Hello, Wainuiomartian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to drop you a line to say thanks for attending the recent Wellington Wikipedia meetup and wishing you success in your future editing! Please feel free to ask any of us questions or let us know if you need any help. - Ambrosia10 (talk)

Arthur Aldrich, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Schwede66 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:PaddyTheWanderer.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PaddyTheWanderer.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|cc-by-sa-4.0)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monty Soutar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, here are a few thoughts about the Evans Bay, New Zealand article that you discussed at our Wellington meetup this morning.

Overall, the existing article is not too long. The typical guideline for splitting based on length is around 4 times as long as the Evans Bay article at present.

However, there is a great diversity of topics covered in the existing Evans Bay article, and I think there is merit in splitting out separate articles based on content. This depends on the "notability" of these subtopics, and whether there are enough citations. My initial suggestions are to consider establishing new articles for at least these topics:

• Greta Point Patent slip
• Flying boats in Wellington

I leave you to consider the best titles if you go down this track. Hopefully, it would be possible to gather a set of images to illustrate each of the new topics, and put these images into a Gallery in the new articles.

For any subtopic you decide to create a new article, I recommend you leave a heading and a sentence or two about the subtopic in the main Evans Bay article, and add the "main" template see: Template:Main, to link to the new article on that sub-topic.

I am happy to chip in and help with these, if you get in touch, and I will put the Evans Bay article on my watch list Cheers, Marshelec (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I was thinking that the Patent Slip deserved its own page.Wainuiomartian (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to WP:ME, minor edits "include typographical corrections, corrections of minor formatting errors, and reversion of obvious vandalism. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Your edit removing the systemic racism statement on David Seymour (New Zealand politician) was not per WP:ME. I recommend a considered approach to the minor edit tick box in future. Your edit was, however, helpful. It highlighted a point that required citation. It is for this reason I thanked you then and now. Te Karere (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on the new article. One thing that needs attention is creating a lead, with a first sentence that has the name in bold. Also, you will need to change the first heading so that it is not the same as the name of the article. I will have a more detailed look shortly.  :) Marshelec (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good stuff. A great next step would be to add an Infobx. If you want to see an example where and how this is used, try Auckland Domain. Also, don't forget to put the name of the article in bold in the first sentence. :) Marshelec (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of other suggestions: (1) Try using the Blockquote template for presenting the inscription on the Wahine memorial. It would make the quote stand out better. See template:quote. (2) The External links section should be after the References section (and it should be External links, not External Links) - Wikipedia uses "sentence case" for headings. See: Wikipedia:Titling in sentence case Marshelec (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adviceWainuiomartian (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kia ora,

We are meeting on Thursday 17 March at 7.30pm on Zoom to establish Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand Inc ("WANZ Inc") as an Incorporated Society. Please do join us. You can find more information here

