User talk:Gopher65

Canada

Welcome to Wikipedia. Are you Canadian? 'Cause if you are? the more the merrier. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan:).Gopher65 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As a hockey fan, I was very disappointed when you guys didn't get the St. Louis Blues, back in the early 1980's. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

!! We were up for an NHL team? Whoa, I didn't even know that. It's a bit of a mystery to me why we don't have one though. The Saskatoon Blades (WHL) almost always have a higher attendance than the Oilers do. But then I guess price point comes into the picture. If we raise ticket prices (and we'd have to in order to pay an NHL team) then less people would naturally attend. Look at Winnipeg. If they can't support an NHL team what hope do we have, with 1/3 the number of people:( (but then, why can Edmonton support a team? They have about the same population). Still, it would be nice.Gopher65 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And then there was talk of an NHL team in Hamilton, Ontario (pop.: 504,559)! Given the proximity to both Toronto and Buffalo, it might of worked, but Bettman put a swift end to all that. Seems, though, that population and financial support doesn't actually decide whether or not a team gets placed somewhere; it's all politics, politics, politics. --G2bambino (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's politics. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest clue, as to how to determine that. Only the Administrators can do that. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Language

Hello there, I'm sure you would understand my Irish accent, if I talked slowly! :) Joe Deagan (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD

My rationale actually appeared INSIDE the message box. ViperSnake151 03:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey

Thank you very much! I've been working my fingers off for this one. Still tweaking it too. Any additional suggestions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

states

You asked "So what is the EU? Is it a "state", a "country", or something else entirely? And if it doesn't qualify as a state, why should the US, Canada, Brazil, Australia, or China? They're not different enough from the EU for there to be a clear distinction between their designations."

I would say that a formal state depends on sovereignty, the ability to enforce laws and collect taxes. The U.S. clearly became a single state when the central government violently imposed its will on former states that were trying to secede. It reminded everyone of the central sovereignty when it used the military to enforce desegregation orders over the attempts of a governor to use local forces to disobey the orders.

I'm not sure how Canada is run, but I suspect that if push came to shove, the central government could enforce whatever it wanted over the objection of any province. It might not be in line with the formal Canadian law, but one of the traits of statehood is that you interpret your own laws or ignore them if you want.

The EU does not have any enforcement mechanism. If one of its states decides to withdraw tomorrow, the EU cannot force it to return. If a state decides to ignore EU rules, the EU cannot enforce the rules. The EU is a confederation of states, not a state. It may become a single state the way the US did, but it has not yet done so. Readin (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sanity saves

Woah, took me quite a while to even begin to understand what that post was all about, very confusing. Thanks, Gopher65, for responding! You probably saved me some sanity points there :). Why on earth did Krensada post this on my page in the first place, very strange indeed?! I concur with your words completely and utterly (even though I disapprove of the alleged harassment and stalking from others on Krensadas behalf). But if some invisible force guided Krensada to select me as a defender, he sure really was pointed to the wrong guy for the job... I am a scientist from Sweden who at best have faint tendencies towards the thing that can not be named, so... there you go, might have been the poetry of randomness at work here. And, oh, by the way, I have nothing whatsoever to do with Encyclopedia Dramatica, never heard about it until now. Gopher65, guess we're even now:) Thanks. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Erm, what the header says. Thanks :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

An article whose AFD you participated in a year ago, is nominated again

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_BattleMechs_(2nd_nomination)#List_of_BattleMechs

• I am contacting everyone who participated in the AFD last year for this, since its the same issue all over again. Dream Focus 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Improper editing

Would you *please* stop your improper concatenation of my comments on the talk page for the "EEStory" article. I have used the proper format for replying to others' comments, indenting my replies so it's clear it's not a comment by the original post-er. By concatenating my replies, you make it impossible for anyone to see what I am commenting on or replying to.

I undid this once before, now I see it's been re-done; I presume by you. Is it necessary for me to complain to someone over your head before you stop this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lensman003 (talk • contribs)

Conversation with Lensman003

You wrote: I've noticed that you don't seem to know how to use mediawiki software very well (that's the software that Wikipedia runs on, that we're using right now). Don't worry, that's normal:); everyone goes through an adjustment period when they first stumble upon wikipedia. You'll get more familiar with it as time goes on. Here's one thing that you're doing wrong: when trying to contact someone, you edit their user *talk* page, not their userpage. If you edit their user talk page, they get a message informing them that you left a message. That doesn't happen if you edit their userpage. Userpages are intended to be profiles, not communication pages.

