User talk:GoodDay

This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

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

You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talk-page's 'history'.

I've a secondary userpage called User:GoodDay/My stuff, which is where 'my stuff' has been transfered from my Userpage.

Slowing Down

I'm trimming down my time on Wikipedia & so will be around sporadically. My Wiki-addiction is disrupting my real-life. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Posting at other User talkpages

I'm tired of being threatened with Rfc & ANI reports. I'm tired of being characterized as though I were some kinda Palpatine character. From now on, I'll no longer be contacting or conversing with others on their talkpages. My talkpage will be the only place to converse for me. Hopefully, nobody will attempt to censure me here. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Posting at Article talkpages

1) It's very difficult to push for NPoV at British & Irish political articles; there's a "if you're not from the British Isles, bud out" attitude there.
2) Non-english advocates are very sensative when you point out to them that this is the english language Wikipedia.

Over the years, I've found it increasingly difficult to post commonsense into these areas & many a time I have been growled at. Attempts at humour, to lighten things up, have been dwarfed by mean-spiritedness. No editor deserves to treated like this. Therefore, I've restricted myself on article talkpages to AfDs, Rfcs & RMs. I won't be involved in discussions unless required via BRD 'of' my edits or via Rfcs which need my presence. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My talkpage

If anybody is offended by what occurs at my talkpage? Do yourselves a favour & remove it (my talkpage) from your watchlist. If you don't like the show, turn the channel. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Speaker vacancy

Please don't read this as harsh in light of the Giffords shooting, but the Speaker's office is not considered vacant except by death, removal from office, or resignation, since the position is in the presidential line of succession; had Pelosi been needed, she would have acted as President until officially handed over to Boehner. 75.202.151.210 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, since Pelosi, like all other representatives, is technically a "Member-Elect" from noon on Jan. 3 (expiration of the previous term) until actually sworn in, which happened this year on Jan. 5. And if the Speakership were a continuing position, there would be no need to re-elect an incumbent on the first day of each new Congress. JTRH (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If such a need had arose in that 2-day period, Senator Daniel Inouye (as the US Senate president pro tempore) wouldn' would'vet been Acting President. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean "would've" instead of "wouldn't"? In any case, if necessary between Jan. 3 and 5, the House could have convened immediately, taken their oaths, and elected Boehner as Speaker immediately. A lot of this discussion seems to be speculative; I'm going to see if the Clerk of the House can give us a definitive opinion. JTRH (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

TBH, I'm no longer certain. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Two things I don't understand about the presidential succession act (1947). Apparently, it says only the VP can become President in such scenerios & thus lower officers can only assume presidential powers & duties (thus Acting President) for the rest of a 4-year term -I find this difficult to believe-.

That's what it says. It's really just a semantic distinction, because the "powers and duties" are the same, whether the title is President or Acting President. Strangely enough, the 25th Amendment doesn't deal with succession beyond the Vice President, only providing for temporary presidential disability and the nomination/confirmation of a new VP in the event of a VP vacancy. JTRH (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, apparently, the person (who aint VP) must resign his/her position to assume the presidential powers & duties.

Right. JTRH (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if they resign their positions 'first', aren't they automatically removing themselves from the presidential line of succession & thus unable to assume the prez powers & duties? GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not under the terms of this law, no. JTRH (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier to just let'em become President. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's done the way it's done. JTRH (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, look at my country. We're stuck with a Head of State, who nobody chose & who's successors are already selected (all by birth). GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the reason the law provides these headscratchers is because it is poorly written.

For one, it should specify whether the speaker is considered to hold office after noon on January 3 in an odd-numbered year. The best argument is that the office is vacant. As GoodDay points out, a speaker is elected at each Congress, even where the previous incumbent is to be re-elected. What's more, the post is based on Britain's speaker, who does not continue in office after dissolution (the end of a Parliament). Tellingly, the House rules provide that the other officers (e.g., the clerk) continue in office until their successors are chosen, but no such provision is made for the speaker. I think the House could provide for its speaker to carry over even though it is not a continuous body like the Senate is, but they haven't. In any event, there would probably be a lawsuit.

JTRH's solution of convening early wouldn't work for two reasons: First, if there is no speaker and no president, there is no one empowered to convene the House. If the old speaker were still the speaker, after all, there'd be no need to convene Congress at all. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the speaker does continue in office but did need to convene congress, it's not actually clear she has the power to convene the House early. The House rule says the speaker can "reconvene" the House, but it assumes an adjounment and by its own terms does not appear to refer to convening the House in the first instance. Second, it takes time to convene the House. If the president pro tempore were minded to do so, he could step in and assume the presidency before the speaker, new or old, could do anything about it; once in, he couldn't be knocked out by the speaker.

Another bit of poor drafting is that a cabinet member who becomes Acting President can be knocked out. Let's say the president and vice president die, and the speaker and ppt refuse to take the office, allowing the secretary of state to assume the office. Can she appoint a vice president? You would assume so because she has assumed all the powers of the office. But if she does, would the new vice president knock her out and become president? It seems so because the statute says such acting presidents are knocked out when a "prior-entitled officer is able to act". "Prior-entitled" almost certainly means higher on the list rather than earlier in time. Even if that is not the intent, the ambiguity would discourage an acting president from appointing a vice president at the very moment when a stable succession would seem the most important.

