User talk:Clarke43

A kitten for you!

For your tidying-up work.

Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also from me. I've just taken to the Department of Corrections (New Zealand) article to remove a large section which seems to be little but POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys - I'll keep chipping away when I get time. We don't really seem to have that many editors working on the NZ crime/justice related articles, so it will take a while, but I don't feel for the sake of anyone who uses Wikipedia that we can leave some of these pages in the state they are in now. Clarke43 (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NZ SAS article

Great work with this article as well - it's been long overdue for improvements, and its great to see them happening. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join MILHIST

Hello Clarke43! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your name in lights

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10897474 Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As user:Nick-D, the administrator who originally banned Brooking asks here, why people give "so much credence to his claims seems curious". This article is full of basic errors which seems to show that the journalist didn't actually do any checking on WP themselves. As WP:COFF states "the posting of off-wiki correspondence on Wikipedia is discouraged unless it benefits the project". I'm glad I didn't get involved. Clarke43 (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a shame that the journalist didn't consider whether someone who was blocked for attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack Ms Collins (among other people) would also use this as a mechanism to keep up his attacks on her. It's notable that he only started complaining on his blog after his sockpuppet accounts were also spotted and blocked. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that last comment is 100% true. There's a deleted post on the blog which covers similar ground. That appears to precede all of his blocks (unless there's another historic sock I'm not aware of). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stuart, that's a good point. I was referring to him complaining about being blocked. BTW, anyone who is reading this page via the NZ Herald story will fight relevant background at Talk:Judith Collins‎, User talk:Offender9000‎ (Mr Brooking's main account), Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250#On-wiki badness moves to major newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another useful page for background is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Offender9000, where Mr Brooking's plagiarism of the NZ Herald (and others) is scrubbed from wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kevin Herewini for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Herewini is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Herewini until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 10:03, 31 October 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) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]