User talk:Koro Neil

Help required

I originally posted the following in the article itself. I am not having the problem now, but leave this here, as I would still like to know what caused the problem.

Sorry to use this page for what might seem illicit purposes, but it's the only page I've found that offers me the option of editing. A lot of articles show me a "view source" tab, but not an "edit this page" tab. Nor do articles show the "edit" option for each section. I have only recently returned to Wikipedia after a year without a computer.

When I try to log in under my old username of Copey 2, I get a message saying there is no such user, although I found my user page. I created a new user name, Koro Neil, but my attempt to log in with it also got a no-such-user response. I now see Koro Neil at the top of the page, so perhaps the problem has sorted itself, but I will leave this here in case it hasn't.

When I was trying to use Wikipedia without logging in, the figures (ISP?) 127.0.0.1 appeared at the top of the page. I went to its user page, and found someone was discussing banning the user for vandalism. This ISP (if I'm using the right term) is that of ihug.co.nz, one of New Zealand's biggest internet providers. In banning this ISP, Wikipedia cowboys are blocking several hundred thousand users. The user page of one of the proponents of the banning does not inspire confidence in his responsible use of Wikipedia privileges. Unfortunately, I cannot join the discussion, as I have no "edit this page" option.

In fact I was mistaken in thinking 127.0.0.1 was the ihug thingy, which is in fact 203.109.252.196.

If I find things have sorted themselves out by the time I post this, I will leave time for some friendly and knowledgeable wikipedian to explain what has been going on, then erase it. I apologize for using this page for purposes unrelated to its subject matter, but it it's the only page I've found where I can edit. Koro Neil (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You were inquiring why you could edit some pages and not others. The are three classes of pages of Wikipedia:

Pages which anyone can edit - the vast majority of pages fall into this category.
Pages which can be edited by anyone except anonymous (i.e. not logged in) and new users (an account is classed an "new" if it less than four days old). These pages are referred to as "semi-protected".
Pages which can only be edited by administrators. These pages are referred to as "fully-protected". Only a small number of pages fall into this category and no articles are ever permanently protected.

Only adminstrators can protect, semi-protect or unprotect pages.

The full protection policy, explaining the reasons why pages may be protected (and when they should not be) can be found at WP:PROTECT.

If you have any more questions, you can ask me, at my talk page or ask at the help desk. CIreland (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw the note you left and thought you might require assistance. User:Copey 2 does exist and is not blocked or anything. If you gave an e-mail address when you set it up, then you should be able to e-mail yourself a new password to the account when you attempt to login. If you didn't, then you're probably out of luck, and should continue to use this account. You probably couldn't find a page to edit because you started at the Main page and we tend to protect those. You ought to be able to edit almost any article. If you require further assistance, I suggest that either you post on the help desk, or you put {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page (your user talk page) with an explanation of what help you require. Have fun! Bovlb (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help guys. The computer I had when I set up Copey 2 died, and I no longer have the password for the email address I used, one which I created exclusively for blogging and wiki activities. I can probably delete that email address and resurrect it again with a new password. It wasn't just the Main page, it was nearly all pages, including ones I've edited in the past. I seem to be continuing trouble free—fingers crossed! Koro Neil (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may need to hang fire on the death and resurrection of the email address—it's probably got stuff I need for this account. Koro Neil (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the old email address was easy, but no resurrection seems possible. Damn

Comma Johanneum

Could you review your comment on the talk page to that article as I am interested in the point you were making. Thanks. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was Copey 2. I've been without a computer for some time, and had a glitch logging on my wife's computer, hence the new username.

I'm not clear on what you're wanting from me. I came across the apparent Cyprian quote by accident. I am not at all of the KJV only camp, and I have only subsequently found reference to the Cyprian passage in their literature. It strengthens their case somewhat. That is to say, it shows, I think with reasonable certainty, that the comma is far older than any extant text containing it. It is still a very long way, however, from proving that the words were in the original. Koro Neil (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Koro/Copey,

it is hard to put together what my aim was back in September. Certainly not to discourage you from questioning the currently prevailing view that the Comma is a later addition. Rather more: if you have information in that regard, please contribute to the article and balance it so that all viewpoints are included. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look at it. I don't think I can add new information, merely take issue with the way Cyprian's evidence is disputed. I haven't seen scholarly treatment on the Cyprian passage itself. The great New Testament commentator Henry Alford quotes the Latin text of Cyprian in his textual apparatus on 1 John 5.7-8, but says in his commentary, "Even the supposed citations of the early Latin Fathers have now, on closer examination, disappeared."