The whole thing, including whether legislators should be on the list at all should be re-examined. -Rrius (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Clerk of the House, as a continuing officer, is empowered to convene the House in the absence of the Speaker (whether there is a Speaker who is absent, or there is no occupant of the office). The same is true for the Secretary of the Senate in the absence of the VP and the President pro tempore. And whomever is exercising the power of the Presidency (President, VP who becomes P, or a Cabinet officer as Acting P) has the power to call Congress into session at any time. So I don't see that there would be any sort of ambiguity or any question as to who has the power to do X, Y or Z in a catastrophic situation like this - particularly after 9/11, I'm sure that the legal staffs of both the legislative and executive branches have well-researched and well-developed contingency plans, even if they're not widely known by the public.

On the presidential succession, I read the law to require the Speaker and PPT to resign and assume the Acting Presidency in the event that it's necessary. (The operative word is "shall.") And, as with the above matter, I'm sure there are answers (whether or not they're publicly known) dealing with each of these. It's not just a matter of the text of the law, it's a matter of legislative history and legal precedent. I really don't see a situation where you have Acting President Hillary Clinton, the newly-confirmed Vice President of her choice, and the Speaker of the House playing Rock, Paper, Scissors to figure out which one now has the authority to launch a nuclear strike against some aggressor who has just wiped out all three of their predecessors. The fact that the scenarios and contingency plans are not publicly accessible, so we don't know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, I assume that there are detailed contingencies which are deliberately not made available to the public for national security reasons. JTRH (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Succession Act should be revised to allow full succession to the Presidency (not just the powers & duties), for all those officials (except those not born American ciitizens). GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just looked it up in the U.S. Code. The President pro tempore becomes acting President "if there is no Speaker," which I assume would have been the case between Jan. 3 and 5. Also, it specifies that an individual below the VP who becomes Acting President automatically resigns their current position (Speaker, PPT, Cabinet officer) by taking the Presidential oath. The oath-taking is necessary under the Constitution before Presidential powers can be exercised by anyone. So it's pretty specific at least as to that part of the succession issue. There's bound to be more about it that we don't know. JTRH (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Act doesn't exactly say the presidential oath of office. It's likey the oath to be taken, is the same oath taken by all officils in the federal government (except the President). GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone assuming the powers of the presidency must take the presidential oath first. That's in the Constitution. JTRH (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, as VPs Bush & Cheney didn't in 1985, 2002 & 2007 (though that's under the 25th amendment). I'd argue that the prez oath is restricted to only becoming President. Again though, we shall never know until the Succession Act is implamented. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The VP would have had to take the Presidential oath before he could actually do anything as President/Acting President, even if only temporarily. JTRH (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Once the Speaker & Prez pro temp are given written notices, the VP immediately becomes Acting President. No oath is required to discharge those duties. In 2009 (thanks to Roberts' mess up), Obama didn't correctly take the prez oath 'until' the Jan 21. In the time between Jan 20-21, his discharging of his powers & duties weren't ruled by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Roberts said all the words but put them in the wrong order. The fact that Obama repeated it almost the way Roberts said it didn't invalidate his oath, but it was repeated at the White House the next day out of an abundance of caution. JTRH (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In between those events, Obama performed his presidential powers & duties. Which he was able to do at the stroke of Noon EST, January 20, 2009 -oath or no oath-. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Where do you find authority for the Clerk to convene the House? The mere fact of being a continuing officer certainly doesn't provide that authority.

Standing Rules of the House, Rule II, Section 2(c): At the commencement of the first session of each Congress, the Clerk shall call the Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioner to order and proceed to record their presence by States in alphabetical order, either by call of the roll or by use of the electronic voting system. Pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore, the Clerk shall preserve order and decorum and decide all questions of order, subject to appeal by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. When the Speakership is vacant, the Clerk has the authority to convene the House, establish a quorum, and preside over the election of the Speaker. JTRH (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

First, nothing in that says he can convene the House when it is not in session; rather, it says he can "call [the membership] to order". Second, and more importantly, the opening phrase severely limits that power to "at the commencement of the first session of each Congress"—in this case, January 5. -Rrius (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

2) If the president and vice president die and no one has yet assumed the acting presidency, there is no one able to use the president's power to convene Congress. That is fairly simple. So in the situation where there is no speaker and no one has yet assumed the acting presidency, someone lower on the list would have to become acting president before anyone could convene the House. Keep in mind, the date of January 5 was set by a statute as the day when the first day of the first session begins, so it is not entirely clear that anyone but the president could call them to sit early.

I'm going to research this more thoroughly, but I'm almost certain that there is a procedure for convening in an emergency. JTRH (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The publicly available rules and precedents that I've found with a relatively cursory search are vague. Based on what I've found so far, let's say the Acting succession passes to a Cabinet officer because the Speakership and Presidency pro tempore are vacant, the Cabinet officer takes the Presidential oath and orders Congress to reconvene. Alternatively, let's say that for some reason the 112th Congress had to convene on Jan. 3, even though the adjournment resolution passed by the 111th Congress designated Jan. 5. The Members-elect of the House convene on Jan. 3, elect a Speaker, take their oaths, and the two Houses pass a resolution amending the 111th's adjournment resolution changing the date to Jan. 3. The Senate is a continuing body, since ordinarily two-thirds of the Senators don't leave office at the end of a Congress, so the Senate can simply show up. They have a quorum even without swearing in the new or newly re-elected Senators. They're not going to sit there twiddling their thumbs for two days during a national emergency because the previous Congress said they can't meet until the 5th. JTRH (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have done the research: Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution says in pertinent part, the president "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them". In the event that the offices of President and Vice President are vacant, no one can exercise that authority until someone has entered into the office of Acting President. It would be irrational and an affront to the structure of the succession act to assume that the speaker or speaker in waiting could, as a member of the legislative branch, use a power of the presidency before switching branches. House Rule 1, Section 12, doesn't actually allow the Speaker to convene the House when the House is adjourned sine die, but subsection (d) could probably be stretched beyond what it actually allows. When Congress adjourns or recesses for more more than three days, they do so by adopting a resolution, and the resolution provides authority for the Speaker to recall the House (and the Majority Leader to recall the Senate). The concurrent resolution providing for sine die adjournment provides that the Speaker and Majority Leader can recall their respective chambers to "reassemble". The strong implication is that the authority only lasts until noon on January 3 because convening the respective Houses would be "assembling", not "reassembling". I don't think the Speaker of the preceding Congress has the power to convene the House after noon on January 3 to elect a new speaker, but even if she did, as I've said, it takes time to get a quorum together; time in which the president pro tempore could simply take the acting presidency.

The post of president pro tempore does not go vacant at the end of Congress unless the person holding the office ceases to be a senator, so you source only correct if the president pro tempore didn't run for re-election or lost. When the majority party stays the same, there is no resolution electing a new president pro tempore. When the majority does change, the president pro tempore serves until a new one is elected, so if Republicans had won the Senate in November, Dan Inouye would have continued in office until some time on the afternoon of January 5, when a Republican replacement was elected.

In your last part, you talk about a hypothetical where the Congress for some reason has to show up on January 3 despite the law saying they are to convene on January 5, but there is no power or authority for such a thing to happen, so I don't know why you brought it up. I think you may be confused about the authority by which the Congress meets for the first session. Section 2 of the 20th Amendment says Congress is to meet on January 3 of every year unless they, by law, provided a different day. When, as with the beginning of this Congress, it is desirable to begin on a different day, they pass a joint resolution, which has to be signed by the president, and is a statute as much as any provision of the United States Code. If Congress tried to simply show up early and change "January 5" to "January 3", it wouldn't work for two reasons: first, once again, there is no president to sign the joint resolution, and second, their actions in reconvening would have been illegal, so the action would be void. -Rrius (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

3) There is no reason to believe the officers have to, despite the use of the word "shall". Officers in the order of succession are just as able as people elected to the offices to deliver a letter to the secretary of state refusing to accept the office.

I doubt that. Sure, the Speaker/President pro tem/Secretary of Agriculture can resign altogether as a Representative/Senator/Cabinet officer and thereby take him/herself out of the line of succession, but I don't read the law to say that s/he can say, "Let this cup pass by me" and keep their current position while the Acting Presidency passes to someone later in the line of succession. What do you think the word "shall" means if not "is required to"? JTRH (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't believe it because you are ignoring the section that comes right after section 19 and the general rule that you can't force someone to take an office. As for the word "shall", it is not always mandatory in law; it depends on context, which in this case makes it directory, not mandatory. -Rrius (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

4) Of course there would never be such "rock, paper, scissors" because the acting president wouldn't risk it. You keep talking about "contingency plans", but the law is the law, and informal arrangements don't trump that. As the statute is written, it would suggest that a cabinet secretary who takes the acting presidency would be supplanted by a vice president appointed by her. The executive and legislative branches can informally discuss whatever they want to, but the law is the law. It is frankly bizarre to think that shitty writing is acceptable because surely the executive branch has secret plans to ignore it when it produces bizarre results. You also seem to be mistaking what I'm talking about for what happens when half the government die at once. What I'm talking about is the president and vice president dying together or the president dying when the vice presidency is vacant. The vice presidency has been vacant for a large percentage of our history and presidents and vice presidents are often together, so it is not exactly far-fetched. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about an "informal arrangement," I'm talking about volumes of legally binding classified national security memoranda. There are lawyers in the Justice Department who worked on nothing else after 9/11. You seem to be arguing that the federal law is bad because three Wikipedia editors can't figure out by reading it what the answer to the question is. It's not that there isn't an answer, it's that we don't know what it is, and no one else without a security clearance does, either. JTRH (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

