Jump to content

User talk:GoodDay: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 277: Line 277:
==Please don't==
==Please don't==
G'day; don't edit war on [[River Shannon]] and [[Irish Sea]]; the established version of both articles was recently overturned and I have reverted to the status quo. Current advice is to '''not''' introduce the term "British Isles" into Irish related articles as it is controversial and provocative. Regards [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
G'day; don't edit war on [[River Shannon]] and [[Irish Sea]]; the established version of both articles was recently overturned and I have reverted to the status quo. Current advice is to '''not''' introduce the term "British Isles" into Irish related articles as it is controversial and provocative. Regards [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Any disputes in Canada? [[Special:Contributions/93.107.137.177|93.107.137.177]] ([[User talk:93.107.137.177|talk]]) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:59, 20 July 2008

Welcome!

Hello, GoodDay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! 


Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. Be assured I'll be as curtious as possible & hope to provide worthy answers to your questions (about wiki edits), I'm looking forward to meeting you. User:GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC). [reply]

Archives

No problem. I also added {{talkarchive}} to your older archives. You may want to cut and paste any ongoing discussions back to this page if the old discussion provides important context. You can always cut and paste them back to the archive when they peter-out. -Rrius (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign the petition

I don't usually do this kind of thing but would you please sign the Come back Jack petition. --Cameron (T|C) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Maple Leafs

I've been reading (imagine that) about the switchover from NHA to NHL. It seems to me that if we consider the St. Pats and the Arenas as predecessors to the Leafs, then we should probably consider the Toronto club from the NHA to be a predecessor as well. Hear me out. Livingstone owned the NHA franchise. In 1917, the NHA took the players and franchise away when the 228th dropped out. They ordered Livingstone to sell, but he didn't. Because they expected it to sell, there are cites that the players were to go back to that franchise. The following season, those players became the property of the NHL Toronto franchise. Also, the manager Querrie was the same. While the Arena Company paid for the franchise (and paid again a year later) it seems to be basically the same thing. Same jerseys, colors, too. I am pretty sure the NHL and Leafs don't consider Livingstone's club a predecessor, but we can here at Wikipedia if it is explained and cited. I don't think a merge is necessary, just the connections between. I don't think it is original research. Also, the date of the start of Blueshirts can be iffy too. While O'Brien sold his franchise (according to Coleman the Les Canadiens) or a franchise (according to other books the Les Canadiens were sold to Kennedy). At any rate, the Toronto club started in 1912, franchise bought in 1911. Myself, if I owned the Leafs, I would consider the Blueshirts a predecessor and Toronto fans would accept it. What do you think? (Keep the discussion on this page?) Alaney2k (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain about this. I've always heard the NHL Franchise discribes as Arenas-St.Patricks-Maple Leafs; but as for the club & the Blueshirts? I embarrassed to say, I'm not knowledgable enough of the pre-NHL days, to be able to argue this either way. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then you'll just take my word for it. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WP

Are you going to add yourself?. Thanks for signing the petition by the way. I am going to miss Jack if he doesn't come back. = ( --Cameron (T|C) 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can add you if you tell me your "intrests/specialist areas". = ) How did you manage to add yourself last time? --Cameron (T|C) 20:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can take a look to see if it's ok. I wrote: "Freelance/NPOV promoter". --Cameron (T|C) 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Have you seen Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities? I never see you there and yet I'm sure you'd love it there just as much as I do. People go there to ask questions and Wikipedians chime in to answer them. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the date problem now.
PS: You took part in the founding discussion, that's good enough for me! Don't be so humble. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 10:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of all Wikipedians with the userbox "This user is interested in the British Empire". About 250 - 500 users have the page displayed on their userpage. Obviously that is too many users to inform (and we would get told off to doing so!). So what I am going to do is check for editors that have edited this month and inform them about the project. The others are probably inactive or retired! Wish me luck! --Cameron (T|C) 20:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK page

