An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NZ:FAQ. Since you had some involvement with the NZ:FAQ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji ( talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for the thanks. Equally Nvvchar and Rosiestep are responsible for the improvements. I am British and would "favour" British English but I've been so accustomed to writing in American english on here that I tend to naturally remove us from lots of the worlds like harbour and neighbour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: [1] – thanks so much! I make trivial mistakes far too often. :-) Adabow ( talk · contribs) 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Schwede, thank you for your thorough review of Großbottwar, I apologise if I seemed annoyed in my response a couple of days ago. I was pushed for time and hassled when I responded and probably came across rather short!
I think I've now fixed the issues you've raised, and have responded at the nomination, [2]. Let me know if you think there's anything else that needs to be looked into before this can go through, and I'll do what I can.
No, I don't know German. I am studying it at the moment, but began fairly recently. I rely on Leo, Google Translate, my course books, and my Oxford German-English dictionary. My attempts at “translation” are rough and time-consuming, but I try to get it right. Anyway, sorry to disappoint, and sorry for you to have discovered my ignorance, ^^ Thank you for the kind offer of help, but I don’t like pestering people—maybe occasionally I’ll ping you, when I’m really stuck! Thanks, :) Maedin\ talk 12:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to collaborate on these pages - I feel it will be a major work. The main list page (currently in my Sandbox) is probably the best starting point - once we have that fleshed out we can turn our attentions to the mass of redlinks. Fanx ( talk) 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits (I think we had an edit conflict at one point). Today I have finished listing all by-elections in the pre-party era (redlink by-election, electorate name & by-election date) and I'm starting to fill out the [Incumbent] | [by-election reason] | [Winner] fields. I'm in no hurry to start on the Liberal party era (existing data was just a template/placeholder), but we need to ensure it is consistent with what we have so far (assuming what we have so far is the final shape). I intend to break the 1st column into two separate columns - [by-election, year] | [electorate name]. Since the pre-party era table is formatted differently, and it is getting rather large (35 KB with over 450 cells yet to be completed, plus refs) I wondered if we shouldn't split it into two pages - New Zealand by-elections, 1854–1890 and New Zealand by-elections, 1891–present. In any case, even temporarily moving one part to another sub-page will allow us to edit with less chance of conflicts. Fan | talk 10:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, sorry it took so long to reply – I've been in the Bay of Islands for a while. First of all, I do not think that the election is a list, but an article, and thus should be nominated at WP:GAN. It is complex though, as besides the background, it is more of a list. I would suggest looking for some aftermath info, adding that and then sending it to WP:GAN. By the way, it also needs some attention in terms of MOS:LEAD, and names and dates should be sorted using {{ sortname}} and {{ dts}}, respectively. If you need and hand with anything I'm more than happy to help. Adabow ( talk · contribs) 08:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Parnell Tunnel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, it's been noted on the DYK page, but QPQ reviews aren't required when nominating an article that isn't a self-nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Adabow ( talk · contribs) 08:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I created that article off my own back, there was no previous. She has existed previously as an article with text copied from a fansite, she has had two seperate articles with no info, then when it did it was badly written and both times ended up being merged/redirected, but a admin merged the two together and moved it to Bobby Simpson. So technically I did expand the article from nothing. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Schwede, I've expanded Bobby again, so that's twice. Does it meet the requirement now? :) RAIN*the*ONE BAM 12:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The article New Leinster Province is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Leinster Province 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Thank you very much for your assistance. I have followed your direction and used the template. In addition, I reviewed another article. If there are any issues, please do not hesitate to contact me. Maple Leaf ( talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Schwede, I responded at DYK. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 05:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Schwede, some of the parties in this election have unusual names, my computer wasn't hijacked. :) F ( talk) 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this message you left at another user's talk page, I just wanted to clarify, the template is not required for DYK nominations. Most people do use it and it keeps things organized, but there's no requirement that it be used, and reviewers can't reject an otherwise eligible nomination because it doesn't use the template. Of course, if a user is unfamiliar with the DYK standards anyway (as this one appears to be), it's recommended that they use the template, as it helps them make sure they get everything in, but it's not required; in the future you can maybe say something more like "by the way, there is a template to make it easier for you to post nominations". rʨanaɢ ( talk) 13:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I presume you never found a solution for this [3] :-( Mattlore ( talk) 04:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I was not fully aware of this procedure for multiple DYKs. Thank you very much for telling me the correct procedure. I will follow it it for my future articles. Thanks for rescuing my credit for the two articles.