House Rules, Rule I, Section 8: The Speaker may prepare a list of members, in a specific order, to act as Speaker pro tempore when the Speaker is absent during the Congress. If the Speaker dies, the first person on the list serves as Speaker pro tempore for the purpose of convening the House to elect a new Speaker. There's also something in the rules called a "catastrophic quorum failure," which deals with a situation in which a majority of members are either incapacitated or prevented from attending due to an emergency. It seems that the quorum requirements may be relaxed in such circumstances, so that those who are present how the power to act. That seems to include electing a Speaker who would fill that place in the presidential succession. JTRH (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You can call them mandatory all you want, but any such provisions do not and cannot trump the provisions of a statute. It is a simple as that. The catastrophic quorum features are not applicable as the question is not whether there is a quorum but whether there is a speaker and whether anyone can convene the House before the date appointed for the first session. You say that I'm arguing that the law is badly written because we can't figure it out. That's just wrong. I'm saying it because I know how to read a statute and this one sucks, and because scholars how have studied it say it leaves unanswered questions. What you seem to be arguing is that we should assume that, despite its terms, the law is actually okay because the executive branch has sat down written secret memorandums. That's foolish because it presupposes that they have the power to cure the problems of the act and that their solutions are any better. The first is simply wrong and ignores the way our government works, and the second is naive. -Rrius (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering: Are you an attorney or a political scientist, and have you worked in either the legislative or executive branches? I'm just wondering what the source of your expertise is. JTRH (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A lawyer and political science major; the first time I read the succession act, I was a junior in high school; I'm sure that makes it obvious I wasn't exactly popular. -Rrius (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I reckon, the only way we'll ever be certain about how the Succession Act will be implimented, will be when it's implimented. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Succession Act

Would both of you check my edit at Presidential Succession Act? O'Neil, Hastert & Pelosi didn't belong in that article, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that the three-year, 11-month vacancy in the Vice Presidency after the death of William Henry Harrison falls into a comparable category with Tip O'Neill being next in line for eight hours while G.H.W. Bush served as Acting President during Reagan's surgery. The latter has more to do with the 25th Amendment than with the original legislation. So I agree with you that they shouldn't go in the same chart. I think the contemporary instances where O'Neill, Hastert and Pelosi were next in line for brief periods might be worthy of a footnote to the article, though. And during the time I was typing this, someone reverted your edit. JTRH (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've been reverted per BRD. I could accept O'Neil, Hastert & Pelosi being included if they're given a seperate place or (as you say) a footnote. It's tricky, they were next-in-line to the presidential powers & duties, but not to the presidency. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

North African riots

Do you think that the riots which are spreading like wildfire all over North Africa are the result of Wikileaks?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the internet itself has given folks easier ways to communicate & wiki-leaks is right at home. The Egyptians no longer live in the dark ages, but they've got a struggle on their hands. Mubarak's digging in his heals. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that the student protests in Tunisia broke out just after Wikileaks began stirring the sh.t.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks, the deliverer of democracy. Kinda cool, eh? GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, Wikileaks' aim is instigating and spreading anarchy throughout the world.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It does have its negative effects, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Democracy - the golden foo. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What the foo is this?

I notice Wikipedia is using a new word: foo. GD, have you any clue as to what this word means or signifies apart from the 1974 song Kung Fu Fighting?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foo as in , this article is full of foo ? Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh so it's a placeholder name when one is just looking to make an example and foo could mean anything. For instance we're talking nobility and I say 'Lord Foo instead of hunting for an actual baron. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ya mean it's sorta like fuddle duddle? GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

like - jonny wotshisname ... oh you mean jonny foo. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hehehehe. Meanwhile, it appears things have settled down at Scotland & England. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, I don't read those articles, imo it is so much more fun and educational roaming and improving the more obscure corners of the wiki world. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Things have stirred again. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Live (1978 Victoria Park London) The Clash - White Riot - hey Joe - they pulled the f-ckin plug out. Turn it up you f-ckin foo.Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be an angry band. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It was an angry time - they also had political opinions ....

• - The Clash in "Rudeboy" - Left Wing Politics this is reliable - Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Are all the members still alive? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Currently to the best of my knowledge.TheClash#Members Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

All still kicking, but Strummer. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, 2002, in the anticlimax of the new millennium - I was too up my own foo at the time to notice - heart defect - wore it out using it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, gone is the era of the rude boy. The Specials also eulogised the rude boy in their songs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've been silenced by 'control freaks', grrrr (see below). GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

