User talk:Gazzster: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:12, 11 February 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Gazzster, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Firsfron of Ronchester 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gazzster!

Thanks for the note. It looks like you've made some excellent contributions to quite a few dinosaur articles. As you noted on my talk page, I'm definitely a dinophile. I'm certainly more than willing to collaborate with you on dinosaur articles :). You may also want to consider joining (or at least visiting) Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, because there is a lot of excellent material over there, and plenty of friendly users who would love to talk dino-talk with you. Take care and happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 07:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that your contribution to Pacifism is appreciated.

(from a non-Catholic.) BTW, i know that many Catholics dislike the qualification Roman Catholic, but in the Apostles' Creed used by many Protestant denominations the literal English text is:

...

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic church,

the communion of saints,

...

where here "catholic" (with a small "c") means "universal" and not the church that is governed by the Vatican. just thought i'd mention it. r b-j 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking one for the team

Thanks for hitting Pelorosaurus and Ornithopsis! I'd worked on most of the other genera associated with that mess, but I wasn't feeling much like doing anything on those two. J. Spencer 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm not territorial (well, I do hang around the hypsilophodonts, but I'm not nasty about it), and I don't think any other dinosaur editor is, either, so feel comfortable contributing to any of the articles. If you want a challenge, I'd try the absurdly over-used Megalosaurus [1] (although, once you look at it, it's pretty straightforward, as almost all of the species are either one-shot dubious teeth taxa or are referred to other genera). J. Spencer 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphatodraco

Icarus, could you please explain the tag you put on Phosphatodraco? How is it wrongly categorised? I cannot find any pterosaur articles categorised Tree of Life. Cheers. --Gazzster 10:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{ToLCleanup}} because the article would benefit from having a taxonomy box added, and also from having a little bit of cleanup (putting the reference in common Wikipedia format, in particular). I don't see any problems with the category; I used the Tree of Life cleanup template instead of the normal cleanup template because it's about a living (well, extinct now, but you know what I mean!) organism and would benefit from having a taxobox. I've just added a stub template to it, too. Don't worry, it looks like a great start for an article, those templates just give a heads-up as to what would make it better. They're there partially to attract the attention of other editors who can help to make those improvements. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woolungasaurus

Hi Gary? Please note, as someone who knows nothing about dinosaurs - I couldn't work out immediately what this article was about. Maybe you could re-work the lead sentence a bit to make it more obvious? Ga rr ie 05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC) hmmmm still unhappy... to me it needs to say dinosaur... but maybe that's not the right word which is why I didn't change it (and also, are you using boilerplate text to make articles?) Ga rr ie 09:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps please remember to sign talk page entries using four tilde's or the button on the bottom toolbar Ga rr ie 09:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate would be something like

XXXX is a town in New South Wales, Australia. It has a population of YYY. The postcode is PPPP.

For each town in your list you have to replace the XXXX, YYY, and PPPP - other than that it is the same.

Some people might call it a template - but that has another meaning around here.Ga rr ie 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Hello Gazzster, personally I'd rather UK and 15 other... as the opening line at Elizabeth II. However, a compromise had been reached and I've accepted it. Being in the minority view isn't fun, thus the price of a publicly edited encyclopedia. GoodDay 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoscincus

Thank you for the compliment! J. Spencer 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

Cheers for the comments. However, I certainly don't want to come across as though I feel my contributions aren't appreciated; my motives aren't as selfish as that. Rather, it's more that I've been editing Wikipedia for over two and a half years, and only recently have admins seemingly been so generous with their doling out of blocks. Disputes happen, but not every dispute is an edit war; the difference seemingly matters less and less to those in charge, and people's reputations matter even less still.

Nice to see things being resolved at British monarchy; telling, though, that Thark won't revert anyone else's edits, only mine. Not that I'm really all that surprised ;) --G2bambino 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Commonwealth_realms. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to arbitrations myself, and most requests are denied--leaving the editors to duke it out. You are allowed to make a statement like I did. One of the arbitrators has already ruled that we should involve more editors and try to arrive at consensus. Sigh. Jonathan David Makepeace 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a consensus neither side has a mandate for their position. At this point I am willing to settle for a mention of the diverging styles right at the beginning of the article so that people will know that the British monarch and most academics use "Commonwealth realm." I doubt my opponents will allow that because anyone who reads that the British monarch doesn't capitalize it will wonder why anyone else would! I won't revert the whole article, but I will engage in a revert war to get the diverging usage mentioned. It is unreasonable not to allow at least that. Jonathan David Makepeace 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realm vote

Hello Gazzster,

Would you please come vote on this (in my opinion) insane proposal to merely footnote that the Queen and most academics use "Commonwealth realm" while keeping the article name "Commonwealth Realm" in defiance of grammar and Wikipedia policy? ;) Please! Jonathan David Makepeace 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

BTW, I just added a couple of damning citations from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Sanity may be just around the corner. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

What was the point in this snarky remark? I'd said my last and clearly indicated that it was my last by finishing with, "I don't see the point in speaking further". Please, don't be a dick. -- Hux 11:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realm

Gazzster, I have to say I'm a little confused. At Commonwealth realm you reverted my last edit. Why? I'm especially perplexed even further by the point that the discussion you then opened at Talk:Commonwealth realm pertained to a part of the article you left in and not the text - cited text, no less - that you removed. --G2bambino (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you going to my talk page. My only concern is with the paragraph in italics which I had edited and has since been restored. Whether you or someone else did that I don't know. If I inadvertently reverted another paragraph you edited, I apologise- it was not my intent.

