User talk:BigHaz/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:BigHaz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Hi BigHaz, in my experience in wikipedia you've given me the wisest advice and therefore you are the one I respect the most, could you please take a look at recent activity on Talk:Australia, I have become completely frustrated and have now left the discussion, but decisive action by someone who really knows what there talking about is what is needed on the royal anthem issue which has been complicated by Pete's games. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a quick look (I'm about to head off in search of dinner) and I'm still a little confused. Is the problem that there's no consensus on whether to include the royal anthem (God Save The Queen, right?) as an anthem in the Australia article, or have I entirely missed the point? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi BigHaz, the question is its importance to the subject matter and the predominance it has to the article, for example the President of the US might be elected technically by delegates to a conference and not directly by the people (who only elect the delegates), but in practice that is not significant to what the US is and how it runs, therefore while perfectly accurate it would not be considered a significant enough point to add to the USA article. Same goes for the royal anthem to Australia, I had never heard of the royal anthem until this debate and it certainly doesn't have national significants yet there are a few led by Pete who seem to really want to push this point and put it at the top of the article, I have offered an alternative footnote solution which keeps the fact in the article but removes it from such a predominant place but this has not been accepted. The issue may be less confusing if you read everyone's comments other than Pete's who seems to just be playing games with us. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 08:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- You mightn't like me saying this, but I think there's merit in both your suggestion (the footnote) and Pete's (using it in the same way that other Commonwealth Realms do in their articles). A good number of the other CRs have it marked in their infobox as a national anthem, and while I don't think it's a fact that many people would be aware of, it seems from a quick run around the internet that a royal anthem does do duty as a national anthem under certain circumstances. What I'd be most interested to know at present is why articles such as Canada have both anthems listed and no footnotes. If there's actually a convincing reason other than "everyone else was doing it, sir", that would be quite important here. If someone just stuck it in and nobody objected, that would also be useful to know. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly please don't worry about me putting down the anchor on my position, I'm very open to reasonable debate on this issue, which is why I tried to compromise in the first place with the footnote solution.
- It has always been my suspicion that the latter of your scenarios is the case in that someone has added the royal anthems to all these countries' articles at some point slowly and it's just remained there unthought about as to their significance. But besides that precedence is hardly a good argument for doing anthing, particularly when adding fields which aren't in the infobox template. The significance of a royal anthem to New Zealand or Canada may be more than it is to Australia (eg. New Zealand still had court appeals to the British Privy Council until about 2000!), the only thing relevant to the article about Australia is the royal anthem's significance to Australia surely.
- Were you referring to Australia when you said that it does duty as a national anthem under certain circumstances? the two references[1][2] that have been brought to my attention say that it is only played in the presence of royalty (a very rare occurrence in Australia) and even then it is played along with the National Anthem.
- Do you think it would be a good idea for me to leave a quick note on those other country articles asking them why the royal anthem was added to the template and what significance the royal anthem has to each of those countries, your thoughts? WikiTownsvillian 11:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- You mightn't like me saying this, but I think there's merit in both your suggestion (the footnote) and Pete's (using it in the same way that other Commonwealth Realms do in their articles). A good number of the other CRs have it marked in their infobox as a national anthem, and while I don't think it's a fact that many people would be aware of, it seems from a quick run around the internet that a royal anthem does do duty as a national anthem under certain circumstances. What I'd be most interested to know at present is why articles such as Canada have both anthems listed and no footnotes. If there's actually a convincing reason other than "everyone else was doing it, sir", that would be quite important here. If someone just stuck it in and nobody objected, that would also be useful to know. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi BigHaz, the question is its importance to the subject matter and the predominance it has to the article, for example the President of the US might be elected technically by delegates to a conference and not directly by the people (who only elect the delegates), but in practice that is not significant to what the US is and how it runs, therefore while perfectly accurate it would not be considered a significant enough point to add to the USA article. Same goes for the royal anthem to Australia, I had never heard of the royal anthem until this debate and it certainly doesn't have national significants yet there are a few led by Pete who seem to really want to push this point and put it at the top of the article, I have offered an alternative footnote solution which keeps the fact in the article but removes it from such a predominant place but this has not been accepted. The issue may be less confusing if you read everyone's comments other than Pete's who seems to just be playing games with us. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 08:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- This might help: Talk:Canada/Archive 10#Does_anyone_know_where_this_.22Royal.27s_Anthem.22_idea_started.3F & Talk:Canada/Archive 8#Use_of_God_Save_the_Queen