I am here at your request. Please read Talk page guidelines (to save you some time, it begins "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.") The reason for me highlighting the above is that it would be better for all concerned if you were to adhere to its advice. Your statement contributed nothing towards the discussion's progress. Indeed, it efectively stopped it in its tracks. There can be few, if any, editors at the Wales, Northern Ireland, England or Scotland pages unaware that those countries are not independent. It is highly unlikely there would be any need for you to highlight that fact ad nauseum, in order to help improve those articles. Please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My statement annoyed you, 'cuz you're a devolutionist. Please stop your political PoV from clouding your attitude towards me. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Another irrelevant remark. For once, I find myself 100% in agreement with Daicaregos. Absolutely regardless of your views GoodDay, we do not need to hear endless trivial point-scoring re-iterations of them in the guise of badly spelled non-joking pseudo-jokes repeated five times an hour on every talk page you take an interest in. I for one am absolutely sick of them and they just irritate a lot of editors and constantly distract them from accurately thinking about complicated issues. You could do with writing about 95% less talk page commentary and about 195% more basic article editing. If you can't be bothered, then seriously, take an extended break and do something else with your time for a while. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Be careful of the stones ya'll throw. This growing harrassement is quite unhealthy, along with the growing censurship. You're fairly new to me James, so all 'scratch' out my earth-shattering/devasting/factual post-in-question at your request. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to harrass you, I'm trying to get you to see how destructive of the process your countless trivial interventions are. Can you tell me honestly that you think they achieve anything other than visibly annoying a lot of people? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotland isn't independant, neither is Ontario or Nebraska. Those are facts, not OR by myself. Just because Daicaregos doesn't like being reminded of that fact, he shouldn't be showing up whining for me to leave. If ya'll want to assign a mentor to me, concerning my British/Irish talkpage posts, then do so. Such a mentor can't be Snowded, Daicaregos or any other self-proclaimed devolutionist, though. Furthermore, this ganging up on me by British editors, further prooves my claim of "If you're not from the British Isles, but out" attitude. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You are becoming delusional GoodDay, no one has whining for you to leave, a growing body of editors are asking you to stop trivializing talk pages and you persist in ignoring them. No one has censured you that I see, you are being asked to show some self restraint and learn how to edit responsibly. No one has rejected your participation because you are not from the British Isles. You persist in treating this project as your personal playpen, believing that it is your right and our privilege to revive your repetitious pronouncements without argument on multiple subjects. If you don't believe us ask for a review of your editing behaviour, there is a formal wikipedia process for that. That might help you avoid what is otherwise inevitably leading to a RfC or ANI referral. Oh and I have no desire to be your mentor--Snowded ^TALK 18:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Daicaregos has managed something today, along with the rest of you. I'm further limiting myself to just the straw polls (along with AfDs, RMs etc). GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Though Micky, Tharky & I were on different sides of the UK PM in the infobox discussions, I applaud their approach of not letting others bully them around. GoodDay (talk)

Yes, your statement annoyed me. That is because it contributed absolutely nothing to the debate, which (as you seem to be oblivious to it, I will explain to you) was exploring the possibility of substituting the infobox template 'country' for the infobox template 'settlement' with respect to the countries of the UK. Can you imagine how your statement would have brought the exploration of that particular avenue to a close (rhetorical question, obviously)? So much for my 'devolutionist POV' affecting my editing. As for your statement “Just because Daicaregos doesn't like being reminded of that fact, he shouldn't be showing up whining for me to leave.” It's your soapboxing I object to – I note you didn't bother to comment on the Talkpage guidelines I highlighted. I also object to your lies: show me the diff either where I ask you to leave, or not to contribute constuctively to this encyclopaedia. I only ask that you change your destructive behaviour. And, by the way, you asked me here (more pleaded, actually). Don't think I'll bother again. Daicaregos (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to bring your complaint here, so we wouldn't be arguing over my post at the Scotland talkpage. I can't proove or dis-proove if you've a devolutionist agenda. Your harrassment of my posts have driven me from the British Isles related talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So there Daicaregos. All your fault. :) -- Kittybrewster ☎ 21:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Daicaregos sees things his way & I see them my way. Chalk it up to irreconcilable differences. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I find myself often agreeing with your perspective, GD, but exasperated by the triviality of your contributions. It is as if you must always have the last word. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not about differences in the sense you mean GoodDay and this idea that you are the reasonable guy with a sense of humour who is being persecuted would be laughable if it was not pathetic. The problem, that you refuse to acknowledge is that you are not contributing to this project, you are littering article talk pages as well as ANI and other places with meaningless or provocative comments that add nothing. Until you understand that you will continue to face these sort of threads. I do sometimes wonder if its that you need the attention. --Snowded ^TALK 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(to Snowded) I haven't been around ANI for quite some time. As of today, I've stopped posting on talkpages. Concerning American political articles (Prez, Vice Prez, state Govs etc etc), many would dispute your claim of my "...not contributing to this project". Daicaregos should've come here first, instead of attacking my post at Scotland talkpage. Again, "be careful of the stones you throw". GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have found User:Snowded sensitive side, his comment above is a pretty clear personal attack, if he is unable to be polite its better if he goes elsewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

He asked me to have the decency to shut up at the Scotland talkpage. Quite emotional, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand this welsh people thing, how can they be a nation when they have no state, I was adding something about that at the list of welsh people and I was reverted by - , User:Snowded, User:Ghmyrtle, and User:Martinevans123, have I fallen into some kind of nationalist snake pit. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a group ownership thing, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

At least while they waste their time here they are not disruptive in the real world.- Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's for sure. PS: Can you imagine the treatment I'd of gotten, if I'd made that edit? A combination Chuck Norris/Charles Bronson/David Carradine reaction. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(to Kittybrewster) It's getting as though a bloke can't even say hello, without somebody demanding a 'source'. I've limited myself to AfDs, RMs, straw polls, etc. There's too much lack of collaboration on those talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW: D & JH, your conversation at JH's talkpage, is breaking my heart. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Streit's "A" (or lack of one)/British Isles articles