Maybe you can explain to Fonzy your point about consensus on the UK page. He is setting up a massive edit war, preaching to everyone and now deleting other editors comments (not to mentioning banning IP votes). I get a sense of a 14 year old playing games not a serious editor. --Snowded (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right to reference possessiveness and it would be good if an admin could mentor him/her. Given the very recent edit history it is needed. Pity really, I think without all that aggression we might have achieved something (and thanks for your earlier support). --Snowded (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GoodDay. I am backing away from this debate completely now. Lots of editors seem to have their own POV and refuse to look for a compromise. Combined with USER:Fone4My thinking he owns the talk page, I am not going to contribute any further. I am going to get back to editing.Pureditor 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Canada Day!Canada
Hopefully we can celebrate by finally getting some consensus on the UK cabal. I think your deadline of today might be a bit early. Stick with it and don't give up on getting consistency! I've returned to the debate now that Fone4my has gone.Pureditor 05:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Jack's talk page

And the diffs I left about the personal attacks he has made. We are not dealing with a nice user, and in one edit, even threatened to fight with me, and along with calling me "arsehole", "prick", "dickhead", among others, this is not acceptable. Additionally, the user is up for sockpuppetery at the moment. Fone4Me 15:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's TharkunColl?

He seems to have vanished. He doesn't to appear to have had a disagreement or anything. You don't think he's retired too, do you? --Cameron (T|C) 14:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fonez

Hi, "Troll" here. I'd appreciate your good counsel where Fonez is concerned. I fear a degeneration into a slanging match should I reply further to his latest edits directed towards me at Talk:United Kingdom#Final Poll Discussion. Thanks much. Troll. 80.41.249.183 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC) (Soon to be registered under that name - promise!)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your input at the Admin concerned; appreciate it. ;) 80.41.249.183 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filed an ANI report

I have been bold and filed a report here. Please tell me on my talk page if you think my summary is fair and (if you wish) comment too. I have requested an admin take a look at both sockpuppetry cases and the closure by a non-admin. --Cameron (T|C) 17:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't blame an admin for taking action against the both of them! I hope the whole ANI thing will put the thing to rest. I hope no one thinks I'm just stirring things up again. = ( --Cameron (T|C) 17:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope it does come to an end then! --Cameron* 17:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The decision has been overruled. --Cameron* 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland, etc.

If you keep saying at United Kingdom that we need to go to Scotland, cabals will keep arguing about irrelevancies. I suggest starting a new topic (with suggestions) at Scotland, then notifying UK in a new section that the topic is open there. I won't do it because I am a little frustrated with the continual dips in tone. -Rrius (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe how many accusations have flown around on this one. I understand there are unionist v. national factors in play, but seriously. -Rrius (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much good flexing my muscles on wikipedia, no one can see them! = ) It's always best to keep cool, not that I need to tell you that! --Cameron* 19:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done worse, don't worry. I suppose I can just blame it puberty! --Cameron* 20:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK not GB, noted, thanx.Czar Brodie (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Troll" again. Well done for taking the initiative to enter the 'lions den' that is Talk:Scotland. I hope you don't object, but for 'completeness' I have added a couple of 'options' to your list at Talk:Scotland#Consensus on Intro, ("What does the Scotland article prefer"), with the rider stating that these did not appear at Talk:United Kingdom. If you consider that such a move is unjustified, please feel free to revert - I won't take the hump. Regards 195.27.13.214 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I think my comment on Fone4My was reasonable. He is behaving in a totally arrogant way and has a very poor track record. A new editor, imposing on a debate of this type? Previous track record having to apologies for stealing other people's entries? I accepted constituent country on Wales for the sake of the peace. I don;t think it will be accepted on Scotland (hence my earlier suggestion of a compromise). However we are now back in a Unionist-nationalist polarisation. Not only that we have a small cabal who will I think attempt to impose, and build bad faith, withdrawal from editing. I've just about had enough to be honest. --Snowded (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plugging parts

I don't think it will help and I do think it is POV. Understand the frustration but its plain wrong and a recipe for constant edit wars. --Snowded (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend has returned...