Einebillion (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your great work on this article, and the content split off into Evans Bay Patent Slip.-- Marshelec (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wainuiomartian. Thank you for your work on BNZ Harbour Quays. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have done such a great job on BNZ Harbour Quays, it led me on to thinking about other notable Wellington buildings that have suffered from earthquake damage. I am particularly interested in the Wellington Central Library. At present, the building and its associated issues are a sub-section of Wellington City Libraries. However, I think the building clearly warrants its own article. It is a Category 1 listed building [1], and there are lots of mentions in the press of the building and the earthquake damage, alternatives considered, and its repair and redevelopment. Are you interested in a joint project ?? Marshelec (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that would be interesting! How to proceed? Can you start it somewhere that's not live and I add to it? Or do we build the page while it's live?Wainuiomartian (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the page for Wellington City Libraries, it's mostly about the Central Library. I would like to see that page expanded too so that it's more of a big picture, and move most of the Central Library info to your proposed new page. I've started on it in my sandbox for shifting later.Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marshelec talk I've added some info about Central Library to the Wellington City Libraries page. You could move it to its own page perhaps?Wainuiomartian (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the great work you have already done. I have put a comment on the Talk page of the Wellington City Libraries article signalling an intention to split off the content about the building. I think this is not in the least controversial, so propose we go ahead in a few days. Here is another useful bit of info about the building: it is now actually classed as a Category 1 Listed Historic PLace. See: https://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list/details/9761 We can include this in an infobox, just like we did with the Evans Bay Patent Slip., but it should also be mentioned in the lead and the body of the new article. I note that the page Wellington Central Library already exists as a redirect page. The name is the right name for the new article, so we will overwrite the redirect. I will try to dig up some new sources myself in the next few days. Finding images might be a problem. I think once we have the new article live, we might directly approach either the City Council or Athfield Architects, and ask if they will grant a CC-BY-2.0 licence for a good photo of the building (you never know till you ask :). It would also be good to dig up some more content about the old library building on the north side of Civic Square (and there are photos of that in Commons. See: c:File:City Gallery, Wellington.tif. I am sure this will be an interesting project. :) Marshelec (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As discussed, I recommend you nominate the article Evans Bay Patent Slip for Good Article assessment. The article needs to meet the six criteria set out in the Criteria tab at WP:GACR. I am confident there will be no major issues. The process for nomination is simple, and is set out at WP:GANI. One thing you need to do is choose a topic/category (these are used for convenience in organising articles for review). See WP:GAN. Of the topics available, I suggest Transport is the most suitable for this article. It may take a considerable time after the nomination is submitted for another editor to agree to be the reviewer, but given that the article is relatively short, it may attract a reviewer quite quickly. The reviewer is expected to assess the article against the six criteria and document their findings. Usually, there is an exchange where the reviewer suggests a change or improvement, and the nominator responds as they see fit. This dialogue happens on a special version of the talk page that is automatically created when the nomination is submitted. As an example, see: Talk:Wangapeka Track/GA1 (this was a really robust review by an expert editor). Marshelec (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, have done that. Wainuiomartian (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great stuff :). I see that it has (probably randomly) ended up as no 3 on the list of Transport articles at WP:GAN#TRANS. That will hopefully help to get an early review, along with the fact that the article is reasonably brief, and that undertaking the GA review will require less work than a much longer article. I am sure this will prove to be a useful exercise, but it may take several weeks before a reviewer volunteers. Marshelec (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for your help. Wainuiomartian (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Evans Bay Patent Slip you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Evans Bay Patent Slip and Talk:Evans Bay Patent Slip/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Evans Bay Patent Slip you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Evans Bay Patent Slip for comments about the article, and Talk:Evans Bay Patent Slip/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much. That was an interesting experience.Wainuiomartian (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations. Great work. Would you consider a DYK nomination for this article ? Marshelec

Yes, why not. Great work by you too! It's all new but interesting.Wainuiomartian (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marshelec, I got a message from DYK, it's waiting on QPQ. I have no idea what that involves (Queue and Preparation...) or when /if it will appear.Wainuiomartian (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What this means is "Quid-pro-Quo", and is about the need for people who submit a "Did you know" nomination to undertake the review of someone else's submission. However, new submitters are exempt from undertaking a QPQ review for their first 5 DYK submissions. I have forgotten the details but I think you can say "Exempt" (I presume you have not submitted 5 already !). See section 5 under WP:DYKCRIT. Hope this helps you to resolve things :) Marshelec (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the reviewer says it's good to go...Wainuiomartian (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kia ora, how are you placed for a relatively small amount of work to bring the article National War Memorial (New Zealand) more up to date ? I have made suggestions here: Talk:National_War_Memorial_(New_Zealand)#Earthquake_strengthening_of_carillon_tower. However, I would probably not be able to get to this for ages. Marshelec (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will have a look.Wainuiomartian (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 6 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Evans Bay Patent Slip, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Evans Bay Patent Slip was built in 1871 using hundreds of tons of machinery that had sat on a beach for five years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Evans Bay Patent Slip. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Evans Bay Patent Slip), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waiwhetu Aquifer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Marshelec (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on the map image that you created to use in the infobox of Waiwhetu Aquifer. Looking at the image en:commons:File:Map_of_Waiwhetu_aquifer.png, I see you have assigned the category: Waiwhetu aquifer. This new Commons category name is still red-linked. All you need to do to actually create the new category is to go to the image, and click on the red linked category, and then put a bit of information about the aquifer into the description field of the page that appears. Once the category is in place, there are several images in commons that should be assigned to this new category. Once the new category is in place, it should also be linked from the article, with a commons category template. On a separate point, I think the 3-d cross-sectional schematic would still be useful in the article, if you can find the right place. If you are unsure about any of this, just get back to me. Cheers, Marshelec (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the 3D image is great but I didn't use it because I wasn't sure of copyright. I just moved it down the page a little - feel free to move it some more. I will have a go at your category instructions.Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that the official name for Waiwhetu has a macron over the u. See: [2]. What is your view about the most common spelling in reasonably current sources ? If there is a good proportion now using the macron then it would be appropriate to move the Waiwhetu Aquifer article to a spelling Waiwhetū. I will have a look at sources as well, but what do you think ? Marshelec (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't seen any sources that use a macron. Even the map on the Gazetteer doesn't use them. I've never seen the word whetu with a macron either - I wonder when it was decided it should have one? I would leave it as it is.Wainuiomartian (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kia ora, I saw the notification that the image in the Infobox of Waiwhetu Aquifer is up for speedy deletion because the base map is copyright. I recalled looking into this before, and thought that NZ TopoMaps are free of copyright, and you can use those instead. I decided to check, by messaging the NZTopomaps people and got this confirmation in a reply this morning, so you can go ahead and produce another version using NZ Topo Maps as a base. "From: Gavin Harriss <gavin@topomap.co.nz>

Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 10:42 AM
To: marshallclark21@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Message sent via www.topomap.co.nz

Hi Marshall,

There's no issues with copyright, all original map imagery is sourced from LINZ who allows re-use of their imagery. You only need to mention LINZ as per their instructions. The link below gives a little more info at the bottom of the page regarding LINZ copyright and attrition:
https://www.linz.govt.nz/land/maps/where-find-maps-and-data

In case you find it useful, you can download the original high-resolution map imagery from http://www.topomap.co.nz/#Downloads which might be better quality depending on where you're publishing too.

If you want any screenshots of https://www.topomap.co.nz/ itself, I have no problems with that either.