- Despite them going on a few tangents as well it seems Canada uses God Save the Queen in the presence of the Governor General which is not the case in Australia. This may not seem like a big difference but the Governor General's position is purely ceremonial, in both countries the holder of that position would be in circumstances where the appropriate anthem is played every single day, so in Canada the royal anthem is played daily in various contexts where the Governor General (and presumably State Governors) are present, whereas in Australia it is played once every blue moon (certainly hasn't happened since the last CHOGM meeting held in Australia in 2002) and even on those rare occasions it is played in conjunction with the National Anthem in Australia. What do you think? WikiTownsvillian 12:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at what you've given me and what I can find. I'm a bit tied up at uni until later this week (big paper due on Friday), so it might be a couple of days before I've really formed a thorough opinion, but I promise I'll look into it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- No rush mate, I've divested myself from the discussion now, was just hoping to flag the issue with someone who might be able to make an informed neutral executive decision based on wikipolicy. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 23:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just can't help myself :) - I've noticed on the God Save the Queen article that the Canadians and the New Zealanders actually sing a slightly different version of the song, yet again increasing the significance of the royal anthem to those two counties in comparison to Australia. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The plot thickens. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi BigHaz, a certain user is trying to start up an edit war again on the same topic, I shall raise above it myself, but would still appreciate you doing some kind of administrator warning if appropriate. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 02:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm on it. Thanks for reminding me about the issue, too. It'd slipped my mind somehow. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi BigHaz, a certain user is trying to start up an edit war again on the same topic, I shall raise above it myself, but would still appreciate you doing some kind of administrator warning if appropriate. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 02:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- The plot thickens. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at what you've given me and what I can find. I'm a bit tied up at uni until later this week (big paper due on Friday), so it might be a couple of days before I've really formed a thorough opinion, but I promise I'll look into it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This thing has become bigger than Ben-Hur!!! Now included in the general chaos: User talk:Skyring, User talk:CJ, User talk:Merbabu, Talk:Commonwealth of Nations and User talk:G2bambino
I'm in a state of absolute disbelief that so much has resulted from such a small edit! WikiTownsvillian 07:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's Wikipedia for you. You know the old saying that academic debates are so bitter because there's so little at stake? Well, think how little there is at stake here. I've had a look into it, and I'm leaning towards really not buying into it. Not a reflection on the issue itself, just that it seems to be turning into more of a minefield every day. You might want to look into those various groups dedicated to providing third opinions and mediating disputes if this keeps getting bigger. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice but I'm leaving it alone too, there's obviously plenty of eyes on it now so I'm confident the right decision will be made, particularly now Pete has been blocked, I predict his blocking will lead to a calm in the storm and a satisfactory resolution. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 23 | 4 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Economy Georgia
You are wellcomed to take part in the voting on Talk:Georgia (country) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamokk (talk • contribs)
- For the record, I've opted not to take part in what seems to be (for reasons which escape me) a very acrimonious debate between two editors regarding the best way to write about the Georgian economy. I will, however, monitor said debate in case anyone oversteps the mark. While this was kind of canvassing, the editor and I are both members of the relevant WikiProject, so it's all part of the fun as I see it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BigHaz
Thank you for the pointer concerning civility. Everyone is so nice, and I'm being disagreeable. Shame on me. These folks are so used to getting away with writing anything they please (crufty crap, big whoop, etc), they panic when they get a reply. Hey, it's never an argument until someone talks back.Mandsford 23:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. People are more than willing to have a sensible discussion (even an argument, in most cases). Simply "talking back" in the manner in which you have been isn't having either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- >>Consider this your second warning regarding civility. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)<< Thank you.Mandsford 23:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely my point. Arguing is good, name-calling and insults are not. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- >>Consider this your second warning regarding civility. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)<< Thank you.Mandsford 23:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Statements in support for extremist editors
I would not hold my breath after reading your regular comments in their support, sprinkled all over Wikipedia. You have made your stance on the matter very clear. I request you to never post on my talk page again. Thanks in advance, Ghirla-трёп- 08:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Consider this a second warning regarding civility and personal attacks. Unless there is evidence forthcoming, at the very least. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Context: At present, I can only assume that "extremist editors" is a reference to a particular side in the long-running dispute between Russian and Estonian editors. My interaction with either side has been scanty at best, due in no small part to a lack of relevant background. My interaction with the user above has been limited to arguing in favour of an article being kept that he'd nominated for deletion, informing him that he had not closed that AfD when he claimed to have done so and then asking both him and another editor (on the other side of the dispute) to calm down after a DYK nomination resulted in some heated words. My advocation of the keep was based on standards of notability and comments which other users had made, my informing him about the AfD was based on procedure and my suggestion that everyone calm down was based on the fact that nobody wanted a warning regarding civility. No support for extremism there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! :) I believe I am one of the "extremist editors" Ghirla refers to. I just wanted to make sure that you got my clarification he removed here [3].
