![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Welcome!
Hello, Gazzster/Archive, 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)
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)
(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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for the compliment! J. Spencer 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello Gazz, check out the Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angouleme and Henri, comte de Chambord articles. GoodDay ( talk) 23:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
K. Stand corrected. But actually, striking out remarks is one of the suggested options.-- Gazzster ( talk) 03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
You beat me to it! I'll contribute to the debate later. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hope to see ya again, cheers. GoodDay ( talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Those comics are classic. GoodDay ( talk) 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hey, thanks for the good discussion at the Dominion page. It's been a while since I've had an enjoyable one at that page. -- Soulscanner ( talk) 11:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Care to go to the mediation request page for Dominion. Could us someone to support the request.
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)
I honestly don't know what the dispute is over Dominion. GoodDay ( talk) 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
He he he, now that's a great one. GoodDay ( talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Wikiquette on Quizimodo, I'm holding out hope for brokering peace. I have to try, I must try. GoodDay ( talk) 02:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Time will tell. GoodDay ( talk) 02:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Quizimodo has chosen to not appear at his Wikiquette. See his reasons at my 'talk page'. I've done all I can do (at this stage). GoodDay ( talk) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gazzster - thanks for cleaning up the RfC. It's almost good to go now, except for two things:
Co-certify? under wich section do I sign? I'm choosing to do so 'only', in hopes of resolving things. Perhaps if Quizimodo sees me as a co-certifier, it'll encourage him to respond (at the RfC). GoodDay ( talk) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is done. GoodDay ( talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe Soulscanner has accidently posted on your personal page (instead of your talk page). GoodDay ( talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of G2bambino ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino. -- soulscanner ( talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gazz. Seeing as the Canadian PM infoboxes content issue has been reopened, I'm considering (again) to try and get the Aussie PM infoboxes in sync. Think there's a chance of it? GoodDay ( talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Though I 'personally' prefer Head of State or HoS representaive in all those 'Head of government' articles. I'm growing discouraged with all the hassle over inclusion & leaning towards full exclusion. GoodDay ( talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I must confess, I'm bewildered by the preferred inconsistancies on the Aussie PM infoboxes content. GoodDay ( talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to Timeshift9's suggestion on my personal page (concerning my suggestion of consistancy at Kevin Rudd)? I've decided to drop the subject. Oh well, I tried (again). GoodDay ( talk) 16:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Rfc on G2bambino: Soulscanner seems to suspect G2 of meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry. The rest is concerned with 3RR & 1RR suspected breachings. GoodDay ( talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Soulscanner does seem to be over-reacting. GoodDay ( talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahh come on, stop teasing, please. GoodDay ( talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha ha. GoodDay ( talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Behold, Tharky & MC Rufus seem poised to join forces against G2. Batten down the hatches & take cover everyone. GoodDay ( talk) 14:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with Tharky, concerning the UK Parliamentary powers. The UK Parliament can't tell the 15 other Commonwealth realm Parliaments what to do, concerning the monarchy. GoodDay ( talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Would the UK have warships off the coast of Canada & Australia? if they refused to repeal the 'Statues of Westminister' at the UK's request? I don't think so, howabout you? GoodDay ( talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Australian Parliament
Your Parliament has all the fun.
GoodDay (
talk)
23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear gazzster, As one of the users I come accross most frequently I would like to ask you to see if you would be willing to take the time to review some of my work and post your vote on my adminship request page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Camaeron). Thanks and keep up the good work! -- Camaeron ( talk) 14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gazz. How do you feel about that article having nation or country in its lead? There's a discussion going on about it now, which I'm departing (due to the fact, I value my sanity). GoodDay ( talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I always have trouble with this topic. How does one balance 'legalistics' with 'common usage'? On the 'ligalistics side' I'm in agreement with G2; on the 'common usage side', I'm in agreement with Tharky. My attempts (months ago) to have Elizabeth II placed in the Australian PMs infobox (and my failure to implement it), has really shaken my certainties on the overall topic. GoodDay ( talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
PS- I know those articles are driving MC & Tharky up the wall. I wunder if creating 15 instant clones of Elizabeth II, would resolve things (ya know, have a clone living in each realm & not tell anyone who's the original 'Lilibet'). Seriously though, it's a struggle. GoodDay ( talk) 18:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to apologise for any offence caused and am glad we were able to resolve our minor "disagreement" amicably. Keep up the good work in monarchy-related topics...-- Camaeron ( talk) 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a cool movie, What what? That scene where very ambitious George, Prince of Wales, didn't seem to know he'd become regent (upon his father's disabilities) or what that meant (needing Charles Fox to explain it to him)? was an eyebrow raiser. But then (I suppose) that was for the audience (info on regency). What what? GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
AMFAS: Yep, It's a treasure. GoodDay ( talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
His Highness is very misunderstood. I wouldnt trust those "quotes" as far as I could throw them! -- Cameron ( t/ c) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I kinda understand your concerns. WikiProjects can become 'homebases' for possible agendists. For example: I'm weary of Wikipedia: WikiProject Scotland. -- GoodDay ( talk) 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I made you a userbox, sorry about the awful pun! = )
