after searching the library catalogue I can't find any relevant author. I'll email the lecturer about it. Richard001 23:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reference, it was from The Prehistory of New Zealand. You'll find an online copy of the chart in the New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 12(s): 115–129 (1989) The Polynesian Settlement of New Zealand in Relation to Environmental and Biotic Changes

by M. S. McGlone. Thanks for chasing me up on that one, the article is much better with a reference. Richard001 09:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I must have provided a link from the university subscription. I've fixed the link in the article and above, it should be free on a permanent basis. Thanks again, Richard001 10:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy tag

Sorry if I was a little trigger-happy, but the article when I looked at it didn't demonstrate notability. Michaelbusch 03:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easily remedied. Look at the creation time, and wait 5 minutes... At least this spurred me to REALLY establish notability. MadMaxDog 03:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy

I see now, looking at the bottom of the page, that "Gypsy" was supposed to be a disambiguation. That's a relief. I thought it was awfully short! Shouldn't the "disambiguation" remark come at the beginning of the article?Student7 13:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convention is for it to be at the bottom, and my conservative soul doesn't really want to change that for one article ;-) Gypsy is a bit of an odd one with so many links... MadMaxDog 00:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the note you left for Student7, and I thought I would clarify that it's okay to add redlinks on disambiguation pages. The caveat is that "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." They should also likely be near the bottom of the list (if we don't have an article on it already, references to it are probably uncommon). Anyway, happy editing.... Dekimasu よ! 04:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I knew that. However, "Gypsy" recently has received numerous good-faith redlinks (see history and hidden parts of the disambig page), and I wanted to discourage that somewhat. I should have been a little bit clearer. MadMaxDog 04:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussions

Re: [4]: Leaving comments on year-old discussion sections is usually not going not to going to yield any response and is a sure way to post things that won't be read by anyone. If you want to propose something or want to have a discussion about something, you should initiate a new section. —Centrx→talk • 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Pupuke

Thanks for making those changes - it does look a lot better in that format. I do feel a bit guilty that I've been meaning to work out how to use proper references for a while now and never quite gotten around to it - but now I've got a template to work from! I just work up the road from the lake, so I'll try and get some photos that better show the lake and the pumphouse. Malathos 18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K Road, Pedestrianisation and Climate Change

Ruanua 12:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes MadMaxDog will try to get some electronic proof of that but unfortunately most of it was verbal and financial on the day, with key businesses like Verona, ALT TV, K fm etc giving Carmaggedon most support. Julia the Stage Manager of the event was the activist who liased with the head of the K Rd Business Assoc as well as the businesses, so I will see if she can generate something electronic that proves this support. Would an email work? Otherwise, I will have to leave on the General Systems Vehicle Unfortunate Conflict Of Evidence ;)

ON a related matter, did you know that the World's first Starbucks strike happened across the road? NOw I wonder how I know that!

Kia kaha Ruanua 12:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moncrieff Disappearing Gun.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Moncrieff Disappearing Gun.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of image

Well..there was a big template on the image {{Replaceable fair use}} stating that "If this image is determined to be replaceable within one week from 29 April 2007 (6 May), the image may be deleted by any administrator." That's a pretty good indication that the image might get deleted. This image is replacable, to quote from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

And no, I personally don't want to get rid of fair use, but fair use (non-free) images must pass the non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, an image which fails the non-free criteria will be deleted immediately (after discussion of course) we won't wait until a free equivalent has been found. If it's possible to create a free one, the non-free one must go. And true, the copyright holder has allowed the image to be used. But only for non-commercial usage, for Wikipedia that is not free enough. Therefore a non-commercial image is equal to a fair use image on Wikipedia, that btw came from foundation level. I think Jimmy Wales declared that. I do appreciate it though that you didn't labeled it as self-made since wikipedia would then (small chance I admit) be liable for copyright infringement. Garion96 (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bouncer (doorman)" article

I'm not entirely sure what it is you want referenced and how I would go about referencing what I've put. I suppose it is original research in that I've been a bar security supervisor for five years and have also been sub-contracted to many other venues in that time. If it's not to your liking, rewrite it however you wish. Gamer Junkie 02:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your page. MadMaxDog 04:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hell-Bourg, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitespace

I always like to be able to see things from the other person's point of view; would you be kind enough to indicate to me what particular skin (or whatever you use) so that I can see, what you see when you look at an article, for myself?

(I use the standard default skin myself and your (default) positioning of the ToC tends to leave a lot of white space for users using the default skin)(please respond here since I have added this page to my watch list) W. Frank 12:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use the standard skin. I find that a lot depends on the width of the screen (i.e. I have a 19 inch, 1280 pixel wide setting, and use 300 px thumbnails in preferences). Can you in turn please tell me which article you refer to?