About the italicised paragraph- my concern is that it is unsourced. It reads like an opinion, not a statement of fact. 'Dominion' is not still used to refer to the Commonwealth realms. I know you are a vocal defender of the use of 'realm' as opposed to 'dominion'. And 'dominion' is not unambiguous, even in its historical context. 'Dominion' has in fact no constitutional definition.

Again, I do apologise. --Gazzster (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no love for that paragraph; if memory serves me it was inserted by Armchair Vexologist Don. I suppose that, technically, there's no evidence that the term "Dominion" was ever officially revoked, but, then again, it was never officially applied except to those countries that had it in their name (i.e. Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland).

I think the admin locked the page thinking there'd be an edit war over your edit, when I doubt there will be. AVD doesn't tend to edit articles, just make his arguments on talk pages. So, feel free to contact Nat to undo the lock whenever you wish. --G2bambino (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy articles

Gazzster- I see you've been involved in the editing of British monarchy and on its talk page. There's presently a poll going on regarding the format of the titles for all Commonwealth realm monarchy articles. If you'd like to register an opinion, please do so here. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth

Agreed; I've tried to help them out, tried to play the mediator between them. I've done this for the sake of the articles & for their own sake. It's becoming more and more apparent - One or both editors, will have to be long-term blocked (or even banned), in order for the Commonwealth related articles schism to end. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You two think you're frustrated? I've tried to be rational with this person, I've tried to be patient, I've tried to ignore him, but every time he continues to simply not listen and do the most inane things in exactly the way he knows I have little choice but to become engaged. Thoroughly fed up with this irrational and irascible behaviour over so many articles for so long a time, I've told him to take his accusations of my covert brainwashing of people with my selectively chosen "facts" before ArbCom and have them rule on the matter, once and for all. He either has the balls, and the evidence to do it, or he doesn't. But, believe me, I know this has to end somehow. --G2bambino (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gazzster, remember a few days ago you suggested either Tharky or G2 would self-destruct (by their own rope)? Well, it seems that has occured in Tharky's case. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Politics

Having seen your responses at G2's page, they seem to confirm my observations (sorta). Australia (and New Zealand) has a more republican atmosphere then most of the other Commonwealth realms (can you imagine a republican referendum in Canada??, oh but to dream). I still feel that PM-designate is the correct 'terminology', but PM-elect is the preffered in Australia. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like Elizabeth II is gonna be accepted on the Aussie PM infoboxes, does it? Not a big surprise, considering PM-designate was rejected at Kevin Rudd. The same argument against 'Liz' was brought up at Stephen Harper, considering the Canadian PMs infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the struggles over moving Commonwealth realm monarchy articles from X monarchy to Monarchy of X, I've not the energy to fight for commonality among the PM infoboxes. Perhaps, it's a matter of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gazz, where does an editor go to bring up changing all PM articles infoboxes. Perhaps it's time to remove Elections, Head of States from all of them (constitional monarchies & republics). These infoboxes need cleansing. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lads, just passing by, totally agree with the above comment. I believe in KISS: "Keep Infoboxes Simple Stupid" (Hmm, that'd make a good userbox..) --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, not so much less as the right amount. The difficulty is in getting people to agree what "the right amount" is. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go to that WikiProject tommmorow (as bedtime is nearing) and yes indeed, I'll need all the help I can get. I suspect bumpy roads ahead. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked my questions at Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography, concerning the PM infoboxes. Feel free to chip in. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XIX & Henry V of France??

Hello Gazz, check out the Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angouleme and Henri, comte de Chambord articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to AGF, but I feel Bobo's edits to these two articles (in January 2007), may be revisionist. We've been arguing for an hour, but reached a stalemate (see talk: Henri, comte de Chambord). Oh yeah, I wunder what the next 'monarchy' will be. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the 8-10hrs per day I put in, could I be a Wikipediac? Honestly, the world's passing me by. But I love it. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles II of England

Our edits have ran into some friendly resistance. Some are not accepting our 'no monach from 1649 to 1660' argument. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps having Charles II as 'King of England 1660-85' and 'King of Scotland 1649-51, 1660-85' would be more accurate. Dog gonnit, those de jure reigns, they're everywhere. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practise on Talk Pages

Brought it here rather than on Talk:Kevin Rudd but it would appear that policy disgrees with you. WP:NPA applies as well. Shot info (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K. Stand corrected. But actually, striking out remarks is one of the suggested options.--Gazzster (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NP Shot info (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tharkuncoll