File:NZ Marmite Vegemite.jpg | May the 'mites unite us. Cameron thinks Gazzster a 'mitey fine editor. |
![]() |
A few articles have been nominated for merging by a mergoholic. Would you can to take part in the discussion again? The articles in question are "Most Excellent Majesty", "Britannic Majesty" and "Most Gracious Majesty". I suggest you comment soon if you wish to as the nominator has a history of merging without consensus. The discussion for all three articles is taking place here. -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm gonna have to throw in the towel on this one. It appears we (you & I) are the only ones who object to 'dejure reigns' & there's alot of monarch bio articles out there, that has 'de jure' reigns in them. GoodDay ( talk) 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll hang in there longer. This de jure stuff? is nothing more then monarchist wanting to re-write history. That's what occured in 1660, Charles II & his supporters wanted to deny the abolshment of monarchy ever happened. GoodDay ( talk) 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Myself & Cameron have decided to depart the discussion, as we're not convincing each other and there's only a small number of us (4-editors) involved. There's no possible way of getting a consensus to remove de jure reigns from all those monarch bio articles. GoodDay ( talk) 16:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Like my new userbox? = )
![]() |
This monarchist is fond of republican pass the parcel...so you'd better watch out! |
PS:If you are not aquainted with Crommwells fate, read the article.
RIP Moses, Taylor, Ben-hur, Michelangelo etc. -- GoodDay ( talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You can thank me later. Looks like we have something in common other than the 'mites after all! PS: You'll be gobsmacked at the end -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
PPS: Would you mind giving me the Australian perspective: What does one say in Australia queue or line?
Lol, tell me what you think of this one...-- Cameron ( t| p| c) 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gazz. I've just watched the 2005 movie of King Kong. Again, just like the 1933 & 1976 versions, we're left to wonder as to how they loaded a unconsience Kong onto their ship (to transport him to NYC). I'm not sure how I can add this info to any of the 3 Kong movie articles? but it's interesting trivia. GoodDay ( talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Welcome!
Hello, Gazzster/Archive, 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)
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)
(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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for the compliment! J. Spencer 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello Gazz, check out the Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angouleme and Henri, comte de Chambord articles. GoodDay ( talk) 23:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
K. Stand corrected. But actually, striking out remarks is one of the suggested options.-- Gazzster ( talk) 03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
You beat me to it! I'll contribute to the debate later. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hope to see ya again, cheers. GoodDay ( talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Those comics are classic. GoodDay ( talk) 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hey, thanks for the good discussion at the Dominion page. It's been a while since I've had an enjoyable one at that page. -- Soulscanner ( talk) 11:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Care to go to the mediation request page for Dominion. Could us someone to support the request.
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)
I honestly don't know what the dispute is over Dominion. GoodDay ( talk) 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
He he he, now that's a great one. GoodDay ( talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Wikiquette on Quizimodo, I'm holding out hope for brokering peace. I have to try, I must try. GoodDay ( talk) 02:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Time will tell. GoodDay ( talk) 02:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Quizimodo has chosen to not appear at his Wikiquette. See his reasons at my 'talk page'. I've done all I can do (at this stage). GoodDay ( talk) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gazzster - thanks for cleaning up the RfC. It's almost good to go now, except for two things:
Co-certify? under wich section do I sign? I'm choosing to do so 'only', in hopes of resolving things. Perhaps if Quizimodo sees me as a co-certifier, it'll encourage him to respond (at the RfC). GoodDay ( talk) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is done. GoodDay ( talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe Soulscanner has accidently posted on your personal page (instead of your talk page). GoodDay ( talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of G2bambino ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino. -- soulscanner ( talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gazz. Seeing as the Canadian PM infoboxes content issue has been reopened, I'm considering (again) to try and get the Aussie PM infoboxes in sync. Think there's a chance of it? GoodDay ( talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Though I 'personally' prefer Head of State or HoS representaive in all those 'Head of government' articles. I'm growing discouraged with all the hassle over inclusion & leaning towards full exclusion. GoodDay ( talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I must confess, I'm bewildered by the preferred inconsistancies on the Aussie PM infoboxes content. GoodDay ( talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to Timeshift9's suggestion on my personal page (concerning my suggestion of consistancy at Kevin Rudd)? I've decided to drop the subject. Oh well, I tried (again). GoodDay ( talk) 16:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Rfc on G2bambino: Soulscanner seems to suspect G2 of meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry. The rest is concerned with 3RR & 1RR suspected breachings. GoodDay ( talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Soulscanner does seem to be over-reacting. GoodDay ( talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahh come on, stop teasing, please. GoodDay ( talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha ha. GoodDay ( talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Behold, Tharky & MC Rufus seem poised to join forces against G2. Batten down the hatches & take cover everyone. GoodDay ( talk) 14:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with Tharky, concerning the UK Parliamentary powers. The UK Parliament can't tell the 15 other Commonwealth realm Parliaments what to do, concerning the monarchy. GoodDay ( talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Would the UK have warships off the coast of Canada & Australia? if they refused to repeal the 'Statues of Westminister' at the UK's request? I don't think so, howabout you? GoodDay ( talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Australian Parliament
Your Parliament has all the fun.