All the best,
Gavin

Marshelec (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marshelec We've made another map. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Waiwhetu_aquifer.png Does it look okay, before I add it to the page? Daughter used Open Street Map and data from GWRC which says 'sharing level - public'.Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks fine to me. Good work. Marshelec (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please let me know if you are interested in creating a new article about the historic flock mill industrial facility powered by a water wheel on the Waiwhetū Stream. I have come across this topic while working on a new article about the Waiwhetū Stream. Here is where I have got to so far with the draft: Draft:Waiwhetū Stream. There is a really great website resource here: [3], that includes citations of sources that are all accessible. I found the story of the legal cases about the weir was interesting, but I think the details about the flock mill and the associated legal case are too much for the article about the stream, and would be better as a "child" article. Please have a look. Do you think there are sufficient sources to support a new article? Are you interested in summarising the story and presenting it as a new article? I have already uploaded one image to Wikimedia Commons here: en:c:File:Flock mill - Waiwhetu Stream ca 1910.jpg. What do you think? Marshelec (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's interesting. Yes, I can probably rustle up an article on the mill. Nice photo.Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added a little about the flock factory to your draft article - hope that's alright. I will keep looking and see what else I can find, with a view to creating an article. Wainuiomartian (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marshelec I have drafted up an article about the flock mill. Needs a bit of tidying. I found a map that appears to have the location of the mill: https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_013/jpg/NZMS013_WN82_1909.jpg. I have cropped the map and added a red circle round the mill. The same map is here and it says that it's a CC attribution, so can I go ahead and upload my cropped version to Commons? Wainuiomartian (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that is an interesting story and is a useful addition to the collection of articles about Wellington. It could be useful to add a sentence somewhere about the litigation receiving extensive newspaper coverage. When the article is published, the title could be shorter - perhaps just Flock Mill, Lower Hutt. It will be worthwhile to search out existing articles that can be linked to the new article once published (perhaps Waterloo, New Zealand ??). With regards to the map, yes, if it has a CC attribution license, then you can upload it to Commons, stating the source and licence etc. It might be best to upload the basic map, then make a modified version for the illustration ? Marshelec (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a further thought, I suggest simplifying and reducing the quoted content about flock mills. Some of the content is slightly off-topic, and it is currently flagged when I run the copyvio tool. It is a nuisance that there isn't an existing Wikipedia article about flock mills that can be linked to explain what they were.Marshelec (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on this new article :). I suggest a small re-arrangement and expansion of content to create a new section specifically about the disastrous Sesqui 1990, using a main template link to the existing article Sesqui 1990 and summary content. Also, a small change is needed to the Sesqui article to link to the new Winter Show Building article you have created.Marshelec (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added in a bit about Sesqui. And I might expand the Sesqui article later.Wainuiomartian (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Matiu / Somes Island you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dr vulpes -- Dr vulpes (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have placed a couple of polite enquiries and reminders on the talk page of the GA reviewer here: User_talk:Dr_vulpes#GA_review_of_Matiu_/_Somes_Island. The latest response from the reviewer indicates that progress will be made, but I see from the user contributions that there has been no editing activity for a couple of days. We can wait, but it would be great to get this finished off.Marshelec (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have waited long enough. The reviewer has not made progress for one month, and has been active since 9 July. I have reset the GA nomination, so we are back to square one. However, I have posted a request on the WPNZ talk page - perhaps we might get a local reviewer ?? Marshelec (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marshelec Is that why I got a message saying it had failed - because you reset it? Wainuiomartian (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that must be the reason. The reviewer Dr vulpes has not made any edits to the review for a month, has made only 4 edits since 30 June, and nothing since 9 July. This review was abandoned, so I followed the process specified in WP:GANI. I also posted a request for someone from our WikiProject New Zealand community to be a reviewer: Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#A_new_GA_reviewer_for_Matiu_/_Somes_Island_article. Let's hope someone responds. The article has been reset and shows as waiting for a reviewer here: WP:GAN. It has been a test of patience, and a bad look for the GA process, but let's hope we get there eventually. Marshelec (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on Draft:Wharves in Wellington Harbour :). Looking at the current page size: (16 kB (2819 words) "readable prose size"), it is nowhere near the threshold of concern, or where splitting might be needed. See: WP:SIZERULE

I know there is a fair bit more to do, but I found the existing content interesting, and easy to follow. I had no difficulty in reading right through. This new article will be a great addition to the suite of articles about the harbour. Where appropriate, once it is published, links to this new article article could be placed into some other Wellington articles that mention wharves, possibly using the "Main" template. I encourage you to continue with the current "story-telling" approach if possible, rather than condense it down into a table. Overall, I think it tells an important and interesting story about the role of wharves in facilitating the growth and development of Wellington Harbour, and how water transport remains a vital part of Wellington, the city and the region. It has turned into a reasonably large project for you, but I think it is really worthwhile. As time permits, I hope you will be able to gradually bring this to a state where you think it is ready to publish. If you would like support with filling out remaining content areas, just allocate me a topic :)

When you are a bit further advanced, I recommend drafting a lead section for this new article that would be suitable for copying and inclusion into Wellington Harbour, along with a "main" template, linking to the new article, as per WP:SUMMARY.

Great work :) Marshelec (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind comments. I wasn't sure how long is too long. If you feel like doing Kings Wharf and Pipitea Wharf (now subsumed into CentrePort) that would be helpful. It has been very interesting to understand more about the development of the city. I also tried it as a table, here, but that would entail putting more detail into the various articles where the small wharves are mentioned, and creating articles for the big ones. Hmmm. Wainuiomartian (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have had a fair go at Kings Wharf and Pipitea Wharf, plus did a small expansion of the section about Clyde Quay and the Overseas Passenger Terminal. I have also found a few historic images and added them. Please review. Please also let me know what else you would like me to do with this draft article. It is coming along well.