I do not understand your rational of removing Mark Streit's Alternate Captain status. He and Kyle Okposo were officially named as Alternates to Doug Weight. I have not heard of any team removing a letter from player unless was on a rotating basis or as punishment for team rules, nor have I heard a team removing it because of injuries. I do not want to get in an editing war, so I will waste time reverting. You of all people should know that the Islanders' site is not "canon"!! Do not try to rationalize your gutless point of view by stating that it is not on the website! if that is the case, then why have you not remove Streit and company off the IR list?!! Raul17 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was following the removal of Vaclav Prospol as an alternate captain of the Rangers & yes the Isles official website. I'll revert those edits. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: The above was an attempt to join "Let's gang up on GoodDay party". Jeannne is right, you should lay off those from those "Brits"! Every firstgrader knows that Great Britain & North Ireland are not four independent countries, but rather four nations united as one country. I do not know why you get yourself in a lather about those rather narrow-minded individuals. I mean, how can you take them seriously when they chastise Americans for calling their sport soccer instead of football when they were the ones who invented the the word in the first place!! They are gutless anyway because they were too afraid to use the correct term asser!! Cheers mate! Raul17 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, ya mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I'd tried to get'em to adopt constituent infront of country, as an accurate discriptive. But, to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That, too! When no one wants to go by the rules or no one wants to listen, there is not much you can do. My guess is that someone spiked their spot of tea. It is the only explanation I can come up with!! Raul17 (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dai has been peeved with me for quite sometime, mainly 'cuz I won't accept country as a discriptive for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales. Snowded has been peeved with me for awhile too, but even more so since our conflict over the infobox heading of the UK article (an argument which I eventually won). GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL! No wonder there is so much hate!! Raul17 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I no longer post on article talkpages or other user talkpages (one can only take so much harrassment), so I shouldn't be getting anymore finger-wagging from them. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You can post on my talk page anytime you want, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's best I stay low for awhile. If I said hello at your talkpage, somebody would show up demanding I provide a 'reliable source' for that. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationalists are full of hate. They are by their very nature - self interested and unable to see the bigger NPOV picture. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's best I not delve too much into that, as I've been continously threatened with an Rfc. It's not easy promoting NPoV on those British Isles articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bigoted opinionated threats - yawn. I see a lot of wiki lawyering from those sections of editors - that is just one of the ways they attempt to control their bias. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Eventually, they'll open an Rfc or an ANI & begin to impose more restrictions on me. Restrictions like 'locking up' my talkpage, deleting my comments at AfDs/RMs -particularly at British Isles related articles-. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If they think that is a necessary and a good thing for them to do then tell them to f*** off and do it, let them eat cake - bigoted biased nationalist f***ers. Such people are responsible for all the wars on the planet. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nay! It aint my style to tell'em that. I just hang around on the edges. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you leave them to it, have a look back in a couple of months and it is quite amusing. The wikipedia model attracts such people, at least it stops them doing anything disruptive in the real world. WP:BBNF - I can feel a song and a picture coming on.Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Checked discussion at Cornwall, the don't upset the nationalists mantra exists there too. It appears as though things are going smoothly there -hahaha-, without my presence. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre

I am having a strange edit war with an editor here: Sympathy For The Devil. Somehow he thinks the Hundred Years War involved religion. Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it might've, if each faction claimed god was on their side. I've reverted the newbie. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked him to provide a source and he told me ten by ten equals one hundred! It's likely about the European wars of religion seeing as they lasted roughly about a hundred years beginning in the 16th and ending in the 17th century. In the Hundred Years War there were only a series of English and French kings fighting for the crown of France, whereas in the wars of religion many queens were also involved such as Catherine de Medici and Jeanne d'Albret. Only Mick Jagger has the answer seeing as he wrote the song's lyrics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the 100 Years War involved religion...altho' GoodDay makes exactly the point I thought was obvious. I'm using the "ten decades" line (which equals 100) as the lead in. And that "Gods" is as much about the Gods of vanity, causes, idols etc as divine religious gods. Cthwaites (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)cthwaites

As a matter of fact the Hundred Years' War lasted for eleven decades not ten: 1337-1453. All the key players were kings. The song's lyric say: "I watched with glee, while your kings and queens fought for ten decades for the Gods they made". Ok, let's analyse this. In the European Wars of religion, which lasted a little more than a hundred years if you include the Edict of Nantes (admittedly more than ten decades), the conflict was obviously over religion (Gods they made). There were queens as well as kings involved, such as Jeanne d'Albret and Catherine de Medici (your kings and queens). Now let's examine your notion that it was a reference to the Hundred Years War. That was a dynastic war over the throne of France, begun by Edward III. Religion was not the issue, given that all the participants were Catholic and it pre-dated the Reformation. There were no queens directly involved in the wars which lasted exactly eleven decades (1337-1453). Can you provide any sources or more evidence to back up your argument, Cthwaites?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Cthwaites, I believe you may have breached 3RR at that article (more then 3 reverts within 24hrs). That's a no-no on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it....end of discussion. Thanks for listening Cthwaites (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)cthwaites

More doppelgangers?