Check out recent edits by a user named Night-sunne, remind you of anyone named Wassup? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-gossip

Oooh 30-something. = ) --Cameron* 20:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was mainly directed against Fone4My but you could have been the agenda driven Candian unionist! And I could be the hissy fit 14 year old! Anyway regardless of whom was meant I advised him to read WP:AGF (and perhaps WP:Attack would be an idea for him to read too, I will add it to the list). Regards, --Cameron* 20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems that way. Only, sadly, we seem to have lost a user in the process. --Cameron* 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Jack's case isn't closed yet...Although I expect he will only be warned. --Cameron* 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More socks

Lord help us, is there anyone who doesn't own multiple socks puppets? --Cameron* 10:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: Jack forbes, Fone4My and UK4eva have been using illegal socks and yet none of them have been blocked? Our system must be flawed! --Cameron* 11:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure on the Uk4ever/Fone4My case

Please read my closing statement on this matter. Kind regards. Uk4ever (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

Am I off-base here: User talk:Rrius#Reversion? -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying issue is over. I'm just wondering who's right about the procedure. -Rrius (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably simplest to leave the the discussion on my talk page since there are three of us involved; do you want to watch my talk page or do you want me to use {{talkback}}? -Rrius (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

I have an editor review going WP:Editor review/Rrius and, like everyone else, am looking for someone who's not familiar with me to do a review. I'm not sure whether you, Cameron, or G2 know me too well or not, but I was hoping you could suggest someone (or even better ask for me). Thanks either way! -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Sens captains

I'll doublecheck my media/yearbooks for the Sens. That goes too far back to remember right away. Alaney2k (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence of events:

Mark Lamb was traded away. Dineen became co-captain with Brad Shaw. Brad Shaw became injured and Dineen was sole captain during that time only. When Shaw came back, Dineen became co-captain with Shaw until the end of the season. After the season, Dineen was not re-signed. The following fall (in '94) was the start of the lockout. In pre-season, Shaw was sole captain. By the time the season started Randy Cunneyworth became sole captain. Alaney2k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re

Fonez4mii and MagdelenaDiArco were the same person, yet argued against eachother so that one point would come out. Jack forbes and Fonez4mii are the same person arguing against himself, so that one editor will ultimately become more respected, as Fonez confimed he had done with another set of accounts a while ago, to me by email. This is Jonas Rand on a proxy by the way. 89.240.200.158 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I guess they like to wear different ones every day ;) But they have all shown that they are able to use Wikipedia:Open proxies, so it's obvious how they are concealing their identities. 89.240.200.158 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does. However, it is difficult to do this, as each one must first be found, and also, some users in China can only edit through proxies, so its a controversial issue. It's quite clever though... framing your other accounts to make sure people don't associate you as the same person... shame that the user doesn't put their mind to helping wikipedia rather than disrupting it. 89.240.200.158 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has been a discussion here which hasn't been prompted by an aggressive sock puppet! Maybe we should use that as a predictor? --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Troll" here. "Jack's" back; he just deleted a comment I left earlier today on his Jack forbes page. Is/was he really Fonez4mii/Fone4My? 80.41.237.88 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No! Boilerman-yes, used to verbally attack Fonez4mii, not clever and not proud of it. User:Joe Deagan-yes, not used as a sockpuppet, kept well away from articles edited by Jack forbes. If you really think I would use a sockpuppet to take down Scotland you don't understand my politics. Do I care whether I am believed or not? Maybe a little, no one likes their name dragged through the mud, even though I brought much of it upon myself. I suppose that's why I have replied to this. Jack forbes (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever do consider it, it won't be for a long time. On the other hand I once commented that sockpuppet users should never be allowed back. I would be a hypocrite if I did! Jack forbes (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Troll" again. Thanks, I couldn't quite follow this discussion, sorry for sticking my oar in. (Off to the pub for a swift half - may be back later at the Cabal). Regards 80.41.237.88 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Troll" here. I was adding to the list. They're not "Jack's socks" needles to say. Does it appear on the section that they are Jack's? Not my intention, I recon they're Fonez' socks. 80.41.253.210 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Troll" again. Fixed the page so as to avoid any misunderstanding. 80.41.253.210 (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, since they're all using proxies, you won't find any link between any of them. 78.146.72.254 (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

Ye sorry i know. Im new to wikipedia sorry. Also do you think you can edit the scotland page and keep the edits --Martinnutini (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've an open mind about the user at this stage. Certainly some of the discussion lacks depth and professionalism. There's little damage that can be done here however - any hint of distruption or inappropriate behaviour can be easily remedied. If this gentleman sincerely lacks the ability to learn our values and standards, then I can't see them lasting, for better or worse. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've accepted the United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation, and you are listed as one of the participants. Please feel free to comment and participate in the discussion on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. Limited time. New project ...