GoodDay (
talk)
23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear gazzster, As one of the users I come accross most frequently I would like to ask you to see if you would be willing to take the time to review some of my work and post your vote on my adminship request page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Camaeron). Thanks and keep up the good work! -- Camaeron ( talk) 14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gazz. How do you feel about that article having nation or country in its lead? There's a discussion going on about it now, which I'm departing (due to the fact, I value my sanity). GoodDay ( talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I always have trouble with this topic. How does one balance 'legalistics' with 'common usage'? On the 'ligalistics side' I'm in agreement with G2; on the 'common usage side', I'm in agreement with Tharky. My attempts (months ago) to have Elizabeth II placed in the Australian PMs infobox (and my failure to implement it), has really shaken my certainties on the overall topic. GoodDay ( talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
PS- I know those articles are driving MC & Tharky up the wall. I wunder if creating 15 instant clones of Elizabeth II, would resolve things (ya know, have a clone living in each realm & not tell anyone who's the original 'Lilibet'). Seriously though, it's a struggle. GoodDay ( talk) 18:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to apologise for any offence caused and am glad we were able to resolve our minor "disagreement" amicably. Keep up the good work in monarchy-related topics...-- Camaeron ( talk) 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a cool movie, What what? That scene where very ambitious George, Prince of Wales, didn't seem to know he'd become regent (upon his father's disabilities) or what that meant (needing Charles Fox to explain it to him)? was an eyebrow raiser. But then (I suppose) that was for the audience (info on regency). What what? GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
AMFAS: Yep, It's a treasure. GoodDay ( talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
His Highness is very misunderstood. I wouldnt trust those "quotes" as far as I could throw them! -- Cameron ( t/ c) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I kinda understand your concerns. WikiProjects can become 'homebases' for possible agendists. For example: I'm weary of Wikipedia: WikiProject Scotland. -- GoodDay ( talk) 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I made you a userbox, sorry about the awful pun! = )
File:NZ Marmite Vegemite.jpg | May the 'mites unite us. Cameron thinks Gazzster a 'mitey fine editor. |
![]() |
A few articles have been nominated for merging by a mergoholic. Would you can to take part in the discussion again? The articles in question are "Most Excellent Majesty", "Britannic Majesty" and "Most Gracious Majesty". I suggest you comment soon if you wish to as the nominator has a history of merging without consensus. The discussion for all three articles is taking place here. -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm gonna have to throw in the towel on this one. It appears we (you & I) are the only ones who object to 'dejure reigns' & there's alot of monarch bio articles out there, that has 'de jure' reigns in them. GoodDay ( talk) 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll hang in there longer. This de jure stuff? is nothing more then monarchist wanting to re-write history. That's what occured in 1660, Charles II & his supporters wanted to deny the abolshment of monarchy ever happened. GoodDay ( talk) 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Myself & Cameron have decided to depart the discussion, as we're not convincing each other and there's only a small number of us (4-editors) involved. There's no possible way of getting a consensus to remove de jure reigns from all those monarch bio articles. GoodDay ( talk) 16:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Like my new userbox? = )
![]() |
This monarchist is fond of republican pass the parcel...so you'd better watch out! |
PS:If you are not aquainted with Crommwells fate, read the article.
RIP Moses, Taylor, Ben-hur, Michelangelo etc. -- GoodDay ( talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You can thank me later. Looks like we have something in common other than the 'mites after all! PS: You'll be gobsmacked at the end -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
PPS: Would you mind giving me the Australian perspective: What does one say in Australia queue or line?
Lol, tell me what you think of this one...-- Cameron ( t| p| c) 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gazz. I've just watched the 2005 movie of King Kong. Again, just like the 1933 & 1976 versions, we're left to wonder as to how they loaded a unconsience Kong onto their ship (to transport him to NYC). I'm not sure how I can add this info to any of the 3 Kong movie articles? but it's interesting trivia. GoodDay ( talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |