User talk:Kotare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 'Ello 2 Mainland island 3 Some Major Naughty Spots of Vandalism 4 Ecology 5 Issue solved 6 Whiteheads and Vic 7 Regarding references

[edit] 'Ello

Hi there, thanks for putting that work into the Tieke page, it was nice to find it, and be able to add a photo to a spot just sitting there! I'd figured out how to do a Taxbox for the Dracophyllum page a week or so ago, but am not really there yet. I like your comments above, particularly regarding the references section; That's about what I reckon too, and is exactly where encyclopedias should point ie to 'hard' literature... A few places like LandcareResearch and NZPCN are making efforts in this direction but this is probably the best place for this to happen. Anyhow, ta for the comment, and I look forward to seeing yer around...

-- blacksand 10:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainland island

I created this article some time ago. GrahamBould 06:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"I think there may be a case for renaming the article "mainland island"". I tend to agree - keep in touch on this, we may fix it in collaboration to spread the load. However, consider that some people might confuse 'Mainland Island' with an island within the mainland, like Mokoia Island in Lake Rotorua, or any ait. Don't think this possibility should prevent the name change though. GrahamBould 06:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Major Naughty Spots of Vandalism

Hello Kotare, if you're on Wiki-break I'm afraid that's too bad, seems like your page is attracting vandals. Just wanted to alert you to the matter and remind you to check your user page history. Hope you won't run into any more naughty spots of vandalism with 'em ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecology

Hi,

I'm OhanaUnited, the creator of the environmental protection userbox. I'm glad that I found another person who uses this box and is a university student. I myself is also university student (University of Toronto) double major in biology and environmental science. It seems like both of us are going towards the same field direction.

Just to give you heads-up, I can tell you that editing articles related to environmentalism is pain in the butt. There're still many non-believers in global warming who will do anything to deny or erase any comments related to that subject. Then there're burecuatic editors who demand for sources without much thoughts into it. I was adding some info on recycling that my prof in university talked about on that day in lecture. Less than a day it was removed because of unvertifable sources. They rather see a bunch of colourful amateur websites as resources than what I learned in lecture. I just hope that you won't run into same problem as I encountered when I edit things.

I wish you success in university. Keep in touch.

OhanaUnited 06:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue solved

I'm glad that Kakapo page issue has been solved peacefully. However, another issue appeared. Let's go to Talk:Kakapo and see how can we can resolve this issue. OhanaUnited 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whiteheads and Vic

I'll look at the article more closely later, its close to b standard but needs some filing out in places. The headings need a bit of reorganizing and the description should be split out of the introduction into its own section - the intro should be a summary of whats in the article, and not have info that isn't elsewhere (in theory anyway). I'll try and get a photo some time of one at Karori.

I'm doing my PhD in ecological naivete (the tendency of native birds here to lose their anti-predator behaviours) as well as other aspects of island evolution (changes in life history and body size). I only started a month ago, and am still finding my way around. Its pretty interesting to have a Wikipedian in the same department, are you a member of Gecko? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I only arrived in NZ a month and a half ago so you wouldn't have seen me around. And the Gecko meeting seemed to have lots of new people so it might be worth having another go (certainly the place to raise funds for forest protection!). Most of my field work will be in Karori but possibly some at Kapiti and maybe even the Chathams! Who knows?! Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding references

Hi there, I've noticed you've recently been putting in some solid work adding "unreferenced" tags to articles on New Zealand geographical features. In most cases, I agree that the tag is necessary and that some references would seriously help the articles (and I have in fact added references to a few of the articles). However, in some instances, I am not sure if the tag is required as the only information in the articles is that which can be seen on any half-decent map of New Zealand. As WP:CITE says, "[a]ll material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source", and I do not believe this at all applies to basic information that can be seen on maps, such as statements that a river is in the South Island and flows through a certain town, or that a mountain is so many metres high. Good examples would be the articles on Mount Lyndon (from which I actually removed the tag - the only time I've done so yet without adding references) and Kaweka Range.

Before I went ahead and removed tags from anything else, I thought I should discuss this with you. I'm not contesting the majority of your edits, just those on articles with very basic information. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. - Axver 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. I'm possibly even more on the lenient side. Where the information is contestable, there is a real need to ensure that it is verifiable. On the other hand, if I had to cite sources for things that are bordering on self-evident (well not actually self-evident, but very generally known), I think I'd give up editing all together. So while I might be in a minority in that, I'd certainly agree with Axver, and suggest you be a touch more selective. Even something like Aoraki/Mt Cook. Most of the information is pretty well known to New Zealanders (or available from the external link). Perhaps that article could do with another reference or two, but inline referencing seems rather like overkill.--Limegreen 09:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

third this - if you think there is some doubt that Petroica is a genus of birds, then maybe you should provide the references for it - you could look up redlist or something. Really, your tags might sit on these articles for months. Sometimes, if you feel something needs fixing, it pays to be bold and fix it yourself rather than add tags which in effect are saying 'Hey lazybones! fix this because I think it needs it!' Kahuroa 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I put the tag up, not because i doubt that Petroica is a genus but because they didn't give a reference to back up the statement that the genus is not related to european robins. There are probably some cases like this where you're right and I could go ahead and do it myself.. but I put these tags on many massive articles as well in which its not a case of: 'Hey lazybones! fix this because I think it needs it!!"- in most cases, the creators of these pages will be watching them and seeing as these people created those articles (and will probably remember where they got the info. from)- it will thus be straightforward process for them to add in references- but it would be a baffling ordeal for anyone else-( I'm saying this from experience). Its also simultaneously pointing out to people the importance of references in terms of making a good wikipedia article. Kotare 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all good Kahuroa 01:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)