-- Nvvchar. 18:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Approval is not micro dependant on wording .... have a go Victuallers ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Chairman of Committees at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:51am • 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Frederick Merriman meets new page criteria, however, Chairman of Committees does not meet 5x expansion criteria as the expansion was over 2 days. — Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:51am • 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for uploading your photos after the quake. I'm sure you must have plenty of other things to do. I hope you and your family are okay. -- Avenue ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I was wondering what had happened to some of the buildings I have visited in the past, and figured others would be too so that got me started. I'll make a start on Victoria Clock Tower. I have looked through your recent post-earthquake uploads, an amazing photographic record. I can't begin to imagine what it's like to live there at the moment. Stay safe.-- Melburnian ( talk) 03:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 21:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just went to Styx Creek planning to PROD it for being non-notable and only existing because to the three Styx Rivers in New Zealand, but I see that it has some interesting history and might be worth keeping. Do you have a source for that information? dramatic ( talk) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Lyttelton Timeball Station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky ( talk) 08:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Rolleston Statue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Schwede, in no way did I mean to remove your comments. The edit conflict page still confuses me, and I'm never sure what I'm supposed to do. Very sorry for stepping on your comment. I'll take a closer look next time. The Interior (Talk) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review of the slow loris hook. I've made a slight alteration to the lead as an alt hook. Do you mind taking one more look? Sorry for the extra hassle. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you are 'on the ground', could you take a look at Radio La Famia and Gary's Breakfast Show? Both have been primarily edited by two SPAs, and when googling La Famia I came across a huge amount of self-promotional material. The only RS coverage I found was this really disparaging piece in the Press business section [4], but that doesn't mention the radio station. Both my PRODs were removed. dramatic ( talk) 02:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Schwede66, I observed that you reassessed Tennis NZ as low importance article for WP NZ and gave a reason that as it has low importance for WP Tennis than why it should get mid importance for WP NZ, but I don't think its a valid reason as most of the tennis governing bodies' articles are made/standardized by me and as I'm the member of WP Tennis, so I assess them with low importance. But as this article is about the national body of NZ, so it must get at least mid importance (like New Zealand Rugby Union, which is also a national body and rated as high importance). I'm not judging you decision but as you're the member of WP NZ, so you shouldn't assess articles (under the scope of your project) on the basis of others. Thanks Bill william compton Talk 03:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Re George Armstrong (New Zealand politician) I object to you apparently removing my reference to the (2-volume) 1940 A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography ed. by Guy Scholefield, claiming “no such bio exists” – any decent library (eg Wellington) will have a copy! Keith Sinclair cited it to Muldoon when urging the project which became the 1990s multivolume version, saying there were some errors in the 1940 version as he had written most of it himself (ref Sinclair’s autobiography“Halfway round the Harbour”). It was published for the centennial by the Dept of Internal Affairs. See refs to the 1940 DNZB in Scholefield’s own biographical entry: Scholefield bio WPL listing Hugo999 ( talk) 09:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you please redo your edits. You buried a number of vandalistic edits. Good practice to check the history first, regardless of how tiresome it is to always have to be on guard against stupid people.... Amandajm ( talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I've noted your message on my talk page today and responded to the info at the DYK entry. Richard Harvey ( talk) 15:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've done the stuff you requested. Pitke ( talk) 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Kennst du die Arbeitsliste unter de:Benutzer:Matthiasb/Historic Places in Christchurch? -- 91.17.147.10 ( talk) 13:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Not bad... 31 articles in half an hour :) Grutness... wha? 06:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
