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)Reply[reply]

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

"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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The main thing is fleshing out the description nicely. I had a look for some technical articles but I only have access to medical stuff (I'm a doctor) not biological journals. Sabine's Sunbird has been a great help finding some journal goodies. The other thing is to have a lead which summarises the salient points in the article, which I may have a stab at.

In terms of style, I'd have distribution and habitat as a section after description and then conservation as a subsection of that but if you like it a different way and it flows better that's fine. I am an aussie so don't know much about the bird. What else is there that is not convered by the article? I couldn't see much on why it is classified as a pachycephalid but it would be good to find out where and why. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm, had a thought - anything more on Maori legends about them? Also, maybe a photo as well as the painting...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

... for your compliment. However, I would like to thank the MWT.It is a tool used for spotting recent changes, and it's great; its simple and effective. As a recent changes patroller, its nice to have it. Maybe you become one too, haha. Optakeover 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you added an "unreferenced" tag to this article. What do you exactly expect? A reference for each single fact stated in the article, or what? Look, most of the info is measured or taken from the map in the article, or from the external reference given. The rest, IMHO, can easily verified by Google. If there is anything you cannot verify, let me know. Otherwise, please take away the unreferenced tag.--Ratzer 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having read the previous discussions on this page I think you may have been a little overzealous with the tags. Moving to referencing will take time and there is a big question on how far to go. I use ^{[citation needed]} tags after sentences that I think are worth referencing, rather than put a label at the top of the article. I tend to think that a big Unsourced tag at the top of a page which you may know is factaul but just lacking the refs may do more harm than good in hte long run. OTOH precise tags can be a great way of researching and sourcing more interesting stuff for an article.

PS: Thanks for asking for my input (Hey someone thinks I'm an authority 'round here hehehehe) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you were/are tryingto be helpful. An analogy is at FAC when someone gives something specific as an objection vs a general one (which is insanely irritating). Anyway, just use those tags when you see something controversial and good luck :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you inserted some content into this article with a reference, New Zealand Frogs and reptiles", Brian Gill and Tony Whitaker, David Bateman publishing, 1998.

The content is:

It differs from the "common" tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus) in two key morphological aspects, firstly in having dark olive skin with yellowish patches, by contrast the common tuatara Sphenodon punctatus is "Olive green or slate-grey;finely speckled"^[1]. Secondly, individuals of this species are smaller than punctatus animals, having an SVL ( snout to vent length) of up to 250 mm and a maximum weight of up to 660 g - by contrast punctatus animals can reach a SVL of 280mm and weigh up to 1.3 kg.

Only the first sentence seems to be supported by the reference. Can you let me know whether the second sentence is also supported by the same reference? This would really help. It's best if you reply at Talk:Tuatara. Many thanks! Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you're not replying, I'll assume the answer is "no" and proceed accordingly. Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for the reply! I hope things are better for you now, sorry if I pressured you. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kotare, just stopping by to say thanks for the kind words you left on my user page. ArthurWeasley 15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Korare. I prefer inline myself for the reasons you said - I initially began adding them as inline but then realized we can't have both inline and Harvard in the one article, so I reluctantly changed them. If you'd like to change them to inline by all means do so. Most of the material I added are based on a collection of notes prepared by Dr. Shane Wright from the University of Auckland, so I'm a little concerned with the referencing - we'll have to find alternative sources since study material certainly won't cut it, not to mention that it's not available freely online. I'm planning to add about the same amount again on the regeneration and geological history of the tree as well, which should beef up the article a bit. Richard001 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. You've been doing good work on NZ CPs yourself. :) I'd like to help out with other genera, but unfortunately my knowledge is mostly limited to Nepenthes. Regards, Mgiganteus1 13:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I misremembered, it was in the discussion of the Orange-fronted Parakeet discussion that someone objected to Orange-fronted Parakeet (New Zealand); not the wren - for the wren it was simply suggested that the IUCN name be used. I understand the case for using a worldwide standard naming system, but it seems that whenever a name is shared the New Zealand name has been ignored. I suggest leaving a note on the talk page proposing the move formally (I'll support it) and giving the fact that the species is only known as the Rock Wren throughout the whole of its range as the reason. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Msikma