Also from Alford's apparatus: Augustine quotes 1 John 5.7-8 in a form that seemingly shows that the text he used lacked the Comma but, strikingly, he uses the passage in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, understanding the Spirit as representing (interestingly) the Father, the blood representing the Son, and the water representing the Holy Spirit. Possibly something like this was behind the addition of the Comma, whether early or late. Koro Neil (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow antiinerrantist

Hi Neil. Yes, was a pity about Blokes and Sheds. Just reading your userpage, got to say i totally empathise with yr comments in inerrancy, radically changed my spirituality when it ironed out that crease in my theology, but certainly made me no less orthodox an Anglican!!!A.J.Chesswas (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A.J. Good to hear from you. I first spotted you as a contributor to pages on places in Taranaki. I grew up in Waitara, apart from the first 19 months, when I lived in Midhirst. Although my parents were not churchgoers, I went to St John the Baptist Anglican Church as a child, but (ironically) became a Baptist at 16. However, the greater part of my Christian walk has been as an Apostolic, first in Christchurch, then here in Dunedin. But I don't really see my shift to the North East Valley Baptist Church in 2001 as a return. I have recently started taking services once a month in the Owaka Presbyterian Church, 110 or so km south of here. I also preach once, or occasionally twice a month in our own church. Interesting position for me, as the two churches are at different ends of the conservative evangelical spectrum.

Is there such a thing as an unorthodox Anglican? I mean, does anything count as unorthodox in Anglicanism? Oddly, I find that my shift from inerrantism doesn't stop God from speaking to me through Scripture. For example, there are things to be learned about the church if you're allowed to see the divide between Paul and James as possibly bigger than that between Protestantism and Catholicism. That's once you've sorted out that the two men gave different meanings to the words faith and works. So far as I can see, if you sorted out the church into Christians by Paul's definition or James's, you'd still end up with only one group of people. The Book of Jonah has a very "Once upon a time" feel to it, but if it's fiction, then it's divinely inspired fiction. Do I really believe that we may suffer because God has taken a bet with the devil? No, but the Book of Job says deep things about our human condition, and teaches us not to judge.

Not sure where I am these days on the Calvinism thing, except basically not. I was a moderate Calvinist (C.H. Spurgeon/Francis Schaeffer) for many years. Both hyper-Calvinism and an extreme Pelagianism sometimes seem to me to be valid these days. I even have the odd mystic moment of seeing them as really the same thing. I am a very great fan of G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis.

Boethius65 is a very close friend of mine. He shares with us a Taranaki upbringing (Eltham) and a Christian faith. He lived in Dunedin for quite a number of years, but moved a few years ago to Tokoroa.

Keep in touch. Koro Neil (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil. Thanks for youre reply. I enjoyed your comments. A.J.Chesswas (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Marcus Turner

A tag has been placed on Marcus Turner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Marcus Turner. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Redfarmer (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there are so many inappropriate pages created on Wikipedia per day that speedy deletion almost always depends on the content of the page as it is then seen. Editors who volunteer to tag these pages do not have the time or energy to research each one and depend on the creator of the article to make a clear cut assertion of importance and, ideally, try to establish at least a degree of notability, even if it is not sourced. If you cannot make a clear cut assertion of importance (which is different than notability, in that importance does not necessarily require proof in the article), you may want to create your articles in user space (for example, User:Koro Neil/Marcus Turner) to avoid speedy deletion until you can meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it happens when you're a new page patroller. I've been forced to scale back work on my project articles because of class load recently so I've mainly been doing new page patrolling and participating in deletion discussions/other discussions. Redfarmer (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUK

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifar ious1 09:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About making links for people...