...for tidying up my talk page :) Looks like an anon was unhappy that I'd blocked them for vandalism... Grutness... wha? 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Schwede, This is with respect to IceMole DYK which you had brought back from prep to main page. I have addressed two sets of concerns of User:Gerda Arendt which she has acknowledged. Now she has stated on the DYK that she does not feel confident about the English language and would prefer someone else to vet and pass it. May I request you to do the needful? AshLin ( talk) 18:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar on the DYK talk page. Much appreciated. Schwede 66 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Arthur Dudley Dobson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Der yck C. 22:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries, Schwede! It's all fine now. One more thing... I love New Zealand, having visited it in 2002. If you'd like to collaborate on any NZ articles, particularly those that are dyk nom-worthy, just let me know. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. How about if I start the article Chief Post Office (Christchurch)? I found some info on it, so it seems easy enough. I notice there's a redlink for Chief Post Office, Christchurch but that doesn't seem to match up with the naming convention of other post offices in Category:Post office buildings, i.e. Central Post Office Building (Jerusalem), General Post Office (Dublin), Old City Hall (Omaha). Your thoughts? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
And we can always re-name it later if there's a particular NZ building naming convention that supports calling it something else. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
C class should be easy enough for this one. I think there's a good start for today; more tomorrow. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Schwede66, thank you for your comments on my DYK nomination. I have addressed both concerns and believe that the article is now much improved. If you have a moment, please re-evaluate the nom with these updates. Thanks! Cmprince ( talk) 20:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:New articles (New Zealand) obviously specifies new "articles" but couldn't new images be added to it as well? Or should a dedicated page be created? I uploaded an image of the new New Zealand Defence Service Medal to Commons today, but am not sure how to alert kiwi users that it is available if someone wants to use it. (Incidentally, I have asked for the file name to be amended to the actual name of the medal, the New Zealand Defence Service Medal. I left the word "Service" off which might cause confusion in the future). Moriori ( talk) 00:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Schwede, I've started this one and it'll be nice to work with you on it. I'll be back to it tomorrow. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's ready for dyk nom, but it would benefit from an infobox, and some talkpage wikiprojects. No worries if you're working on other things. Is there a citation for the demolition? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 05:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for handling the nom. The article looks great; the photos of course make it 'pop'. So sad, though, that it's been demolished. It's really great working with you, Schwede. Let's do another -- you pick. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NZ:FAQ. Since you had some involvement with the NZ:FAQ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji ( talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for the thanks. Equally Nvvchar and Rosiestep are responsible for the improvements. I am British and would "favour" British English but I've been so accustomed to writing in American english on here that I tend to naturally remove us from lots of the worlds like harbour and neighbour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: [1] – thanks so much! I make trivial mistakes far too often. :-) Adabow ( talk · contribs) 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Schwede, thank you for your thorough review of Großbottwar, I apologise if I seemed annoyed in my response a couple of days ago. I was pushed for time and hassled when I responded and probably came across rather short!
I think I've now fixed the issues you've raised, and have responded at the nomination, [2]. Let me know if you think there's anything else that needs to be looked into before this can go through, and I'll do what I can.
No, I don't know German. I am studying it at the moment, but began fairly recently. I rely on Leo, Google Translate, my course books, and my Oxford German-English dictionary. My attempts at “translation” are rough and time-consuming, but I try to get it right. Anyway, sorry to disappoint, and sorry for you to have discovered my ignorance, ^^ Thank you for the kind offer of help, but I don’t like pestering people—maybe occasionally I’ll ping you, when I’m really stuck! Thanks, :) Maedin\ talk 12:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to collaborate on these pages - I feel it will be a major work. The main list page (currently in my Sandbox) is probably the best starting point - once we have that fleshed out we can turn our attentions to the mass of redlinks. Fanx ( talk) 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits (I think we had an edit conflict at one point). Today I have finished listing all by-elections in the pre-party era (redlink by-election, electorate name & by-election date) and I'm starting to fill out the [Incumbent] | [by-election reason] | [Winner] fields. I'm in no hurry to start on the Liberal party era (existing data was just a template/placeholder), but we need to ensure it is consistent with what we have so far (assuming what we have so far is the final shape). I intend to break the 1st column into two separate columns - [by-election, year] | [electorate name]. Since the pre-party era table is formatted differently, and it is getting rather large (35 KB with over 450 cells yet to be completed, plus refs) I wondered if we shouldn't split it into two pages - New Zealand by-elections, 1854–1890 and New Zealand by-elections, 1891–present. In any case, even temporarily moving one part to another sub-page will allow us to edit with less chance of conflicts. Fan | talk 10:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, sorry