There was a really funny co-incidence I found this afternoon. One of the later news sources I found about Pipitea Wharf was the berthing of a liner bringing migrants from Britain. I thought it was a useful mention of passenger vessels berthing at Pipitea Wharf (and the British migrant programme of the 60's), so decided to use it as a citation. The vessel was RMS Orion, and it berthed at Pipitea Wharf on 2 May 1962.[4]. I have just had a phone conversation with my wife's 92 year old mother. Guess what: she was on that vessel that day, and describes her shock at the strong winds when they got off the boat that morning :). Marshelec (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a funny coincidence. Re the article: I was wary of making it too long, but you have added more detail than I was putting in. I think it would be good to include the designers of the suburban wharves, because apparently most of them were designed by a Mr McLean so I will go back and do that. I put in some headings for 'controversies': should I leave them out or incorporate into each wharf's paragraph? If we leave them in as separate paragraphs, do you want to write a few sentences on them? And I will try to make an infobox but might get stuck. There are a lot of amazing old photos of the wharves. I am going to go out in the weekend to take some more pictures if the weather is good - eg the Roger Walker building on Taranaki Street Wharf. Wainuiomartian (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My suggestions are:

1. keep the content in the body of the article focussed on the individual wharves, and leave more "general" topic coverage to other articles
2. remove the Controversies section, and merge what is currently written into the Queen's Wharf section
3. remove the "main" template link to Reclamation of Wellington Harbour. We may wish to prune some of the content of that article later, to reduce overlaps, and I don't think it is essential to cover reclamation here, other than specifically in the context of a specific wharf (eg Pipitea Wharf)
4. don't worry about an Infobox. It is not entirely clear to me what it would contain, other than a map or an image. They can be placed at the top of the article without an Infobox. If you can identify parameters that should go into an Infobox, fair enough, but I can't at this stage.
5. It would be good to choose a feature image for the top of the article.

Marshelec (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there is a significant gap we need to fill: The Jubilee (floating) Dock [5] Do you want to have a go at this, or shall I ? Marshelec (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah yes, I've been thinking about that one! You do it if you like. Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How much more do you want to do at this stage ? Seems to me it is ready to be published. Great work :) Marshelec (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will proofread it tomorrow and maybe put in something about the builder of the small wharves. Then I will submit the draft and you will approve it? Thanks for your help! Wainuiomartian (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marshelec I have submitted the draft. Please approve it. Wainuiomartian (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Matiu / Somes Island you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Matiu / Somes Island for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dr vulpes -- Dr vulpes (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wharves in Wellington Harbour, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Marshelec (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Matiu / Somes Island you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jonathanischoice -- Jonathanischoice (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have responded to various points raised in the GA review about the sections Lead, Toponymy, Geology and Geography. Would you like to respond to the next set of points about the History section ? See: Talk:Matiu / Somes Island/GA2 Marshelec (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have fixed the points listed under History and some under Arts. I didn't think it was necessary to describe Maurice Gee, David Hill as authors etc as the text states that they wrote books, and their names are linked. What do you think?Wainuiomartian (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Matiu / Somes Island you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Matiu / Somes Island for comments about the article, and Talk:Matiu / Somes Island/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jonathanischoice -- Jonathanischoice (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Aotearoa New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
	Kia ora Wainuiomartian. I was so impressed by your recent article Wharves in Wellington Harbour (such a good read and so many interesting facts) and was delighted to see Matiu / Somes Island promoted to good article status. Thank you for your extensive work on these important topics for Aotearoa New Zealand. Ka mau te wehi! Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh, thanks! Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have just seen this addition to the Wellington Harbour Board article, under the Wharves sub-heading: The patent slips at Evans Bay were owned by the Union Steamship Company and were therefore not under the control of the Harbour Board. There is a somewhat different explanation in the Evans Bay Patent Slip article, explaining that the Union Steamship company had a lease for an extended period but that it was surrendered to the Harbour Board in 1961.