To refer back to what I guess you are talking of, I find that the default TOC setting should almost always be used in preference of other settings. Users expect the TOC to be where it is by default (in the double sense). Same for the lead para. The article should not start with a TOC (I think you may be talking about St Arnaud?) MadMaxDog 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - I do not think that whitespace NEXT to the TOC is a problem. Whitespace in this location (as opposed to when an image leaves gaps in article text etc...) is something that is pretty much in most articles by default, a style thing typical of Wikipedia, and really not a problem unless the TOC is VERY long. MadMaxDog 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very prompt reply! Lucky you to have such a nice screen! You have reverted my edits a few times (inadvertently losing references and text in the process) so I know you feel strongly about this. I will not move the ToC again in articles where the ToC is small since it is pointless (when my reasons for the move were precisely to counter the effect you have complained of). Do you ever go to the Bratwurst stall in the market in Montgomery Square on Saturday mornings? W. Frank 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The flags on your user page are displaying a bit oddly on my set-up — the German and Dutch flags are overlying the coat of arms of Hesse, for example. W. Frank 12:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, another sign that Wikipedia looks a bit too different for everybody I guess. I may have to have a look at my page from a couple of other people's computers, I guess. I must admit that your Montgomery Square reference leaves me totally clueless. Where is that to be? PS: Are you German, British or maybe Kiwi? I can#t tell from your user page. MadMaxDog 12:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As my user page says, I was born 21 June 1946, in Dresden, Germany and travel on a German passport. I have lived that long in Glasgow, Scotland that I also regard myself as Scots and hope to retire to Nelson, NZ (which is where the Montgomery Square Bratwurst stall is). I had assumed that you were the guy from Leipzig via Darmstadt that owns the big house in Cambria Street, Nelson - but obviously my guess was wrong. Tschuess! W. Frank 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The world is small. I AM from Darmstadt. But I have only driven through Nelson once. I now live in Auckland. Cheers MadMaxDog 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore move

Don't bother requesting the move; I went ahead and did it. -- Avenue 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Had asked gadfium - Didn't know you were an admin too. MadMaxDog 11:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. You don't need to be, if you just want to rename an article over a redirect with a trivial edit history. -- Avenue 11:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how? That it is not a rules issue is obvious. However, if you have a move target that is already taken, what can you do - I mean except hand-copy everything back and forth, which loses the correct edit histories? So how did you do it? MadMaxDog 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe my edit summary was poorly worded. By "rules" I meant what the software lets you do; see WP:MOVE#Moving_over_a_redirect. It explains the situation better than I can. -- Avenue 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncers

Hi, No edit war, just trying out some different proposals. I am probably guilty of this too, but I think in some cases you did a total revert to your old text, rather than re-editing the new edits. Wikipolicy suggests that reverting is a powerful tool that should be reserved for vandalism.....In my changes, I have not cut and pasted any of my old text. I started from what was in the article. If I nevertheless managed to do any total reverts, sorry..... I agree that I had made the lede too long. I am now proposing a re-ordering of the words for the lede. Re: escorting employees to and from venue...I added "especially female staff", because I can't imagine a 300 pound male bartender in a roadhouse asking a bouncer to walk them to their car...but a female stripper or server, definitely. Re: "act as an intermediaries"... I suggest adding "both types of employees may be required to liaise directly with emergency personnel such as police and paramedics.", because when the cops arrive at a club after a big bloody fight, the cops directly question the bouncer who was on the scene, not the manager who was in their office upstairs....Not my intent to participate in edit war, but rather to discuss and improve this article. BTW, I agree that it needs more references. It needs more research and background, too.Nazamo 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nazamo - yes, I effectively reverted certain sections: those where I felt strongly that the original wordings were substantially better. I tried to work your comments in where I saw you had a point.

Maybe I do use the revert function a bit too often, comes from doing hundreds of pages of vandalism control I guess. However (and please don't take that as a comment on any specific edit of yours), I feel that when you are of the opinion that something in an earlier version was much better, then you should be allowed to revert (with explanation of course) instead of being forced to rephrase it, just for the sake of not having technically reverted. MadMaxDog 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Did a major rework. Hope you agree in that we are progressing (not just tugging back and forth ;-) I did rephrase some things, and also condensed some of the new stuff you added - thanks for researching it, BTW. MadMaxDog 10:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your letter...ideally, people can edit back and forth and it creates a sort of negotiating/ bargaining atmosphere. Next issue...pictures. It would be good to have some Wiki-approved photos. Perhaps we can borrow some from a related article,such as Nightclub or Bar??Nazamo 13:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I looked at your user page and I liked the variety of interests you have, in many fields. I am proud, too, that I am a major contributor both to intellectual-oriented articles (like Aestheticization of violence) and to more "humble" topics, like Milk shake, Mad Max, Mad Max 2, and shed. I agree with your point about chafing a bit under the Original Research. I don't want to read people's original research or theories on many issues (world history, politics, etc0, but I think that for some areas, such as hobbies, where a Wiki editor may have substantial knowledge, there is a place for adding some Original Research. For example, I added a discussion on how to amplify an upright bass (it can be tricky!) to the Bass instrument amplification article, and I think that it is a useful addition, even though it is OR.Nazamo 13:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk

Cyberpunk has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

RE: Auckland

Hello. I am not the person who copied the article into the Auckland wikipedia page. :) --Jennica 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I misread your comment. --Jennica 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were. See this diff. Note that there are no intervening changes by other people. You (or someone using your account) did the change I am referring to, replacing the 'fact' tag with this external link, which is a Wikipedia article mirror. MadMaxDog 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt in the Vendée

Dear MadMaxDog, I am not trying to win an argument either. It just seems that a section named 'history' in a page that is totally historical (they are not still rebelling today) is not very useful. Infact it ADDS to the length of the TOC that you think of as overlong. I don't pretend to know what the correct solution is, but I am pretty sure that this is not it. -Gomm 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Formwork

Sorry about that MMD, one of the photos was obscuring the text for some reason. (at least in my browser). Now I know better. billbeee 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]