I noted your comment at User talk:TharkunColl. I won't deny that from time to time I've become so agitated by TharkunColl that I cease to care about maintaining niceties with him, but, I wondered if you understood just how many times I've tried to be cordial towards Thark and engage in rational debate about his actions and/or edits. Sadly, approaching him from that angle has never proved successful in the long term. Further, I find it interesting that Thark's number one fan, Merkinsmum, receives no reprimand for his supporting the actions that got Thark blocked, but I do for pointing out Thark's offensive behaviour isn't limited to one page, seemingly only because I'm not his number one fan. --G2bambino (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal monarchy

Thanks for telling me. On the appropriate page, I have given my support for deletion. Actually, right now I'm mildly down on Wikipedia as a whole because of the abundance of articles like Federal Monarchy, articles that don't belong in an encyclopedia, not only because they are badly written or badly sourced but because they appear to be largely based on the invention of one misguided writer or another. Good for you to do something about it. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Federal Monarchy

You beat me to it! I'll contribute to the debate later. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Just a reminder that, as the header in Talk:Heath Ledger says, talk pages are only for discussing how to improve the article. They are not for you to express your views or sadness or hapiness or whatever on something Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave

Gazz, please don't leave Wikipedia. In a collaborative vehicle such as this, it's only natural there'll be clashes (what with thousands of editors). Please reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to see ya again, cheers. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read your personal page & loved it. I'm glad to see you're gonna stick around; that's the spirit. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those comics are classic. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Arbitrary" Comparison with Canada

G'Day Gazzster. I'm Australian, so unlike some other contributors to the Monarchy of Australia article I don't have a Canadian drum to beat here :-) I included a brief comparison of the position of the Governors of the Australian States and the Lieutenant-Governors of the Canadian Provinces and you removed it (as it is your right to do) with the suggestion that it was an "arbitrary" comparison. I respectfully disagree for two reasons. (1) Of the 16 current Commonwealth realms only two -- Australia and Canada -- are federal nations having both a federal and state/provincial viceroys. By comparing Australia and Canada I have not "arbitrarily" selected one of the 15 other commonwealth realms for comparison. I have selected the ONLY other federal Commonwealth realm. (2) I don't really think the distinction between (a) being appointed directly by the Queen (as is the case with an Australian state G) and (b) being appointed by the federal GG (as is the case with a Canadian provincial LG) is "arbitrary" as again it's the only meaningful one!

So in short Australia and Canada are unique for being federal Commonwealth realms and therefore share some important similarities. But there are also important differences. The position of Aussie state Governors and Canadian Lieutenant-Governors is an area of difference where the casual reader might falsely assume a similarity. Readers of the articles Monarchy of Australia or Monarchy of Canada or both may be interested in this difference. Its inclusion is far from arbitrary. Your real gripe would have to be with the relevance of its inclusion in an article on the Monarchy of Australia -- which is a different matter entirely. I happen to think it relevant enough to be given a brief mention here. But maybe that's only me; it's entirely possible that others don't care about such distinctions.Apodeictic (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "why isn't this right?"

What you've said *is* right. But I'd already said it earlier in the paragraph when I first introduced the concept of administrator (sorry to steal your thunder!). Saying where you've said it would simply mean repeating what's already said. In my most recent edit although removing your text I did incorporate your reference as well as including two of my own direct from the legislation creating the office of Administrator of the NT and of Norfolk Island (I haven't yet been able to find the legislative provisions creating the office of Administrator of Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands but if I do I'll be happy to add them).

Hope this is OK. I won't change it back as I don't want to get into an edit war. But I happen to think my change was for the better and will leave it to your judgment as to what you want to do :-)Apodeictic (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts I will change it again because there's another change I want to make. But if you change it back again after having read what I've said here I promise to leave it be and stay out of an edit war.Apodeictic (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Pages

I read the opening line of your page - G'day!.... I wonder how many editors will think you're talking to me? The prankster in me, caused me to choose the name 'GoodDay', for situations like these - he he. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada & Dominion

I honestly don't know what the dispute is over Dominion. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He he he, now that's a great one. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Dominion, et al.

Your comments have been read. Wikipedia isn't your mother. Spare us your threats. Now, run along ... Quizimodo (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:11, 11 February 2008 edit Quizimodo (talk \| contribs) 2,691 edits comment ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:12, 11 February 2008 edit undo Quizimodo (talk \| contribs) 2,691 edits m copyedit Next edit →
Line 194:		Line 194:

	==RE: Dominion, et al.==		==RE: Dominion, et al.==
	Your comments have been read. Spare us your threats. Now, run along ... [[User:Quizimodo\|Quizimodo]] ([[User talk:Quizimodo\|talk]]) 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)		Your comments have been read. Wikipedia isn't your mother. Spare us your threats. Now, run along ... [[User:Quizimodo\|Quizimodo]] ([[User talk:Quizimodo\|talk]]) 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)