I suggest a different approach. It would be worthwhile to add a brief new sub-section to the Wellington Harbour Board article, entitled Evans Bay Patent Slip, and then add a Main template linking to that article, and few sentences copied from the lead (or from the short summary on this topic in the Wharves in Wellington Harbour article), with some brief additions to cover the limited role of the Harbour Board. This would provide another useful link to the Evans Bay Patent Slip article, and would be of general interest. If you think this is worthwhile, are you happy to do this ? Marshelec (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's fine. I would rather be working on the article in my sandbox but I have terrible trouble when copying blocks of text over to the article because the references get all weird. The Harbour Board brochures from 1930 and 1947 state that the USSCo owned the patent slips but I should have double-checked that. I'll take it out and reword it. Wainuiomartian (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps we can arrange an online meeting sometime where you can try to demonstrate the issues with copying blocks of text. I would be interested to see what is happening.Marshelec (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work on integrating the Evans Bay Patent Slip summary content into the Wellington Harbour Board article. That was definitely worth doing. I have found a significant number of books in the Wellington City library that have Wellington Harbour, or Harbour Board in their titles. I have lodged reserve requests for at least 6 of these. They might contain information that could be used to expand the Wellington Harbour Board article. I will keep you posted. I think the article warrants further expansion. One thing that comes to mind immediately is creating stronger links to the two separate articles about the Head Office building and the Bond store. I think it would be worth having brief content in the article about both of these, with explicit links, and not just leaving it to the See also section. Another thing that needs work is that the lead is far too short. However, I think that can wait. If you are planning to be at the Wellington meetup on 2 September, we could perhaps discuss further work on this article then, especially if the books I have reserved have turned up at my local library. :) Marshelec (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds good. I am still adding to the article, so your research will be useful. Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was surprised to get a response over the weekend from people involved in the off-site storage of Wellington City Libraries books that are no longer held on shelves in public library branches. I had enquired about a Harbour Board publication and was advised that this has been digitised and is available online. Further, there is a significant collection of digitised works about Wellington Harbour Board. Here is the link to the collection: https://wellington.recollect.co.nz/nodes/view/8498. I have already made a small addition to the article based on one of these sources, and will work through the rest to see what might be useful as a source for either supporting existing content, or adding interesting new content. Marshelec (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes I have been going through the Harbour board reports on wlg recollect. It is a great repository of wlg info. Gabor Toth librarian at wcl told me he was glad to see the site cited on Wikipedia. Wainuiomartian (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oriental Bay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concrete cancer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wainuiomartian. Thank you for your work on 1976 Wellington storm. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The story you added to Kirkcaldie & Stains piqued my interest so I tried to follow up what happened to Annie McCarthy. She may be the woman who fell from the Auckland ferry wharf in 1925, at the age of 76[6] or 80[7], and drowned.-gadfium 20:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was interested too. I had a quick look for the background of both women. I will have a look at the sources you found... Wainuiomartian (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gadfium Ancestry shows that Annie Geraldine Mannix or Minogue was married to Alexander Thomas McWilliam/McWilliams in 1877, Reefton, and was the woman who shot Ellen Dick and drowned in 1925. She got out of Lyttelton jail in 1903 after serving 4 years. https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/47497741/person/232043507742 Wainuiomartian (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work, thanks. What did you find about Ellen Dick? -gadfium 21:12, 19 October 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]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice work! on New Zealand related articles. your hard work is appreciated. cheers! Dcotos (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Wainuiomartian (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kia ora, Because you are a regular attendee of the Wellington meetup, I wanted to let you know that there is a discounted direct flight from Wellington to Golden Bay return available to Wikipedians interested in attending this meetup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Mohua_/_Golden_Bay . If you're interested please either email Dianne, the Executive Advisor of Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand at info[at]wikimedia.nz. or message User:Schwede66. Einebillion (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see that you have previously made significant contributions to Wainuiomata. The article is currently assessed as B-class, but my view is that it does not quite make the standard, because the lead of the article is far too short. WP:LEAD provides useful guidance. Would you like to take this on ? Marshelec (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]