I've put in a request to change Fête nationale du Québec to Saint Jean Baptiste Day. You may wish to join the discussion at the Talk Page--soulscanner (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay; moving it back to the original title will require administrator intervention. I made a bit of a mess of it trying to change it back and couldn't, and ended up with the current title. It's been garbled in a whole bunch of redirects. Could you make that request as an official neutral party? Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying. --soulscanner (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cable guy

"Troll" here - can't say you didn't try. Don't give up just yet, painful as that might be ;) 195.27.13.214 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Troll" again. Province at NI is a fair description, IMO, and I'd be perfectly happy with country at E/S/W, but agree kingdom would be a non-starter anywhere. (The only contemporary and reliable source for use of kingdomwhich I could find was at the www.scottish.parliament.uk site, but even then that was a unique example of kingdom). 195.27.13.214 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Troll" here. Re. final comment at Cabal; you can guess which compromise gets my vote. But I recon I'll likewise be disappointed. Must fly - work calls. TTFN 195.27.13.214 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86xx

You're probably right. What was it that Wilde said; "I can resist anything except temptation". Wotapalaver (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what he describes you as (as long as it's civil), nor what you are. You could be the cloned lovechild of Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley and it wouldn't matter. What matters is bringing citable facts. I won't hold my breath waiting for that day for dear old 86. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back

Can't complain. And yourself?Darthflyer (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burma

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added you along with added 18 other users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Deamon138 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


El Presidente

Gough Whitlam or William Deane.--Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote at Fête nationale du Québec (Saint Jean Baptiste Day)

Hi, I've set up a vote to try and resolve this here. As you've commented on the issue already, I wanted to ensure you take the opportunity to vote. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gooday. I should be outside. It's a beautiful sunny day!
I've asked the dissenting editors to acknowledge the Wikipedia naming conventions that emphasize that article titles should be the ones that are most recognizable to English-speakers[1]. If they do not, I think we should ask for a Request for comment as the next step in solving this dispute, as such a refusal could constitute bad faith. It will require at least two editors to start the process. Thank you. --soulscanner (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left other messages with other editors. I'd appreciate you keeping track of the disussion, though, if only to add the odd comment. I'll keep you informed of the progress. --soulscanner (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply, etc

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I've replied there, and I see the editor is now being inflammatory on Talk:Wales, even though the proposal will have the effect of bringing about a large degree of consistency amongst the relevant articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK as Countries

Thanks for the message. I posted on the mediation a while back: "Encarta defines a country as: "1. separate nation: a nation or state that is politically independent, or a land that was formerly independent and remains separate in some respects.""

This definition applies to Scotland, Wales and England. It would have applied to Ireland, prior to their independence, but I don't think it applies to Northern Ireland now. NI seems to defy definition. It isn't a (separate) nation, as there are two separate nationalities there. It isn't a province - which would be Ulster - as there are two Ulster counties in the Republic. It isn't 'a state that is politically independent'. It was never 'formerly independent' (in itself). It was born out of political expediancy, rather than anything else. Seems to be easier to say what it isn't, rather than what it is. Nice try, though. What are your thoughts? Dai caregos (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exams

Thanks GoodDay, I managed to pass them all. Even maths and chemistry, hehehe. = ) Now that my exams are over you'll be having to put up with a lot more of my royalist rants. You'll wish I was gone again in no time! = ) --Cameron* 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, don't go getting sentimental on me! : ) --Cameron* 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not meant to say that! You're meant to say "We republicans are the hard and unfeeling types who never dreamt of being knights when we were little!". = ) --Cameron* 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aiming higher you see. Baron would suit me more. = ) Besides then I get to wear a wonderful coronet to Charles' coronation! --Cameron* 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All royals live long. Though I want HM to live as long as possible I also hope that Charles will ascend the throne. I don't think William is ready yet anyway. Besides he needs a wife to support him. I don't think Middleton is a good idea. --Cameron* 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was some talk of putting equal primogeniture in the Equalities Bill, but one of the realms is really just going to have to propose something (whether a document or a call for a summit) for anything to get done. -Rrius (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the problem. It's hardly salic law. It seems a shame to part with yet another tradition. None of the Royal Family have ever complained, why should we? Politicians spend far to much time meddling with the Royal's matters. --Cameron* 11:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell; so far the doesn't seem to be an outcry for such a move. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Straka

It's not quite 100% official, nor are details of his contract available, but The Hockey News recently confirmed he will not be returning to the NHL. IrisKawling (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all of the info I have, and I figured it warrants at least removing him from the Rangers roster, but if you still disagree you can re-add him if you wish. IrisKawling (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
I've started a new page for structured mediation if you're interested. BigBlueFish (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, however you thought it was, I'm sure he was a good guy ): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.198.73 (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revent involvement in reverting articles to use the term British Isles

GoodDay, I'm surprised. Many of your reverts were incorrect, but I'm more surprised that you actually editted an article. Silver lining I suppose. Still, if you're going to say "Discuss it first" you should at least make an attempt to open the discussion... --Bardcom (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI I have read your post on this talk page and added you name to the list Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject iconBritish Empire NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Reply

I don't know when I'll start editing again. I guess when the time comes I'll know. I still like to keep up to date on the discussions, but as you know, I'll be staying away from Britain and British Isles articles for a good while. Probably for the best, keeps the blood pressure down. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay, I'm going round making my apologies to those who deserve it, and you are certainly one of those. I apologise for letting you defend me at a time where I did'nt deserve it. When I saw this happening I should have held my hands up and confessed to not being whiter than white. I felt pretty bad afterwards, not about the block so much, but about allowing people to defend me when I could have stopped them. Once again, sorry! Jack forbes (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GoodDay, I don't want to start archiving till I begin anew, sounds a bit silly, but it would feel like a clean slate. Jack forbes (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wales intro: a new poll, and consensus actually in sight

I know you have already voted, but there has been two new proposals since (now combined into one poll), and another combined poll of older suggestions. As Keeper's first poll seems to have been superseded now, I thought you might like to know this (assuming you didn't, or are tucked up in bed perhaps). It seems a consensus is genuinely on the horizon here given the people in agreement, but I’m sure that, as such an interested party, people will wish for your input again.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2007–08 NHL season

I've just made a recommendation on the page Talk:2007–08 NHL season. Since you edit there regularly, I wanted your comment. BMW(drive) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Mind taking a look at HC CSKA Moscow. Don't want to go over 3 myself since I warned him about it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Montreal Canadiens

Reply is on my talk page. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what am i doing now?

I try to get concensus. Now we have the article talk page discussion, and before that we have the Djasso discussion. I dont mind to have a discussion without reverts, but i think you agree that Djasso didnt look for a concensus with me but to make a point. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all had a missunderstanding, my fault here. I was shure the discussion on Djassos page is the offical one. When i was blocked yesterday only that i understood that by not having the dicsussion in the right places, i havent had it at all. Thats why today i moved it all there. Now i'll wait wor a few days to see what more ideas will be here, and opinions. I only hate mixed comments. For example a guy there wrote like a million paragraphs why my arguments are wrong, and then i the last paragraph proposed the same thing i have. People there dont understand that my opinion on who is greater was brought only as an example to a different view, while what i promote for the article is somthing else, which is nutrality. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It cant be your fault, it all got wrong because i have puted the discussion in the wrong placed and havent known about the 3RR. If i would put it all in the right place from the first place the discussion could be closed tommorow since many people would by now state what they think. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you good in writing articles?

I think there should be an article at the Wikipedia about the IIHF Centennial All-Star Team. Here is the link about it. The problem is i dont quite know how to write them. The World Team of the 20th Century have done a table with the players, not only that, down in that page? They have a template with the names of the players. If you couldn't do it, could you please leave this messege to someone who could? Thank you.

P.S. I think in the CSKA Moscow and Montreal articles we can already edit the article towards a concensus. Check my latest edits in both of them. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some things there, improve it if you like. Since i'm a new user i cant edit yet protected pages like the article on Wayne Gretzky, could you please add there in the bottom this template:
Thank you. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Who should i talk to there? The "Base" of the article looks nice. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And i will turn to them later, after i add few more things there. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

G'day; don't edit war on River Shannon and Irish Sea; the established version of both articles was recently overturned and I have reverted to the status quo. Current advice is to not introduce the term "British Isles" into Irish related articles as it is controversial and provocative. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Any disputes in Canada? 93.107.137.177 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]