G'day Neil...

Was having a look at your list of folkie performers with non-red links a moment ago. Apart from Mahinarangi Tocker (let's face it, there could only be ONE of her :), many of the links there point to people other than the intended bod.

In other words, folks with the same name from other places. Both Martha Louise and Shiner are cases in point. Martha Louise points to a Scandinavian princess, and some American band have stolen the name from our favourite foursome :(

What needs to happen here is two fold. First, a disambiguation page for each name needs to be built, with a link on it to each occurrence of the name. If you're not sure what I mean - go to my user-page and click on one - as I've worked on a few of them. Second, a separate article need be written for the New Zealand equivalent to, say, Shiner, and linked to the disambiguation page. That way - people have a choice as to which version of Shiner they want to read about - and (of course!) choose the right one :)

Now I think about it - I might just have that backwards - but BOTH steps are necessary.... lol

Finished a bibliography for Te Rangi Hiroa yesterday - please feel free to comment. Have one to do for Charles Wilkinson (more MY end of our birth province :) later on. Kia kaha... Boethius65 (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E hoa! If you look at the Talk page of the Shiner article, you'll see a conversation between me and editors there. I had inserted a note at the beginning of the article to the effect that there was currently no article on the Dunedin band. They weren't sure that it should be there, and one suggested talking to me, at which point I joined the conversation. I explained why I had inserted the note, and left it to them to decide whether to reinstate it.

Martha Louise is one of the people on the list I didn't put there, and I had no idea who she was. I have since heard her perform here (she was excellent), and learned that she is in fact on an LP I've had for years, Gentle Annie - a trio also including Peter Madill, uncle of our son-in-law Sam, and now resident here again after a long absence. He is our featured artist next Sunday night.

Notability is a problem issue with NZ folk-music related articles. We don't generate a lot of sources suitable for Wikipedia purposes. I suspect Shiner would have notability issues as a stand-alone article, though they would rate a paragraph or so in an article on folk music in NZ. Koro Neil (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shiner etc.

Neil,

I suspect you could POSSIBLY "pass muster" for notability with a (brief, perhaps) article on the Shiner himself: and then justify an article on the band by claiming that there was only one New Zealand outfit claiming inspiration from the name (and being from the very approximate geogrphical vicinity of his haunts). Not sure I'd try that trick with the "Jean-Paul Sartre Experience", however... lol Boethius65 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, realtime conversation! Do you have my email address? neilcope at ihug etc? Koro Neil (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Neil - I sent an e-mail about a month ago

BTW - I think a better strategy may be to stress some of the original material on Shiner recordings: Vic's stuff for example. That'll mean an annotated discography with the entry (with tracklists, composition credits, etc.) - or a series of subpages: one for each recording. That establishes notability in my book... PLUS Vic's paean to older women deserves a MUCH wider audience... Boethius65 (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to leave the personal stuff out of here, I think. My last comment on the e-mail is that I'm glad you didn't get it... 'Nuff said Boethius65 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. This is why I want email contact. I lost your address with my last computer. :) Koro Neil (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. What is the "Jean-Paul Sartre experience"?

I've resent it - with an addendum... JPSE were a Christchurch band of the 1980s and early 1990s... Boethius65 (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ogden Nash

I've addressed your comment at talk:Ogden Nash with a bit of historical American linguistics. I hope this clarifies things a bit for you and the everyone else in the world who doesn't speak our weird colonial variant of English. --14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ender's Game.

Thanks for catching that. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Engage. 10:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For this nice note. I have to admit that sometimes I feel more diabolical than saintly for having written it, though. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torchy the Battery Boy

Per your addition to this article's talk page, it has been removed for two reasons. 1. Talk pages are only for discussing improvements to an article and 2. The posting of copyrighted song lyrics to articlespace or talk pages is forbidden per WP:LYRICS and Wikipedia's copyright policy. 23skidoo (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Educational seperation in the US prior to Brown Map.svg

Hello! I made a request on Commons to rename this image to a correct name because the current is misspelled. Regards, Sdrtirs (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brickbat on Democrat

The following is an exchange I have had with Duuude007 on his talk page.

