User talk:Kiwimw
Welcome!
Hello, Kiwimw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
The Ungovernable Force 08:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
You have broken the 3RR rule[edit]
You have made four reverts to the Helen Clark article which exceeds the allowable three in any 24 hrs. Are you aware you can be banned from editing for this?Moriori 05:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
No, but then I am new. My apologies. Kiwimw 06:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- The WP:3RR is designed to prevent sterile revert wars from taking place, and I think what's been happening at Helen Clark is an example of such a revert war. Far better to let the article have a wording one doesn't feel is optimal, and debate it on the talk page.-gadfium 08:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I hadn't thought about it properly until now, so my apologies for that. I am clear about my point, but its (to me now obviously) unhelpful/silly to argue it "on the page". I apologise for my lack of experience. I should expand my argument on the talk page.
Thanks for "bearing with" a new person. The significance of all the rules isn't always apparent until you get some experience, and while experienced in other internet forums (fora?) I'm new to Wikipedia. Kiwimw 08:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You removed my last edit, a sentence or two, from the article, labelling it 'advocacy'. I think my description was fairly NPOV; the lawsuit WAS initially labelled a stunt, and is now increasingly respected; it HAS received increasing numbers of reports in the mainstream media, and the New Zealand Herald really HAS published multiple editorials caling for the misappropriated funds to be paid back. Would you care to defend or reconsider your removal of those sentences? Do you think your own pro-Labour bias has anything to do with your removal of those sentences? Ppe42 07:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- How kind to accuse me of bias, but my bias is towards fair comment, I think. The lawsuit is a stunt and has no real prospect of success. It would involve substantial change to the way the law has been viewed on a number of fronts, and so is unlikely to succeed. A newspaper noting that Crown Counsel responded was not making it notable - Crown Counsel were obliged to respond. The newspaper noted a point made in Crown Counsel's response, not Darnton's claim. Until such time as people take the proceedings seriously without being obliged to (unlike the defendant's lawyers) then I suggest its not "increasingly respected". Its not referred to anywhere else throughout the whole of the debate raging about the issue. The Herald has had lots of editorials, sure, but none of them are connected to the lawsuit, and the lawsuit is not connected anywhere with the increase in discussion on the issue. It would be more true to note that despite a substantial debate the lawsuit continues to be ignored by all sides. If Bernard Darnton has to have a page at all, then he has more than enough said about him as it is. Kiwimw 19:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The lawsuit made the front of the Sunday Star Times yesterday. 'Nuff said. Ppe42 03:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but my edit was not my own work; I was reverting it to its prior state, effectively removing your edit. The fact is, while there was some constructive work on the article, there was a higher proprotion of less useful material. When correcting grammar, please ensure that you read the sentence in its entirety to get the meaning correct. It might be worth saying that not ALL New Zealanders have this 'Kiwi' Accent you speak of - this also applies to my edits. However, the word 'mare' is not pronounced the same as the word 'mayor' amongst most of my New Zealand colleagues, nor any of my family, so to group all New Zealanders into an a category which suggests our language is archaic and 'simple' is not a good idea. Any further comments? 130.195.86.36 13:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
All my grammar corrections were correct - you need to reread the reversions, they are clumsy and inappropriate. Plus I worked with Georgina Beyer on the Bill in question and I corrected some of the facts, which you removed. Third, no one but you is saying the language is archaic and simple, and I think your comments denigrate New Zealanders. So what if Mayor and mare are pronounced the same? And I know no New Zealander born and brought up here who says Mayor differently from mare.
Do you have a reason for wishing to label Georgina Beyer and others uneducated? I think this is very inappropriate.
Kiwimw 20:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Take a squiz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_original_research. Also, I am one such New Zealander, living here all my life, and I pronounce the words differently. How many people have you heard saying both words? 130.195.86.37 06:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hundreds :) Of course I don't know! Look at the recent middle ground amendment. Kiwimw 09:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Invitation![edit]
Hello!. I saw your edit to Georgina Beyer and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. We would be delighted to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Kiwimw. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The article MinterEllisonRuddWatts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Does not have any sources, and there is not a significant amount of coverage online about the company.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kees08 (Talk) 21:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay[edit]
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.
Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.
Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)