User talk:Kiwikiped

Welcome!

Hello, Kiwikiped, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf?

What were you doing here? You have inserted a comment inside mine and you've added a colon that should not be there! You are, indeed, causing chaos with your poorly placed talk page efforts. I'll respond to that particular one after you have sorted out the problems that you have created and/or give me permission to do so on your behalf: it is simple cut-and-paste stuff. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush When you moved Colin's temporally earlier but previously unindented comment before my temporally later comment you indented Colin's comment correctly first, and then indented mine again relative to that. However my comment was 2 paragraphs and you accidentally outdented the second relative to the first paragraph - I just added the colon so it lines up properly. I thought I had explained that clearly, and visually it is correct - there is Colin's comment. mine indented under that, your's indented under that, etc.

As this was just some typographical housekeeping, secondary to the topic under discussion I just inserted a small comment thanking you for spotting and fixing it - and I italicised it, put it in parentheses, and signed it to make it visually clear it was an added note. I apologise if this is not acceptable Wikipedia practice, I just didn't want to mix typographical housekeeping and a note of thanks to you with the the topic under discussion.

This little indentation mixup is hardly "chaos", why so dramatic? Colin mis-indented, so I misplaced, and then you corrected but mis-indented as well - so all three of us are human, nice to know :-)

I can go and delete the note of thanks if you wish, but the indentation (colon) is correct.

Hope that explains it. Have a nice day, Kiwikiped (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature inside my comment makes it look as if that paragraph of my comment was written by you. BTW, it has been brought to my attention that you may be Nigel Perry, of the BHRF, using another account. I'm not delving into it right now but you might wish to clarify given that you are obviously another of the single-purpose accounts frequenting this backwater of Wikipedia.- Sitush (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, no problem, note of thanks removed.

I am who I am. My purpose here is, and always has been, to curb NPOV behaviour and seek NPOV in the article, and I'm happy to be judged by my actions. I might not always get the rules right, I might misunderstand others sometimes, I might lack tact sometimes, etc. - but I've never claimed to be perfect, just a seeker of NPOV. Sometimes folk pushing a POV choose to attack the person trying to maintain NPOV, its human nature. I choose to ignore such, to do otherwise is to feed the beast. I encourage you to judge everybody involved in this article by their actions, not by who they may or may not be, and nobody should really even be speculating about such on Wikipedia (WP:OUTING) - this is the internet after all, you don't really know who anybody is, and in Wikipedia editing that might actually be good as you can only judge based on actions.

I smiled when you wrote you had involvement in "Indic" topics, you've a great "indic" sounding handle constructed from a very non-Indic sounding name! Is it a misdirection? Who knows. Who are you really? I've no idea, we might well shop in the same Tesco for all I know. It doesn't matter. You're here, I'm here, Dorre with or without Toto is here. Have a nice day. Kiwikiped (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are Perry then you have used more than one account and really should declare it. And you also would have a potential conflict of interest. I am becoming fed up of people in this topic area obfuscating when they are high-profile members of related advocacy groups and/or writers of the very research that they cite. The situation is toxic and while I do appreciate that one or two people may in fact be setting aside their own prejudices, the majority are not and their attitude limits the ability to assume good faith of the totality. We are regrettably in a situation where the assumption has to be one of POV pushing, sometimes with subtlety and sometimes not. The whole lot of you would benefit considerably from going away and contributing to completely different subject areas where you have less emotional attachment. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am who I am, and I am singular. Accusing me of being anybody in particular does you no service, you know the rules. The major contributors to this article are a bunch of experts in the field, and each has a self-declared or self-evident POV which falls into one of two broad groups. Many of them tend to be very passionate about their POVs, such is the nature of being human. Some enjoy playing games and riding merry-go-rounds. I am a self-declared fool who thinks they can occasionally mediate NPOV between these two groups on some of the occasions they fail to do it themselves. You are someone with an unusual view of what Australia is, and you are perfectly entitled to hold your views like everyone else, who claims to have no expert knowledge in the field. If you'd really prefer if the "whole lot" would go away you'd be left with no-one to write the actual article. Sure they can be a frustrating bunch, but I wouldn't ask any to leave. They are part of life's rich tapestry. If you are really so disenchanted with the people who write this article then why are you here? But if you really would like them to all go don't tell me, put in on the article's Talk page so they get the message, they probably don't come here all that often. Have a nice day, I've got other things I need to go and do now - there is life outside wikipedia. Kiwikiped (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Your recent editing history at Bicycle helmets in Australia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush - you make a mockery of BRD and refuse to seek consensus, instead maintaining that while others must follow these rules you are free to make any edits you so choose, they may not be reverted, and consensus must be sought to undo your edits. And when asked to behave you throw out an accusation of edit war having yourself reverted my undo of your Bold edit as the second stage of BRD edit three times rather than follow the process. Sad. Kiwikiped (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to fix the misrepresentation of the results of Wang et al. on Talk: Bicycle_helmets_in_New_Zealand

Please let us know your views about the misrepresentation of the results of Wang et al. and the suggestions about fixing the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_New_Zealand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.224.3 (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]