Hi Duuude007. I was looking up the article on the New Zealand Democrat Party, and found that you had changed the name of the Party to "New Zealand Democratic Party". I then found that you had gone through a number of articles on "Democrat Parties" in a large number of countries on September 18, and changed them all to "Democratic Party" on the ground that the use of "Democrat" was incorrect. Well that's an argument in itself, which I won't enter now, though I disagree with you.

I know of two cases where you don't correct grammar, and this is one. You don't correct the grammar of a direct quote, unless you know (and have sources to prove it) that it is a misquote, and that your correction is identical to the original. The other case is really a sub-class of the same thing. YOU DON'T CORRECT THE GRAMMAR OF A NAME OR TITLE, IF THAT IS ITS ORIGINAL FORM.

If the party name of a "Democrat Party" is English in its original form, then it stays "Democrat Party", irrespective of errors (or perceived errors) in the grammar. If it is "Democratic Party", then it stays "Democratic Party". New Zealand has had both, and they are completely different parties, separated in time and separate in philosophy.

If the name is in another language, then you use the closest corresponding form in English. Spanish Partido Demócrata is "Democrat Party", not "Democratic Party", which is Partido Democrático. If you do not know the original language, then you use the established English form - that normally used by English-speaking authorities on the subject.

In the interest of "grammatical correctness", you have created a large number of historical inaccuracies, which you should be the one to fix, rather than leave it all to someone else. I'm sure you have acted in good faith, but what you have done is effectively vandalism, which will be compounded if you leave it, and will become real vandalism if you revert anyone else's attempts to restore the names originally given to the parties by their own founding members.

I suspect there is a policy page somewhere stating this, but I don't know what it is. If I find it, I'll get back to you.

If you respond to this, I would be grateful if you answer me here, but drop a note on my talk page. I find it fiddly to conduct a conversation on two different pages, and confusing to try to follow it afterwards.

Best wishes, Koro Neil (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Manual of Style 16.10.1 Consistency within articles—

Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling and grammar. For example, center and centre are not to be used in the same article. The exceptions are:

quotations (the original variety is retained);
titles (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); and
explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

Koro Neil (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been addressed in the admin section. Although that particular point you referenced is interesting, this 3 month old topic is now moot. Duuude007 (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Sorry, your response needs fleshing out. "Admin section" of what? Can you link me to it, please? The point cannot be called moot as long as a historical error is being perpetuated. If a party calls itself "Democrat Party", then it is historically inaccurate to make its name "Democratic Party", irrespective of whether the English teacher in an American high school teaches that "Democrat Party" is grammatically wrong. An error doesn't cease to be an error by remaining uncorrected for 3 months. So, could you please point me to the discussion?

Best wishes, Koro Neil (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check the admin archives. Duuude007 (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duuude007's response at this point was to delete the whole exchange. I have transferred it here, as I may need it as I attempt to sort out the issue at hand. I will contact him and offer to continue the discussion here. If he agrees, I will erase this paragraph.

The discussion has been run into the ground. Regardless of the conclusions that you necessitate, there is no further reason to correct me on something that has already been discussed repeatedly. At this point I feel that it is becoming borderline harassment. If you wish to continue to dig up additional dirt, that is your perogative, the discussion has already been long over and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At this point, I do not expect to discuss this further, especially at the tone in which you have insisted to proceed. Do what you will with correcting it as you must, I stopped editing the moment someone asked me to, and never edited one of these examples more than once. I have thoroughly wiped my hands clean of this topic months ago. I encourage you to cease and desist in kicking this dead horse. Duuude007 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narang's origin

Hi, I decided to remove your speedy tag from this article, as I felt that the English wasn't at all incomprehensible. Besides, being poorly written is not really a criteria for speedy deletion. decltype (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than..

Hi, Please see: Talk:Mariology#Eastern_Mariology based on your request. There is more to do, but I have started it. Your comments will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IBM archive

Hi, I undid your undo on Talk:IBM, only because the threads were not gone, they were moved to archive: Talk:IBM/Archive 1. It's okay to undo that archiving (and I think archiving everything was too extreme), but if you undo, undo completely including getting the archive page cleaned up, too. TJRC (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TJRC. Sorry, I'm missing something here. All I did was click 'undo', which should have restored the Talk page as it was before Eustress archived it. I took it for granted that it would do the job completely. If it needed clean-up, then I presume it needed clean-up before Eustress archived it, in which case it's not up to me. And in fact, I'm not sure what needed cleaning up. I'm assuming you're not talking about spelling, grammar, or other glitches in editors' work, as these are not an issue on talk pages, and it is generally regarded as bad form to edit other people's work on a talk page unless there is a possibility of misunderstanding, and you check with the editor first.

If it was something to do with the archive page Eustress created (e.g. if 'undo' doesn't clear it automatically), then I don't understand why you've removed the stuff from the Talk page again, rather than leaving it where it was, and alerting me to my responsibility with regard to the archive page.

I hope what I've just said doesn't look quarrelsome, TJRC, but I would be grateful if you clarify things for me. Cheers, Koro Neil (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and you don't come across as quarrelsome in the least. Eustress did two things: (1) she created the archive page Talk:IBM/Archive 1 with the comments from Talk:IBM (or, looking at it now, maybe just added to an existing page) and (2) deleted the comments from Talk:IBM. Your undo undid part 2, but left part 1 in place. I don't have much of an opinion on whether the comments should be archived (looks like Eustress may have a practice of doing this every end-of-year). I don't object to you undoing her edits, but just make sure you undo both or neither. TJRC (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Bushfires in Australia. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. 220 of ^Borg 10:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, 220 of Borg. I don't do as much on Wikipedia as I used to. I would have liked to put some sort of templated comment in the text, and thought it likely that there was one to cover inconsistencies like the one in the article. But in the past I have sometimes spent a good deal of fruitless time trying to find out how to insert a particular template I knew existed, and rather than go through this I did my own ersatz version - no more disruptive than a template, but perhaps more annoying, because shonky-looking. Occasionally in the past this has resulted in a cross note from another editor telling me I should have used such-and-such a template, and providing a link to it, which is a useful outcome for me. I rather hoped this might happen here. It wasn't intended as a comment so much as a substitute for a cleanup type template function.

I've also observed in the histories of articles lately that there are far greater stretches of time between edits than there used to be, meaning people are spending less time editing Wikipedia than used to be the case, and a change may take a while to be noticed. Changes to articles seem to get a quicker response than comments in talk pages, especially if you describe what you've done in the edit summary. There was a time when you could simply remove material that was garbled to the point that it conveyed no information, notify your action in the edit summary (with a request for expert attention), and be confident that someone who had the information necessary to fix it would do so in a very short time. This is no longer the case, at least with low-traffic articles, and there is a danger that the real information that the text was intended to convey (but failed to) will be lost. Basically I look for the quick effective response. I do take your point, however.

I'm puzzled by your remarks about discussing opinions on a subject on talk pages. I haven't done that here, and I think I'm reasonably aware of the issue when I do contribute to talk pages. Do you think I've breached this on another article, or is this just a general remark?

Good wishes, Koro Neil (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed your note because I was editing the page at the same time you were! My message was a template actually, sent using Twinkle. I think the correct template to use for your purpose would be {{contradict}} from Template messages/Cleanup. An advantage of this is that also it puts the article in a maintenance category (category:Self-contradictory articles) that allows editors to find it more easily.

Other things you could have done are, remove the sentence (it is also unsourced too), fix the sentence so it is more consistent, add a hidden note thus  with an edit summary like you did before.

ORIGINAL
"Fire frequency in the north is difficult to assess, as the vast majority of fires are caused by human activity, however lightning strikes are as common a cause as human-ignited fires and arson."

EDITED
"Fire frequency in the north is difficult to assess, as the vast majority of fires are caused by human activity, however lightning strikes are a common cause, as are human-ignited fires and arson."

Unfortunately, without a source it is difficult to see what they are trying to say here. - 220 of ^Borg 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Koro Neil (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What lightning strikes in Tasmania in January? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.115.172 (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of assistance to update the article on 'Marcus Turner'

Dear Neil,

Imagine my delight when I discovered (a few minutes ago) the article you created about Marcus Turner! This is because I have today created a new article on Andy Irvine's album Way Out Yonder which, as I am sure you know, featured Marcus's song "When The Boys Are On Parade".

As usual, I was in the process of creating wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles and was very pleased that there is one about Marcus. So, thank you Neil!

Another reason for contacting you is out of courtesy, to suggest a few minor updates to the article:

Replace all occurrences of 'Marcus' by 'Turner', since WP refers to people by their surname;
Create an Infobox;
Create a 'Discography' section (assuming, of course, that Marcus has made any recordings).

I think these few changes would make the article look even better than it already is and I am hopeful you'll agree.

If you concur with my proposal, then I'd be happy to do some of this but I don't wish to stand in your way if you'd rather do any or all (or none!) of it yourself. For the 'Infobox', you'd need to supply me with Marcus's date of birth and we'd also need the names of his recordings, if any.

So, please let me know what you think and, if you decide you wish for me to do some or most of this, then I'd be only too pleased to assist.

Looking forward to hearing from you, Neil, at your convenience.
Until then, please keep well and joyful.

With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Patrick. Thanks for your note. I started the article, but most of it has been supplied by others. On the specific changes – I am fine with the infobox and discography sections, and happy for you to do them. Marcus has produced albums, as well as performing with The Chaps on their CDs. His first album was on vinyl, and was titled The best is yet to come. I have a more recent CD of him, as well as two or three Chaps albums. Unfortunately most of my CDs are buried in boxes after shifting house, with no room yet to display them, and I can't immediately lay my hand on them. I'm hunting around on the net for this info, and it's surprisingly hard to track down.

On changing "Marcus" to "Turner" – not so keen. Marcus is widely known in the NZ folk scene simply by his first name. If I was in another part of the country, and heard someone say that Marcus was performing there in the near future, I would know, and any other folkie would know that it was Marcus Turner that was meant. It's not as weird as calling Cher "Bono", but it's nearly as weird as calling Ringo "Starr". "Marcus" is definitely more in keeping with NZ folkie culture, such is Marcus's stature, so bear this in mind when you decide.

As I said, I only wrote a small part of the article. You may wish to put a query on the article's talk page, so other contributors can comment. I don't think the info box or discography are in any way contentious, and I would say just go ahead and do them. But the question of Marcus's designation by first name or surname probably is worth raising. Mind you, I don't know how much connection the other contributors have to our folk scene; Grutness has contributed widely to NZ articles. But raise it in any case. I should probably distance myself a bit anyway, as Marcus is a closer personal friend now than was the case when I started the article; he and I have lunch together with other friends on Fridays, though personal circumstances recently have meant he's been absent quite a bit lately.

Before I wrote the last paragraph, I checked the article's talk page to see if you had already raised the query there. I found a rather ratty discussion between myself and one Redfarmer, who wanted to delete the article when I first created it (back in my early Wikipedia days). I have an uncomfortable feeling that your very cautious approach here may be the result of reading that exchange (I've now deleted it). In fact, you are quite entitled to make the changes you suggest without consulting anyone. Anyone not happy with it can revert it, or make whatever adjustments they like. Still, it was courteous of you to ask. Kia kaha!

Koro Neil (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil,

Many thanks for your prompt reply. I smiled when I read your nice comments about my "very cautious approach",

but I assure you that I wasn't being extra cautious in this case: I have a naturally courteous and friendly manner, as you can see in this example: Updates on 23-24 October, 2013.

Yes, I did read the earlier 'ratty' exchange you mention, but I was quite confident that you and I would get on well, since we are both intent on augmenting Wikipedia with articles on musicians. Besides, we are peers as editors, in the sense that I do not hold any official WP position such as admin or patroller. Therefore, my offer was genuinely as stated: I am happy to help improve any article I come across in passing.

Coming back to the article on 'Marcus Turner' itself, thank you for taking the time to highlight some of his recordings. I could draft an initial Discography section and then you could perhaps expand it later. There is obviously no rush to do any of this and, therefore, when you have recovered your CDs, then you'll be able to complete the section at that time if you wish.

Thank you for explaining that he is known locally as "Marcus", which helps me understand your reluctance to use his surname in the article. My suggestion to use 'Turner' was simply motivated by the Wikipedia guidelines on how to name people, for consistency across all biographical articles in our encyclopedia. These guidelines can be found here: MOS:BIO, at WP:FULLNAME; please see the short section headed First mention and then scroll down (quite a bit) until you reach the section headed Susbequent use.

So, because the name of the article is "Marcus Turner" (instead of simply "Marcus"), I dare say the convention on using his surname in the body of the article would still apply. Consider the case of "Beyoncé", for example; the lead section of her article introduces her as "Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, simply known as Beyoncé" and continues to refer to her as "Beyoncé" from then on.

Therefore, I would fully agree with your preference *if* Marcus Turner were promoting himself professionally as "Marcus", as done by other artists emphasizing their first name ("Beyoncé", "Boy George", etc.) In that case, however, his article ought to have been created with a page name of "Marcus". The other, connected question is: does he aim to be known internationally (i.e. via the global reach of Wikipedia) as "Marcus"?

All that being said, I am quite happy to leave the article as it is but since I came across it yesterday, I quickly identified those few areas I suggested for improvement, generally with the guidelines in mind, as I think it would be improved if they were applied.

Please may I therefore suggest that you review the above sections of the MOS, at your convenience, and then decide whether you'd prefer the naming guidelines adopted or not. If not, then that's absolutely fine by me and I'll leave the article as-is.

Thank you for your consideration, Neil, and for letting me know what you think, when convenient.

Until then, please keep well and happy.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer the designation "Marcus", but if you follow through on changing it I'm not emotionally invested enough in it to change it back. I think all the instances of "Marcus" without the surname are other editors' work in any case. I'll leave it to you.

I looked up MOS, and couldn't find anything that fits the context of your use of it here.

Koro Neil (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil,

Thank you for your prompt reply, and for giving me your blessing to make the article consistent with the WP guidelines on naming people in biographies.

I apologize for confusing you when I mentioned the "MOS" in the eighth paragraph, which was shorthand for the link I'd attached earlier, in the fourth paragraph: MOS:BIO, at WP:FULLNAME. I hope it will now make more sense to you.

It would be nice to have Marcus's date and place of birth, as well as his full name, to add to both the lead section and the infobox. Would you be kind enough to supply these, whenever convenient? Thank you very much in advance, Neil.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Neil,

I've done as much as I can tonight, to improve the article on 'Marcus Turner': consolidated the lead section and also added the 'Music career' and 'Discography' sections. I tested many wikilinks and added a few; I also removed a link to a dead web page (which was the only reference!).

I still think it remains a bit vague in some areas, such as the dates of the projects mentioned by earlier editors, but it'll do for now.

I hope it helped some...

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Neil,

Just to let you know that it's all done (except I couldn't find Marcus's date and place of birth anywhere online) and I have also added a new section in the article's talk page, to inform other editors of what I've done, and included a link to our exchanges over the recent days.

Thanks once again for your participation.

With kind regards;

Patrick. 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Um. That's a wee bit of a worry. I've never heard Marcus mention the article, but if he is alerted to this discussion, there's no way he won't link it to me. I think he would cope fine with it, would likely not even mention it, but I would definitely be embarrassed. Koro Neil (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil,

Don't be too hard on yourself: the text in the article is almost identical to his CV on the "kiwifolk" website, so it's hard to believe he would object to seeing the same information on WP. All I have done yesterday is simply to 'wikify' the article. Even if I hadn't named you in the talk page, anyone would have been able to see (like I did) that you created the article initially, by looking at the main article's 'View history' log.

Besides, I would have thought he'd be pleased to have an article on WP, and flattered that you were motivated to create it in the first place, because of his notability. I think the drinks should be on him next time you meet.