I've just been editing the "in Maori culture" section for the Kakapo article and in the process reverted a few of the edits you made a couple of weeks ago after this section was integrated into the article. You were actually very reasonable in editing and I really appreciate that you left messages in the text explaing why some text shouldn't be included ( I agree for the legend and stuff about stringing kakapo heads through nostrils and will work on these bits in the future). I have carefully thought out the reverts and have written justifications for why I made them on the Talk:Kakapo page.I hope this section can be left as is because I'm pretty happy with it but if you have any problems please leave a message on my talk page.

Regards, Kotare 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I think that the section looks great, and I've given it a minor copyedit. I did remove one part about the fern root storage, but it should be added back in (you can probably best decide where, maybe you could add some context to it as well). I've given a bit more in-depth explanation on the talk page. —msikma (user, talk) 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey dude, I got thrown off track with regards to the kakapo "place in maori culture" section but will be able to turn my attention to it again soon. You're right about the fern root thing being a bit out of place/incongruous and I will see if I can find some more information to put it in context. Yeah and it would be nice to find some stuff about their place in NZ culture in more recent times, I agree, will look into it. Thanks for your constructive attitude and the suggestions, it's always good to get feedback :) Cheers, Nick

Hi there. You have great timing. I just came back today, a little earlier than expected. Glad to hear you're still interested. There's also another thing that you might be able to look at, something I posted in Wikiproject birds before: [1]. It's a question regarding what seems to be inconsistent or inconclusive taxonomy. Maybe I'm just reading it wrongly, but perhaps a bit extra text there would be well placed. I can't really do it, though, since I haven't had any theoretical biology since high school. Thanks, and see you around! —msikma (user, talk) 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You wrote: "Hey there I just looked at your gallery and you've taken some amazing photos.. great stuff keep it up, photographers make an important and valuable contribution to wikipedia - after all "a picture is worth a thousand words". Landscape/nature photography is something I'd like to dabble in - would I be able to ask you some questions about this subject at some point in the future? Cheers, Kotare 11:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)"
  • Hi Kotare. Thanks for the kind words. I've just added a few more photos (which have been up for a while) to User:KeresH_Gallery. I'm happy to answer questions about photography, as I actually got my BFA in Fine Arts photograhy. My partner (an environmental facilitator for the Aus. federal gov.) and I are taking our first trip to NZ later this year, from mid-November to early December, touring mostly the South Island but doing a stretch of the North Island as well. I expect to come home with at least a thousand digital images to sort through. Cheers KeresH 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hello again, and sorry for stuffing up your user page. As I mentioned on mine, I'm a photographer (and therefore should not be allowed to mess with text). ;) KeresH 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

if you're reading this message, it's because you're a person who has edited either of the Wellington articles. This is a courtesy note to let you know that I proposed a merger between the two pages, and we need to know your opinion. Kripto 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'm glad you've been making contributions to Wikipedia... thanks for reminding me of my addiction here. ;) I've been pretty busy this summer and haven't been very active, just making fixes here and there as time allows. I am indeed based in the US, though I've traveled to Mexico, which is how I ended up with so many Pinguicula photos (Pinguicula moranensis, etc.). I still have pictures of a dozen more Pinguicula species to make articles for, but time is of course the limiting factor.

As far as D. filiformis goes, I unfortunately haven't made it out to the east coast. I may have pictures from Albion (the naturalized CP garden in Mendocino County, CA). Also check out the picture to the right, which someone stuck on the Sundew page recently. Its not on commons, but you can use it on the English Wikipedia. NoahElhardt 07:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was previously nominated but was not promoted. I think it still needs a fair bit of work before it meets FA standards. Mgiganteus1 06:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm. I was eyeing up Cyanoramphus myself. Though you're right the wattlebirds need work too. Fact is I'm kind of swamped at the minute; I really need to finish bird before I do anything else; and real life shit is piling up (I've just recovered from the flu, am moving in just over a week and the PhD stuff keeps piling up). So I can't promise any help, but I will try. One other point, while I am fully for Māori names when they are commonly used (ie Kokako or Kereru), I don't think the Saddleback is commonly called by its Māori name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went with Pipipi since it was the name used in the latest Gill and Wright standardised list of world bird names. [2]. I wouldn't mind if it was changed back really. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've placed a note about your recent edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. I suspect that your use of common names in the taxoboxes may generate some controversy, as the issue of common names for plants--particularly which one is the most common, accurate, appropriate, or correct--has been a huge can of worms in the plant articles. MrDarwin 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice you've been working hard on whitehead - have you found the Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds in the library yet? Best reference work for Kiwi birds there is. It's in the reference section on level two Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PhD students don't get 'breaks'. As for photos of whiteheads, I was planning on going to karori one sunny weekend and trying my luck, they are fairly common. BTW, saw a kotare on the streetlight outside the university yesterday. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, am interested. We can take another look at the albatross and the kākāpō too. Maybe keep the Māori-culture sections fairly brief and to the point Kahuroa 00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will look forward to working with you on this. Just a thought - what about a separate article dedicated to birds in Māori culture? Would that work? Kahuroa 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Butting in...) - sounds good to me. I like indigenous and cultural refs on bird pages. Ain't looked at Kakapo for a wee while....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Huia is shaping up nicely. I've had a bit of a fiddle. Have a read and slot in the imperial refs too like on Kereru. Also I expanded the lead a bit, a bit more on feathers and maori connexion would be cool. Good work. Gonna get kicked off the computer in a bit. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not do something real snazzy and try to work one of these up for FA? There are loads of good comparisons like Kakapo and Common Raven.....I'll help...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not too hot on NZ bird knowledge as I am on aussie birds - could Kokako be nice and chunky? Have a think, if so then we can start to work it up. I've notched up a few FAs under me belt now so it is not too hard :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey thanks for the barnstar! I'm glad someone noticed my work. :) Mgiganteus1 18:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a general article could be useful, something to think about; much of the practical uses would be similar and could be covered in one sweep. Regarding the Māori culture sections you've been adding, there is one thing I would advise. That is to try and keep to the more practical aspects that relate more to observations of the birds behaviour, uses as food or feathers or decoration, and avoiding getting into the more spiritual stuff. Because the more spiritual stuff is loaded with traps for the unwary. Some of Murdoch Riley that you have quoted seems to be a bit like this, as it seems to depend on stuff from the controversial Matorohanga school of the late 19th/early 20th century, which came up with things/gods/numbers of heavens that no one had heard of before then. This stuff is controversial - Te Ara, for instance regards Matorohanga as having deliberately fabricated the Great Fleet migration stuff which became the orthodox view until the 1960s. On the other hand, when the gods mentioned occur widely in other sources, they are probably legit. Also, when a source says 'X was the most sacred bird to Māori', such things are dubious - how do they know, how did they arrive at that? - because, as is the nature of oral cultures, Māori weren't in the habit of creating ranked lists. Also 'tapu' - cannot really be translated accurately as 'sacred', tho it often is translated so. You really need a source that is deeply cognisant of the culture. Elsdon Best is another who needs to be treated with some caution, better to keep to the practical with him too. Margaret Orbell is often a good source when she mentions birds, she is pretty sane and her work is grounded in understandings that arise out of her work on the oral literature, so you're less likely to be led astray. Kahuroa 03:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will replace the stuff on the marereko because I have found some other references to it. Sorry Kahuroa 07:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking good - compare with American Goldfinch which is a recent bird FA...with some copyediting and tidying (eg book refs need isbns, check everything looks nice in cite format - have a look at how I cited the books in the ref section of Red-tailed Black Cockatoo which is up at FAC at the moment. I'll have a proper read through a bit later (finger in too many wiki-pies at the present.). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Sorry I meant to add I wouldn't worry too much about GA....actually now I think of it maybe a good thing to see what else comes up. Nominate away and see what happens. Plenty go on to FAC relatively quickly. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