I know Jeanne likes to share these, and I couldn't resist. Doesn't this lady look an awful lot like Stephen Fry? -Rrius (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's weird, I was reading about the Futurama episode: The Luck of the Fryrish. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

How did I miss that one? That looks like the best ever! -Rrius (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The ending was quite surprising, a well written episode. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I think that was the episode those doops at Fox decided to pull the plug on one ot the funnier animated sitcoms ever! Fearing that the world would love the show, that episode was aired opposite the Super Bowl. Or something like that! Raul "I wish I was Zapp Brannigan" 17 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Brannigan was hilarious, particularly when he kept reminding Leela of their one-nighter. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Pedro IV of Portugal or Peter IV of Portugal within the article content & infobox heading of Pedro I of Brazil

Please, do not give a headache to reader. Peter IV[1] is far less known thatn Pedro IV.[2]

If you don't like it. Open a discussion in its talk page. Talk first. --Lecen (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We've got Peter I of Portugal, Peter II of Portugal, Peter III of Portugal & Peter V of Portugal. It wasn't going to harm anyone, by having Peter IV of Portugal within the Pedro I of Brazil article content & infobox heading. I fear you're letting your personal preference for the Portugese language, cloud your judgement. This is the english language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're not gonna join the discussion? that means your 'revert' was based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lulu

• - LULU - "Leave a little love" Northern soul ballad - Off2riorob (talk)

Cute little body. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

powerful voice, attractive all rounder. Off2riorob (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Taoiseach

On the topic of sacrificing NPoV, for political sensativities. That article's title is pathetic, to say the least & it should be moved to Prime Minister of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No way, Jose, GoodDay. He is known as the Taoiseach full stop. Prime Minister of Ireland is a title that simply does not exist in Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In english usage (Tv news, newspapers) it's prime minister of Ireland. That article title is 'bad comedy'. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If he's referred to in Ireland as Taoiseach than that carries more weight than what the English media call him. What it boils down to is that the English media, in order to save face at their inability to pronounce the word, instead take the easy way out by calling him the Irish Prime Minister.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an unrecognizable word, to laymen english readers. Just like the word Tenno, for example. Also, more importantly - we use President of Ireland, not Uachtarán of Ireland. - GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

He's referred to as President in Ireland; however Taoiseach is used by the media, government and the average person in the street, as is Oireactas rather than Irish Parliament. Taoiseach is actually easy to prounounce.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ya mean 'she'. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I used he in a gender-neutral sense only; not to specify any particular Irish President, who currently happens to be female.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I had never heard the word in my media, it is likely used in Ireland only. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What is used in Ireland for the article's title carries more weight than what is used outside of Ireland, seeing that this is an Irish subject.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But this is English Wikipedia, not Irish Wikipedia. The President of Ireland article reflects this & so should the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Local editors will eat you alive if you try to change such a thing GoodDay, reminds me of the renaming of the Queen of England long running saga . - Reuters via France 24 - Ireland's prime minister set to dissolve parliament amid economic crisis - 30 Jan 2011 - no mention of Taoisearch. Six mentions of either premier or prime ministertwo video links at the bottom to more talk of prime minister. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, by your reckoning, we should then change Giuseppe Verdi's article to Joe Green, and Marie Antoinette's to Mary Antonia. Taoiseach is the correct title for the article, moreover, it's useful to readers as in the case of queen regnant which I happen to support BTW.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe, don't give me any ideas about Verdi & the French queen-consort. Unlike those 2 examples, Taoiseach isn't the most commonly used in the english language. I betcha there's way more 'english' sources using Prime Minister of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's important for readers to know that the Irish word Taoiseach is used in lieu of Prime Minister. Wikipedia must strive for accuracy not adhere to a narrow, English-only policy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Taoiseach cane be placed in the intro under Irish translation, which is done at the Irish President article. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dream on GoodDay. Removing Taoiseach from that article's title is like discovering the Fountain of Youth; it... will...never...ever...happen..... NEVER.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the politicial bias behind that article's title is overwhelmingly obvious. If an RM was opened on it, Irish nationalist would swamp in. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no political bias, that's just the name used in Ireland for their leader. Surely the Irish have the right to use their own language to call the head of their nation Taoiseach!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But others do have politicial bias in those articles. As for 'rights'? there's no 'rights' at Wikipedia. The Irish are free to use their own language at Irish Wikipedia, but this is English Wikipedia. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll never gain consensus...... (sing-song voice)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of Prime Minister of Canada, in some of the non-english Wikipedia: Premier ministre du Canada, Primer ministre del Canadà, Premiér Kanady, Premierminister (Kanada), Primer ministro de Canadà & then there's the oriental examples, which I can't show here. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you believe Taoiseach is on the non-english Wikipedias? it's worst then I suspected. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that just prove my point? LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy smokers, what a disgusting discovery. I'm afraid to peek at the Japanese & Chinese Wikipedias. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