Hey, thanks for answering! My experience is that I'm interested in occasionally contributing to or correcting a Wikipedia, but I don't spend a lot of time doing so. When I follow links to instructions for Wikipedia's formatting, I feel overwhelmed. There is *so* much there! Is there an open forum where I could talk to a Wiki administrator about what procedures are desired? I would really love to revamp the entire "Lensman" article, it needs a thorough rewrite, but I really need the help of someone who understands Wiki procedures. I've tried leaving messages on the personal pages of editors who have contributed to that article, but none have replied. Any help you would be willing to provide in helping me contact someone who is qualified and would be interested in collaborating on a revamp of the article, would be appreciated. If you like, you can contact me offline at (Lensman's e-mail address) --Lensman003 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

lede or lead

Regarding the lede vs lead we talked about, since wiipedia is based in the Americas, why does this page (Lead paragraph) use British spelling? Pass a Method talk 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The English version of Wikipedia allows articles to be in any dialect of English. Basically, whoever starts an article writes it in the style that they like, and everyone else is bound to use that same style in that particular article. I assume that the person who started the "lead" article was non-American, or maybe an American who didn't have as good a grasp of American English as they should have had. Gopher65_talk 02:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

[1] reply pls Pass a Method talk 05:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Universe article "Talk" section.

Thank you, Gopher65, for supporting me against the use of that bastard term "believe" in scientific contexts.

BTW, are you the same "gopher652003" who comments on Universe Today ? – IVAN3MAN (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem:). It's almost certainly a losing battle at the moment, but debating a topic like that never hurts. I'm sure they'll change their minds... eventually. I'm going to let the topic lie for a while to give the arguments our side presented time to sink in.

I actually am the gopher652003 from the Universe Today message boards:). I was wondering if you were that Ivan. Nice to see you here! Gopher65_talk 14:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I am that man. Nice to see you here, too!

After sleeping on it, I agree with you about letting the topic rest for a while; it will allow other (silent) editors time to think about it when they perform edits there and elsewhere. Also, I now see why a lot of women are put off editing on Wikipedia because of the "king of the mountain" mentality of some entrenched male editors – such as TimothyRias, who has taken upon himself to arbitrarily revert virtually all of my "believe" edits on other articles (see link via his user name).

P.S. Given enough time, water will erode away the most stubborn of mountains – so we will play it cool. IVAN3MAN (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang

Yo Gopher65, if you're interested, I would like to draw your attention to the ongoing subject debate here. – IVAN3MAN (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Draco / SuperDraco separation?

Gopher65 -- saw your constructive comment on the Merlin Talk page. Thanks.

On that page, you also shared a thought about the discussion going on the Draco Talk page on whether Draco and SuperDraco are really both in the same family. That's helpful too. But I would appreciate it if you would articulate your thoughts on the Draco Talk page, and maybe consider making a specific proposal one way or the other, to see if we can gain consensus. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Falcon 9

While the Falcon 9 article could go any of several ways (a high-level model class article, on all F9 vehicles, or an article on the F9 in general PLUS the specific F9 v1.0 model, etc.), some edits got made today that are presuming a particular outcome. Therefore, to get the issue quickly resolved, I proposed a move on the Talk page. I don't really care which way it goes, but do hope you and other editors will weigh in. N2e (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

SpaceX reusable launch system development program

Hi Gopher, I appreciate your help on trying to get the GA review completed on SpaceX reusable launch system development program.

I made a bit of further copyediting to one of your edits, and then just finished spending multiple hours going through the the rest of the GA reviewer's comments. There are still a few things to work on, and if you'd like to come back and look at anything that doesn't have a "fixed" or "done" tag by it, that would be cool, and much appreciated. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Elon Musk. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Hi, just to let you know in regards to the discussion on the Elon Musk in regards to cofounding, and at request of N2e I put in a request at DR/N, so I'm obligated to tell you. Thanks Heuh (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated Elon Musk discussion

Hi, I don't whether you have viewed it and it doesn't change anything or that you were unaware, but since your comments on the original proposal I have edited the proposal, and created corrected reasons for the proposal, this may make it easier for you to OPPOSE or SUPPORT, if not I'd appreciate hearing your views on why you can't yet do either. Just thought I'd let you know, in case you hadn't seen. Heuh (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of {citation needed} tags

Hi Gopher.

I noticed you said in the Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems discussion that "the current use of "citation needed" tags in this article goes against the very purpose of the tags. That purpose is to inform users of potentially unsourced information when they can't pick up on that fact on their own"

I don't think that's quite right, but I didn't want to get on a tangent in that discussion.

Since you and I both work on a number of spaceflight-related articles, I thought I should mention that. Should you want to discuss the topic a bit further, or inquire how I tend to use {cn} tags in editing Wikipedia, I'd be happy to do so. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gopher65. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gopher65. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gopher65. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your signature and linter errors

Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to — [[User:Gopher65|Gopher65]]<sub>[[User_talk:Gopher65|<small style="color:green;">talk</small>]]</sub> ASAP.

The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature. See WP:SIGFONT for more info.

If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and I may give you another replacement signature to use. Otherwise, you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk • he/him) 17:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)