have found a Lindauer portrait with a huia skin/beak worn as a pōhoi. Will upload soonish. Kahuroa 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good news! I went to Tiritiri Matangi yesterday and managed to get some great images of Stitchbirds, Saddlebacks and even the highly tricky not to mention unable to bloody sit still Whitehead! I'll be uploading them later this week (where I am now makes it hard) 04:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm crazy busy, what with Nanowrimo and my PhD. Colabs are going to have to wait till the new year for the moment. Oh, and My camera is a Canon Digital Rebel. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kotare. To change the status you edit the fate field in the ship table, 19 lines down. However as far as I know Rotoiti's official status is still "fitting out", albeit undergoing sea-trials and acceptance testing, and she has not yet been commissioned.--Geronimo20 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup, the NZ navy website is "official", and everything on it has been officially cleared. Significant events are also publicly tabled by Phil Goff, as Minister of Defence, and then reported in the press.--Geronimo20 (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Kotare for the acknowledgment here. That's the best sort of compliment, in many ways. The article is at FAC, here. Any comments welcome. Marskell (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kotare!,
I'd ask him how he would like the photos to be credited and use that or you can just fill in as much as you can in the info template (eg Image:Heron - natures pics.jpg). That should probably do the trick - good luck with it! The S5 IS is a lovely little camera - I fully support your choice! Any advice? Hmm that's a bit hard to answer without a more specific context. I would say as general advice for P&S style cameras (like yours) is to keep the ISO down - quality really degrades rapidly beyond ISO 200. Obviously in some circumstances you'll need to crank it up, but avoid if at all possible. Other than that make sure your IS is set to continuous - that'll help in most circumstances!

Anyway thanks for the wishes and all the best to you! --Fir0002 09:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colabs are hard at the moment, I'm doing Procellariiformes on autopilot and have my one year review coming up. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The April 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The May 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for your comments on my reconstruction. Yes I am aware that it is not up to date and am planning to make a new one (should look more like an osprey if I understand correctly). And yes, I will be very interested in seeing photos of recent reconstructions. These would be very helpful. By the way, do you have any information about Aiolornis as well, somebody has requested a picture but as far as I know it is only known from a few bones...? Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The June 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking of the June WikiProject Birds newsletter, it inspired my user page redesign. But now to the nitty gritty. Can you let me know if there are any NZ birds we need pix of in particular. I've had a bit of luck with Kereru of late, so while the iron's hot. I am trying to track down some of the Australasian Harrier (Kāhu)... ) Kahuroa (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got a couple of the Kāhu and a few others so far, see my flickr gallery - tho I am hoping to get a really good'n of the Kāhu. Have been promised a nice rock wren too, when the flickr author gets back from his travels in Italy. Here's hoping Kāhuroa (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The February 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Addbot (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would pigs not be a kiwi predator? Pigs are large omnivores, surely a kiwi would be a good snack should one happen across one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're working on the Kiwi article with a view to FAC, you should hit the HANZAB volume in the reference section of the library. The article at present is rather overly reliant on websites instead of monographs and journals. I'd help, but I have to get woodpecker to GA in a month (per a dumb promise I made). I can certainly review the article before it takes the plunge though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The October 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The February 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]

I had this lame idea of getting as many bird FAs and GAs by the end of the year, I thought this one looked pretty good - is there still material you want to add? I view GA as a good "stable-point" or "way point" Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, if you are around, Huia has nearly passed GA, if you had anything to add to Talk:Huia/GA1#Review_1 that would be great in terms of clarifying references etc.

hurriedly, Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Casliber. Argh this is incredibly frustrating for me, I did so much work on this article - especially the "place in maori culture" section and I'd love to be able to do more but these days I'm so busy that I honestly just don't have the time to contribute a lot - hence why i'm replying a few days late, having not logged in for a while. I will have a glance at some of the points you made tonight but otherwise will have to put it to one side for a bit. I'm taking some leave from the 24th to the 3rd of February and I can hopefully then FINALLY find the time to rip into this article and make some improvements.. no promises but if everything goes according to plan I will be able to do it. i have some questions though...

1.You are a prolific contributor and very active member of the wikipedia community, yet I assume you're pretty busy person too, what with the research that you do ( or so I gather from your profile page). i only found I could really comfortably contribute to wikipedia during months long university holidays - but i no longer have the luxury of having those - Any tips on how to fit in wikipedia editing time?

I was really lucky in that I didn't find WP while I was still studying, I think it would have been dangerous :). However, one could always try and improve material one is actually studying for in exams. Otherwise, it is really a matter of knowing yourself and insisting on prioritising study or other stuff first. This differs for everyone.

2. The edits I like to make most are the ones which I did on "Huia" - adding lots of new, well referenced material to expand an article substantially. However, I'm not quite sure how to go about the research bit.. It seems like a lot of editors have got some kind of system going..Here is how I did it back in '07; I simply went to the uni library and wellington central library and and got out all the books about the Huia I could find - in additon to magazine articles and books about it which i own. Next I read through all the information i had gathered and underlined the relavant stuff with pencil - then I categorised it according to what the info. was about - the categories I had were ( to give you an idea)

1. Description . 2. distribution and habitat 3. Behaviour - etc

I numbered the paragraphs according to what type of info. they covered. Then I went through and collated all the info. for each number/category of information and composed my writing straight onto wikipedia.

I didn't really know how to go about doing the research and may have sort of been "reinventing the wheel" a bit (so to speak). how do seasoned editors like yourself do it? and do you track down more hard to reach info. from scientific journal articles by ordering them in somehow? and finally, is there somewhere on wikipedia with hints as to how to do original research to write an article?

Your approach is very similar to mine, the extra requirements since '07 is that for page numbers, which I would be insanely grateful if you could add to Huia. There are many helpful folks who can access fulltext articles. I can do it for medical ones (but not biology), Sabines Sunbird can get fulltext bio articles, and many are published online. I have also emailed autgors and some are only too pleased to send and be referenced. As far as Original research, be careful as a 'pedia is only supposed to report facts rather than make new inferences.

Your response would be greatly appreciated and very helpful Hope the summer weather is treating you guys well across the ditch, Cheers, Kotare (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers to you too, more later as I am running 'round like a headless chook today! Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Research

Yeah, so, everyone has their own way. I think it varies on what you are writing, I don't write family articles the same way I write species articles. For a family article I take a text (usually HBW) read it through a bit and then just start writing. I usually work sectionally, write the breeding section, write the habitat and migration section, etc etc etc. I'm really very haphazard about it. Having gotten down some content I'll then use Google Scholar to hunt down journal articles that I can use to cite what I've written. I may find good examples and expand the text that way. Having done that anything that I can't cite from journals I can then cite with the general HBW reference. Check out fantail for an example of an article that I have written without adding all the individual citations yet (it is a hard one as there aren't many studies that aren't grey or willie wagtails) I'm not sure there is a wrong or right way to do it. There is just whatever way works for you. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you ask someone how their PhD is going and they don't reply it is safe to assume that it could be going better. I guess I roughly do species articles in the same way as family ones, except I start with several smaller texts instead of one big text as there is seldom enough in one text to make a huge article. Perhaps use the HBW to get the bare bones structure and then hunt down info to flesh it out. The only two articles I have done this with and pushed most or all of the way are Cattle Egret and Golden White-eye. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The March 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The April 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The May 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 06:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The June 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Newsletter delivery by –xeno ^talk 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hehe, in short it was an off the cuff comment from myself - just a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who cites GW as the cause for anything unsuall happening in the weather! Lugnuts (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I can certainly help in getting an article to FA; which one were you thinking of working on? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to see you back. Had a bit of a break myself for a while Kahuroa (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man. You must have had a great time! Can't think of any more sources for Huia - anything in the library at Uni? I have a copy of Murdoch Riley now, as you know he's got a lot of info but I think he is a bit undiscerning with the the quality of one or two of his sources. I also have a book by Margaret Orbell, Birds of Aotearoa, a natural and cultural history which has four pages on the huia. I could see if there is anything in those two that I could add to the Maori section of the article. I also have Extinct Birds by Errol Fuller, it has four pages on the huia, but I'm not sure there would be much new there. I had this on the Huia talk page, but I will move it here - I didn't want to add anything below the Good Article review header - don't know why its just floating there. Anyway, I have found an illustration from Gould of the male and female heads circa 1838 File:Huia-heads.jpg which might look nice in the page instead of the two svgs?? And I was thinking a pic like File:Hinepare.jpg might be better than the black and white one there now, but I will look for some more pix, there is one of a man wearing seven feathers, from a painting by Lindauer [3] but I haven't been able to find a library or published source for it so I can upload it to commons. Kahuroa (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny to see both you guys back at the same time after taking a break for a bit - Kotare there should be a 'email this user' in the left hand tool box thingumyjig. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no problem adding what you did to the lead (it needed beefing up). However, if it is in the lead, there should be a paragraph or two in the body concerning the subject (conservation), and there doesn't seem to be any. speednat (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kotare. You have new messages at Adabow's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I notice you've added stuff to Huia about guilds. Seems a strangely anthropomorphic notion to me. Guild - in humans it's a old old-fashioned word for a trade union or something. Do ornithologists still use the term? Does it have anything to do with how the birds actually fed? Did they act as if they were in a guild? Kahuroa (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't actually heard of the term before, though I had seen people talking about different guilds, just not calling them guilds.. in; John Dawson and R. Lucas. 2000. The Nature Guide to the New Zealand Forest, Godwit Publishing. In 2 of my sources - both very scholarly and one particularly so - there is extensive info on guilds. there are about 8 pages worth of info on ecological guilds in the NZ forest of native birds in The Lost World of the Moa and they are also talked about in "The Flight of the Huia". The former title was a bit of a landmark book, here's a review from amazon.

From Scientific American This book is about much moa than moas. It places these extinct giant birds in the world of their curious contemporary fauna-- the kiwis and tuataras, the walking worms and giant land mollusks that lived with the moas in "the land that time forgot." Now an archipelago, New Zealand was once part of the large southern continent of Gondwana. "Before the end of the age of dinosaurs, a fragment of Gondwana broke free, carrying with it a ready-made fauna," the authors write. Isolated, this fauna was protected from overland invasions by other animals and followed its own unique evolutionary path, along which birds-- and even bats-- became flightless. Some 80 million years later primitive forms still dominated. Sadly, most of these species were ill prepared to face the new mammalian predators brought by humans. Worthy, a research associate at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, and Holdaway, an independent researcher who works for the New Zealand government and the University of Canterbury, have given us the definitive book on this world and its demise-- more than 600 pages of scholarly, copiously illustrated, lucidly presented information.

Editors of Scientific American

The term seems to be used quite a bit by prominenet NZ ecologists and zoologists in several important books about NZ biodiversity- In short, don't take my word for it! haha Kotare (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had actually heard of it before. Regardless, my question remains about what it means bird behaviour-wise. Is it just a shorthand way of categorising types of feeding behaviour. It'll need explaining or wikilinking at least. Kahuroa (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I have 4 pages from hanzab vol 7A on huia. So what does vol 6, which you cite, have? Same same? Why do they have 2 entries? Kahuroa (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see why you had the hyphens there, but it really doesn't conform with the Manual of Style when you do it like that. You have a lot of information and a pretty healthy number of sources; you just need a MASSIVE copyedit to make sure that it conforms with the MOS. I spot a number of grammatical errors just from a skim of the article. I'll be around shortly to perform a copyedit as best as I can, but in the meanwhile, look for those images. If you can provide alt text for the images too, that would be helpful. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, please use citation templates for your citations. They really help to standardize how the citations are formatted. bibliomaniac15 16:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yeah man, email me the images etc. No worries, glad to help Kahuroa (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kotare. You have new messages at Casliber's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Nice work on the FA nomination, it needed someone to take charge and you did. Looks like it's going v good so far. I emailed you that reworked Naultinus pic, was a lot of work because it had such major probs to start with, not sure if it's usable or not. Did you get it? Kahuroa (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks man! Yeah I think it will be good to use there, it looks much better; thanks again :) Kotare (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! Great work on Huia! Another FA from NZ... Grutness...wha? 11:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers, man. Hope to see you back here soon -we need more editors like you :) Grutness...wha? 05:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, come back soon Kahuroa (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aww.. thanks guys! It's nice to know my work is appreciated and your comments are very encouraging :) You're too kind! I note with interest that NZ has a relatively small number of FAs relative to other developed nations and I look forward to working with you guys when I do come back to further work towards changing this situation. Paz! Kotare (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Bio-star
		Choice bro'!! For all your work on biology articles on wikipedia. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, in which you are listed as a member, we're working on a pretty massive backlog (1000+ articles!) of unassessed articles. We would appreciate it greatly if you would help assess the articles in the link. It's simple to do!

1. Read over the article.
2. On the discussion page, look for the ((AARTalk)) template. Add in a "class" and "importance" parameter if the template does not have them already. Example: ((AARTalk|class= |importance= ))
3. For the class, fill in the article's quality using the WikiProject's quality scale: stub, start, C, B, GA, A, or FA. Most unassessed articles will probably be stubs or start class articles, and definitely B or lower.
4. For the importance, fill in the article's importance to the WikiProject using the importance scale: low, mid, high, or top. Most unassessed articles will probably be low or mid importance.
5. Then you're done!

It's not a difficult task, but there's a lot to get done. Our hope is that we can chip through the backlog and assess every article within the auspices of the project. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Huia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 6, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 6, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Huia, which became extinct in the early 20th century, was the largest species of New Zealand wattlebird. It belonged to a family found only in New Zealand, one so ancient that no relation is found elsewhere. Already rare before Europeans arrived in New Zealand, it was confined to some mountain ranges in the south east of the North Island. It had deep metallic, bluish-black plumage with a greenish iridescence on the upper surface, especially about the head. It was remarkable for having the most pronounced sexual dimorphism in bill shape of any species of bird in the world. The female's beak was long, thin and arched downward, while the male's was short and stout. The last confirmed sighting was in 1907. Its extinction had two main causes: overhunting to procure Huia skins for mounted specimens for museums and private collectors, and widespread deforestation by European settlers to create agricultural pasture. The Huia is one of New Zealand's best known extinct birds because of its bill shape, its sheer beauty and special place in Māori culture and oral tradition. Māori regarded the bird as tapu (sacred), and the wearing of its skin or feathers was reserved for people of high status. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nature conservation
Thank you, proud Kiwi, for quality articles on birds of New Zealand, such as the Huia, fighting for "our world's beauty, complexity, intellectual interest, spiritual depth and ecological health", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 388th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 388 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kia ora! The Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand User Group invites you to read about the call for applications for a Wikipedian-at-Large for Aotearoa New Zealand in 2024. Group members are happy to explain the process and discuss ideas with interested editors.

Sent by Zippybonzo on behalf of MurielMary using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]