P.S if you have time, "User:Alexia Death/My wikipedia experience" is my essay mostly on civility issues in articles I frequent. We all could use a good admin keeping all of us in check there. New users learn from their peers what is acceptable and what is not and so do I. I did not even realize when I was being rude to someone because it had seemed normal before an admin commented on it.--Alexia Death 08:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did see that clarification, but thanks for reminding me of it. In some ways, I fear that I may already have become less than objective at least in regards to the Estonia-Russia thing. After appearing in that AfD we crossed paths in, I started digging around the internet to see what on earth the story was here (no offence, but the whole Bronze Soldier business rated maybe 2 paragraphs in the papers here) and formed some opinions. What can I say? I'm a historian, so I like to know what's happening :P That said, as well as having an opinion I'm also insanely in love with facts and neutrality, so with any luck the fact that I'm miles away from the locus of the conflict might keep me more objective. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear you've taken an interest in the topic. An historians view is always appreciated, even more so when coming from distance and bringing with it the neutrality of a bystander. (Neutrality is my interest too but being born where I am, I come with built-in biases on this subject) :) --Alexia Death 09:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- If only there were more information on the Baltics in English (or, better yet, if only I could read Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Russian)... BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear you've taken an interest in the topic. An historians view is always appreciated, even more so when coming from distance and bringing with it the neutrality of a bystander. (Neutrality is my interest too but being born where I am, I come with built-in biases on this subject) :) --Alexia Death 09:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sheynhertz-Unbayg sockpuppets
Hi there,
you recently copyedited Johann Birnbaum. This page was created by yet another sockpuppet of Sheynhertz-Unbayg, who is currently banned for causing a massive backlog of articles in need of cleanup about people of questionable notability. I have deleted most of the contributions of recent sockpuppets Sprizz and Galandaur already under WP:CSD#G5 but have left some that were edited into something more or less reasonable. If you see a user importing lots of low-quality stubs about Jewish people and Jewish names from other Wikipedias, please check whether it might be Sheynhertz and drop me a line if you are unsure. (For more information, see the cleanup project Wikipedia:SU, which has cleaned up several hundred of his articles so far but isn't finished yet). Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted Ferdinand Birnbaum; if you want to translate this, please start from scratch. I think showing to Sheynhertz that he is banned is more useful than keeping this stub. Kusma (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Be my guest. I'm not totally convinced about any of the bios I translated, but they were there and in a language I know, so I thought at least some good might come of it. There are, I think, significantly more useful translations which could be made from the German 'pedia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Salvem el món
|
On 14 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salvem el món, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--howcheng {chat} 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Request
Could you please give your comment at the discussion at Talk:List of political parties by country. Electionworld Talk? 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a look at it (presuming you mean the last heading on the Talk page right now). Can you fill me in with the details a bit? This isn't a page I've had much dealing with before, so I'd be interested to know where the dispute stems from. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Redirect of The 7 Day Theory
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The 7 Day Theory, by CultureDrone (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The 7 Day Theory is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The 7 Day Theory, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate The 7 Day Theory itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well there you go. I did create that. I guess I'll delete it, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
|
Did you know? was updated. On 22 June, 2007, a fact from the article Tom Lonergan (AFL footballer), which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |