Traumnovelle

BLPNAME

What part of BLPNAME, exactly, are you citing there? Because as far as I can see, you're removing the name and then citing that essay, but there's nothing in the essay that warrants removing the name. Be specific. Do it on the article talk page. And don't revert again before you do that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject Traumnovelle (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

"The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced" - thanks for confirming that the name belongs there. This conversation is over. If you want to pursue it further, open a discussion on the article talk page. I promise you it will be a waste of your time. Goodbye. Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a terrible attitude when it comes to both BLP and dealing with other people on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Spelled, burned, etc.

You shouldn't recklessly change these to your preferred spelling, doing so is a breach of WP:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN.

Today, there is no preference on what spelling to use, in the old days it made a lot more sense to use 'burnt' etc. when this was a proper British colony. Nowadays on Wikipedia, the author should decide on what spelling to use in an article they create or contribute significantly to. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What is your reliable source that states that? Cherrypicking misspellings doesn't matter. I don't know what you have against British English but you should just drop it. Spelt is in the dictionary whilst spelled is not. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Regardless on what it says, 'learned/spelled' and so on, is acceptable on New Zealand articles. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on which source? Traumnovelle (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

CT

You have recently made edits related to abortion. This is a standard message to inform you that abortion is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Casey Costello

Hi Traumnovelle, the associate health section of Casey Costello is bloated. Most of the section focuses on media coverage of tobacco and vaping policies. I tried trimming it down but wasn't sure what to cut out. Was wondering if you could have a look at it? Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed some stuff. It is good to look at what is still mentioned in sources. e.g. is her meeting with Vape-Free Kids NZ still being talked about? Probably not. But the disposable vape ban for example still is being talked about: [1]. Also some stuff can be expressed in less words without any real loss of detail. Typically actual bills are more notable/likely to receive secondary/sustained coverage than proposals and meetings. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Traumnovelle, the section looks much neater and concise. Appreciate your help. I agree that focusing on bills and policies over proposals and meetings is a good idea. I have also tried trimming down the Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand article but the body section is still pretty big. Was wondering if you had some ideas on how to trim it down. Andykatib (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Look for post-government coverage. Most of it happens to consist of opinion pieces unfortunately but I found this for example: [2] which provides a good overview of what Labour's most important changes were.

Also look for repeated content (which happens when news reports get added each time) e.g.: In terms of domestic policies, the Government announced plans to make Matariki a public holiday, resume the country's refugee resettlement programme, reform adoption law, new housing initiatives, ban live cattle exports, a new Clean Car rebate scheme and extensive health sector reforms

Bolded content is duplicated in the article with examples of where it is later/already covered below:

The refugee resettlement quota was increased, which met a longstanding commitment to the double the quota refugee advocacy campaign

banning live animal exports

reforming the public health services including a new Te Aka Whai Ora (Māori Health Authority). Traumnovelle (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Traumnovelle, will follow your recommendations. Will look at post-government media coverage, books or journal articles similar to the Spinoff. This will make trimming the main body easier. Thanks for your suggestions. Andykatib (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Air West Coast

Hello, I undid your deletion of the article. Before you delete you should have a discussion in the talk page of your concerns it has been on Wikipedia for many years. CHCBOY (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement to do so. If someone thinks it should remain they can simply undo the edit. I have taken it to AfD but I think the result will be obvious unless there is some coverage I am overlooking somehow. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ponsonby, New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Anne style.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: St Paul's, Buckland has been accepted

St Paul's, Buckland, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tavantius (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Mercy San Juan Medical Center, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you warning me like you are an admin when instead you are a new editor who doesn't understand the gravity of the content you have restored? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canine follicular dysplasia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pointers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ski fields, tramping and climbing

I have noted your comment in Air West Coast above. Removal of much of the recreational basic content in the article on Mount Ruapehu was in my view a non-constructive edit mixed with constructive edits. The removed text did not appear particularly promotional and only minor fault was it contains some facts like numbers of ski lifts and access that are best sourced and up to date. Happy if you find say the current recreational consent and any juicy local news story from a good NZ source before me as there are a few other articles deserving more urgent attention by me now. I have noted your contributions since Nov23 on a wide range of topics and found them useful. ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That was in regards to a WP:BLAR not the removal of unsourced content. The content I removed was unsourced and contained unencyclopaedic details. Unsourced content in general should not be restored if removed and doubly so for when it is self-serving to a business with claims such as 'largest', 'open to the public', how to access them, andinformation on 'refreshments' that are available for purchase.

If you want to re-add it do so with a reliable source and ignore any unencyclopaedic details like carparking. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. To comply with WP:V, it is not necessary immediately the matter is identified, to remove all unsourced statements in a section contributed to by multiple historic editors and that covered subjects other than the commercial activity that irritated you. That you removed the citation needed tags on others contributions I added as per the policy, and again sections not relating to potential self serving issues in a non selective manner, before any other editor could reasonably take action is disruptive. It was not clear to me by your initial brief edit note why such a large removal of text occurred and this is why I did not do a more selective initial restore. Now you have clarified the specific and implied that you do not wish to contribute to the improvement of a recreational section in the article, I am in a better position to improve the article if others do not, which has a greater probability, as by your last action, you made the issues at hand invisible to all who do not have the page on their watchlist. The essays H:RV and WP:CON can be helpful as editors gain more experience in applying policy in ways that time has shown is most productive for the wikipedia community and its audience. ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Content is required to be sourced to being with, the policies are quite clear on this. If you want to re-add with sourced content then go ahead but there is no policy based reason to restore unsourced content. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With respect you imply I misread "Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added" in WP:V ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been unsourced for over a decade and there is just one other claim in the article that is not sourced, that is perfectly acceptable to be removed. If you really want the content to be included you could just use this time writing here to source it. If it is due and factual it should be incredibly trivial to source. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)