it took so long to reply – I've been in the Bay of Islands for a while. First of all, I do not think that the election is a list, but an article, and thus should be nominated at WP:GAN. It is complex though, as besides the background, it is more of a list. I would suggest looking for some aftermath info, adding that and then sending it to WP:GAN. By the way, it also needs some attention in terms of MOS:LEAD, and names and dates should be sorted using {{ sortname}} and {{ dts}}, respectively. If you need and hand with anything I'm more than happy to help. Adabow ( talk · contribs) 08:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Parnell Tunnel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, it's been noted on the DYK page, but QPQ reviews aren't required when nominating an article that isn't a self-nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Adabow ( talk · contribs) 08:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I created that article off my own back, there was no previous. She has existed previously as an article with text copied from a fansite, she has had two seperate articles with no info, then when it did it was badly written and both times ended up being merged/redirected, but a admin merged the two together and moved it to Bobby Simpson. So technically I did expand the article from nothing. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Schwede, I've expanded Bobby again, so that's twice. Does it meet the requirement now? :) RAIN*the*ONE BAM 12:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The article New Leinster Province is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Leinster Province 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Thank you very much for your assistance. I have followed your direction and used the template. In addition, I reviewed another article. If there are any issues, please do not hesitate to contact me. Maple Leaf ( talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Schwede, I responded at DYK. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 05:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Schwede, some of the parties in this election have unusual names, my computer wasn't hijacked. :) F ( talk) 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this message you left at another user's talk page, I just wanted to clarify, the template is not required for DYK nominations. Most people do use it and it keeps things organized, but there's no requirement that it be used, and reviewers can't reject an otherwise eligible nomination because it doesn't use the template. Of course, if a user is unfamiliar with the DYK standards anyway (as this one appears to be), it's recommended that they use the template, as it helps them make sure they get everything in, but it's not required; in the future you can maybe say something more like "by the way, there is a template to make it easier for you to post nominations". rʨanaɢ ( talk) 13:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I presume you never found a solution for this [3] :-( Mattlore ( talk) 04:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I was not fully aware of this procedure for multiple DYKs. Thank you very much for telling me the correct procedure. I will follow it it for my future articles. Thanks for rescuing my credit for the two articles.-- Nvvchar. 18:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Approval is not micro dependant on wording .... have a go Victuallers ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Chairman of Committees at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:51am • 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Frederick Merriman meets new page criteria, however, Chairman of Committees does not meet 5x expansion criteria as the expansion was over 2 days. — Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:51am • 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for uploading your photos after the quake. I'm sure you must have plenty of other things to do. I hope you and your family are okay. -- Avenue ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I was wondering what had happened to some of the buildings I have visited in the past, and figured others would be too so that got me started. I'll make a start on Victoria Clock Tower. I have looked through your recent post-earthquake uploads, an amazing photographic record. I can't begin to imagine what it's like to live there at the moment. Stay safe.-- Melburnian ( talk) 03:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 21:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just went to Styx Creek planning to PROD it for being non-notable and only existing because to the three Styx Rivers in New Zealand, but I see that it has some interesting history and might be worth keeping. Do you have a source for that information? dramatic ( talk) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Lyttelton Timeball Station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky ( talk) 08:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Rolleston Statue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Schwede, in no way did I mean to remove your comments. The edit conflict page still confuses me, and I'm never sure what I'm supposed to do. Very sorry for stepping on your comment. I'll take a closer look next time. The Interior (Talk) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review of the slow loris hook. I've made a slight alteration to the lead as an alt hook. Do you mind taking one more look? Sorry for the extra hassle. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you are 'on the ground', could you take a look at Radio La Famia and Gary's Breakfast Show? Both have been primarily edited by two SPAs, and when googling La Famia I came across a huge amount of self-promotional material. The only RS coverage I found was this really disparaging piece in the Press business section [4], but that doesn't mention the radio station. Both my PRODs were removed. dramatic ( talk) 02:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Schwede66, I observed that you reassessed Tennis NZ as low importance article for WP NZ and gave a reason that as it has low importance for WP Tennis than why it should get mid importance for WP NZ, but I don't think its a valid reason as most of the tennis governing bodies' articles are made/standardized by me and as I'm the member of WP Tennis, so I assess them with low importance. But as this article is about the national body of NZ, so it must get at least mid importance (like New Zealand Rugby Union, which is also a national body and rated as high importance). I'm not judging you decision but as you're the member of WP NZ, so you shouldn't assess articles (under the scope of your project) on the basis of others. Thanks Bill william compton Talk 03:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Re George Armstrong (New Zealand politician) I object to you apparently removing my reference to the (2-volume) 1940 A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography ed. by Guy Scholefield, claiming “no such bio exists” – any decent library (eg Wellington) will have a copy! Keith Sinclair cited it to Muldoon when urging the project which became the 1990s multivolume version, saying there were some errors in the 1940 version as he had written most of it himself (ref Sinclair’s autobiography“Halfway round the Harbour”). It was published for the centennial by the Dept of Internal Affairs. See refs to the 1940 DNZB in Scholefield’s own biographical entry: Scholefield bio WPL listing Hugo999 ( talk) 09:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you please redo your edits. You buried a number of vandalistic edits. Good practice to check the history first, regardless of how tiresome it is to always have to be on guard against stupid people.... Amandajm ( talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I've noted your message on my talk page today and responded to the info at the DYK entry. Richard Harvey ( talk) 15:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've done the stuff you requested. Pitke ( talk) 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Kennst du die Arbeitsliste unter de:Benutzer:Matthiasb/Historic Places in Christchurch? -- 91.17.147.10 ( talk) 13:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Not bad... 31 articles in half an hour :) Grutness... wha? 06:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
...for tidying up my talk page :) Looks like an anon was unhappy that I'd blocked them for vandalism... Grutness... wha? 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Schwede, This is with respect to IceMole DYK which you had brought back from prep to main page. I have addressed two sets of concerns of User:Gerda Arendt which she has acknowledged. Now she has stated on the DYK that she does not feel confident about the English language and would prefer someone else to vet and pass it. May I request you to do the needful? AshLin ( talk) 18:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar on the DYK talk page. Much appreciated. Schwede 66 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Arthur Dudley Dobson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Der yck C. 22:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries, Schwede! It's all fine now. One more thing... I love New Zealand, having visited it in 2002. If you'd like to collaborate on any NZ articles, particularly those that are dyk nom-worthy, just let me know. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. How about if I start the article Chief Post Office (Christchurch)? I found some info on it, so it seems easy enough. I notice there's a redlink for Chief Post Office, Christchurch but that doesn't seem to match up with the naming convention of other post offices in Category:Post office buildings, i.e. Central Post Office Building (Jerusalem), General Post Office (Dublin), Old City Hall (Omaha). Your thoughts? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
And we can always re-name it later if there's a particular NZ building naming convention that supports calling it something else. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
C class should be easy enough for this one. I think there's a good start for today; more tomorrow. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Schwede66, thank you for your comments on my DYK nomination. I have addressed both concerns and believe that the article is now much improved. If you have a moment, please re-evaluate the nom with these updates. Thanks! Cmprince ( talk) 20:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:New articles (New Zealand) obviously specifies new "articles" but couldn't new images be added to it as well? Or should a dedicated page be created? I uploaded an image of the new New Zealand Defence Service Medal to Commons today, but am not sure how to alert kiwi users that it is available if someone wants to use it. (Incidentally, I have asked for the file name to be amended to the actual name of the medal, the New Zealand Defence Service Medal. I left the word "Service" off which might cause confusion in the future). Moriori ( talk) 00:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Schwede, I've started this one and it'll be nice to work with you on it. I'll be back to it tomorrow. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's ready for dyk nom, but it would benefit from an infobox, and some talkpage wikiprojects. No worries if you're working on other things. Is there a citation for the demolition? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 05:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for handling the nom. The article looks great; the photos of course make it 'pop'. So sad, though, that it's been demolished. It's really great working with you, Schwede. Let's do another -- you pick. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)