Keep well and happy.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Idiotic and inaccurate" and "non native use"

Talking about this. Not interested in an edit war so I am not going to, at least fo the time being, revert or edit using similar characterisations..., but let me just say the following:

1.Afaik, Evans had not established that Linear B is indeed syllabic though he had indeed made a nice argument for it; there is a difference. I.e. before the actual decipherment, nothing was certain or "really" established.
2.There is also a difference, however big or slight, however "real" or just terminological, between the language, the one written using a script, and the script itself etc.. If you think that "the script reads" is non native, you could have changed it to "the texts read" or whatever (such use of 'to read', i.e. the English one, is btw non native to me; in my language, texts, signs... say, they never read... :) ) Is, for example, the script of 'Opheltau' Greek? I'd say yes but some people might disagree. Or is this section written in the Latin or the English alphabet? Or both in a sense? And so on and so forth...

In other words, thought it could certainly have been improved, the aforementioned idiotic and inaccurate sentence, the one written in non native English, had been added in order to convey specific messages and emphases... ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 10:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gwydir River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Impoundment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help for translate

Hello. Can you help me translate 2 paragraphs from English to Gothic? Xaris333 (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review/change page

Hello User:Koro Neil, because you have done benefiting edits to surname pages in past, was wondering if you can correct Maiorana page (look if the links are in right place or if they are even needed, and add/change written info). Here's the last version by User:Xezbeth [1]. If you can't do it then please let me know if you know some else you could, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article Suluk, Xinjiang

It seems that you are the one who created that article [2].Do you have any supporting reference(s) to prove the existence of that settlement? Thanks. --Jarl Sverre (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jarl. I don't know how you came to identify me as the creator of this article. It seems to have been created by Mmd salleh in February 2006. I made three small revisions (which I have no recollection of doing) within the space of less than 20 minutes on September 5, 2011.

Cheers

Koro Neil (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koro,

Indeed you are not the original creator of this article, but the article was originally referring to the Tausūg in the South East Asia instead. Contrary to your claim, you are the first editor changing the context of the article from a redirect of Tausūg([3]) into a settlement in Xinjiang.

Cheers

--Jarl Sverre (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The information is on the Pole of inaccessibility page. At a guess, I came to this page from there, when it was just titled Suluk, and couldn't make it a redirect because it already was one, so took the next best expedient. At a guess – as I said, I have no memory of doing it. The direct to the page it was previously for is still needed, but apart from that, I'm not concerned what happens to it.

Cheers, Koro Neil (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cast list needed

Template:Cast list needed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. V2Blast (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Koro Neil! You created a thread called Search menu at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squaring speed

I've occasionally asked people with science degrees what is meant by squaring speed. I ask, what's the square of a kilometre per second? They answer, a kilometre per second. I then ask, what's the square of 1,000 metres per second? They say, ah yes, I see what you mean. And then they say, it's really just a number, which I think means they don’t really know.

If you square a/b, you get a²/b². if you square a length or a distance, you get an area. If you divide a distance or a length by the square of an amount of time, you get a measure of acceleration. So, what do you get if you square both the distance and the time? The only answer I can come up with is that the area is increasing at an accelerating rate. This seems counter-intuitive, but I'm guessing, with not much certainty, that this might be connected with the accelerator used in generating nuclear power.

So – is there areal acceleration at the rate of nearly 90,000,000,000 square kilometres per second per second? Any help here? Koro Neil (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a little disappointed in those people with science degrees. They should have been paying more attention in introductory physics! 1 km = 1,000 m. The square of 1 km/s is 1 km^2/s^2, NOT 1 km/s. The square of 1,000 m/s is 1,000,000 m^2/s^2. 1 km^2/s^2 = 1,000,000 m^2/s^2; the answer is the same regardless of what units of measurement you use. The SI unit of energy, the Joule has base units of kg*m^2/s^2. The units of m^2/s^2 is that of Specific energy (energy per unit mass). FYI, questions like these can be posted at WP:RD. I am also happy to further discuss here. VQuakr (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Koro Neil! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What the hooray has happened to Wikipedia pictures?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

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

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

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede 66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boethius65

Thank you for your note advising that Boethius has died. I've posted at WP:NZWNB. Would you like to post something at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2022?-Gadfium (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]