However, that article title is the first place where I've seen that word (Taoiseach). In newspapers & on TV, it's always been Prime Minister of Ireland or Irish Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreaciate HK's comment towards me, at that articles talkpage. His choice of presenting my views of that article (via copying excerpts from my talkpage) also smacks of mean-spiritedness. Strange behaviour from an editor who's decided to re-start his campaign against the usage of British Isles across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My comments were simply a mirror, back to you, of your own comments, showing how you were trying to innocently present a face on the article Talk page of "I'm merely stating a fact that Wikipedia is the first place that I've seen the word Taoiseach, nothing more" while on your own Talk page you've represented a different view, with different motives. Pretty two-faced. I'm surprised you've decided to "come out". BTW, the real "mean-spiritedness" is you, attempted to turn your own troubled discussions into yet-another-anti-HighKing campaign-against-British-Isles discussion. --HighKing 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You've decided to "come out" as an Irish nationalist in both areas (Taoiseach & the British Isles). PS: Ya see HK? you sting me, I sting you. GoodDay 14:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is really very silly. How exactly have I "decided" to "come out" as an Irish nationalist by pointing out *your* comments and illogical arguments? My advice GoodDay is not to start throwing labels around to neatly categorize other editors, especially your neat categories are wrong. When you're in a hole, stop digging. --HighKing (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You sting me, I sting you. PS- Don't kick the corpse. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Living in New York City and growing up in a neighborhood where long time Irish families live, this is the first I heard of the word. I always heard or read about the PM. Raul17 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess is alot of folks haven't heard of the word Taoiseach, but alot have heard of Prime Minister of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jeanne. GoodDay, your attitude is disgraceful. I never thought I'd hear anyone but the most bigoted loyalists calling the use of Irish in Ireland "disgusting" and "pathetic". ~Asarlaí 23:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't described the word Taoiseach or the Irish language as 'disgusting & pathetic', though. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think your refusal to acknowledge the right of the Irish Government and people to call their Prime Minister Taoiseach is indicative of an underlying attitude, likely fostered by a pro-British, Unionist POV received in school; namely that Ireland is not a true sovereign nation but rather a Gaelic theme park granted to the Irish by an indulgent Britain. Deep down I don't think you take the Irish seriously as a nation nor as a people. This attitude is actually more offensive than the snarling hatred manifested by certain loyalist extremists. It's not entirely your fault, as the blame rests mainly with the educational system imported to Canada by Britain.Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just unfair. GD didn't refuse to acknowledge the right of the Irish to call their PM what they wish; indeed, they could call him "Dnm@eanipw" if they want. His point is that Wikipedia, the English-language one, uses for article titles the most commonly used term in English. Your point above about Verdi and the like is simply inapt because Verdi is most commonly known by his actual name, not a translation of it. GD's point, which may or may not be valid, is that "Prime Minister of Ireland" is the term used most often in English. I would guess that since most of the references to the subject in English are from Ireland, and most of those use "Taoiseach", it is really the most commonly used term. So where I disagree with GoodDay is in how you determine what the common name is; I think it is just bizarre to suggest that we should use a term here because it is the one used in the subject country. Why wouldn't President of France be at the French version? Or King of Spain at the Spanish? -Rrius (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not attacking GoodDay, merely pointing out that his English-lanuag-only stance is indicative of a Pro-British education received at his Canadian schools. The USA educational system is not so exclusive, especially in California where Spanish names for places and things are par for the course. The Irish Constitution uses the name Taoiseach, the Irish media, schools, people use the nae Taoiseach, and to inject a bit of trivia into this debate to highlight its usage beyond Ireland, in a speech once given by Adolf Hitler he used the word Taoiseach rather than Irish Prime Minister. This comes from Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I can definitely say its not the Canadian education system, our schools very much incorporate the diverse nature of other countries and their languages etc. Atleast they did in the provinces I went to school in. I think this is very much a his own personal view on things and is in no way related to our schooling which is very different from British schooling. -DJSasso 14:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well folks, I'm not the publisher or editor-in-chief of my local newspapers or the producer of CNN/CTV news/CBC news or BBC news. But in all those areas, Prime Minister of Ireland was used. GoodDay 14:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Proove it. You said you have no sources, so you have no proof. Find a source. That is what wikis are about after all. Because for example here is CTV using Taoiseach. And here is CBC using Taoiseach. And here is CNN using it. And the BBC here. So again who is not using Taoiseach? -DJSasso 14:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

CBC news [3], CTV news [4] and CNN [5]. There's the sources, for those who suggest I might be lying. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Except your arguement wasn't that the papers use Prime Minister, but that they don't use Taoiseach. No one disagreed that he is sometimes referred to as Prime Minister. What you've been arguing is that he isn't referred to as Taoiseach, which I have shown you is how is he is talked about in media in Canada and the US in addistion to sometimes being called Prime Minister. As such the article title is fully valid where it is. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You challenged me to proove it, when I explained Irish Prime Minister was used at CBC,CTV & CNN. I've prooved this & now you're moving the goal post? GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No what you've been saying is that Taoiseach isn't used in Canada. I wanted you to proove that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No what I've said is I've never heard or seen it used in Canada. In case you're about to ask, I'm a reliable source for what's GoodDay utters. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually that would be a primary source and would be unreliable. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatabout family relatives? BTW, I'm dissapointed that James (at the Taioseach discussion) was given a 'taste' of the 'treatment' at his talkpage, which I usually get. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I still consider that article title a prime example of non-NPOV among the British & Irish political articles. One does risks much (as I quickly found out), when attempting to balance these articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's 3 more examples Oireachtas (which should be Parliament of Ireland, with the ancient Parliament of Ireland moved to Parliament of the Kingdom of Ireland), Dáil Éireann (which should be Irish House of -english translation-) & Seanad Éireann (as Senate of Ireland). See 'english language' titles for other european systems: Parliament of Norway (which isn't at Storting), Parliament of Sweden (which isn't at Riksdag). GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

They shouldn't, because they're actually always called the Oireachtas, Dáil and Seanad. Maybe not in Canada, but certainly in Ireland, and even in the UK. This is not the North American WP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the english langauge Wikipedia, not the Irish language Wikipedia. Those titles are strange looking & un-readible to an uni-lingual english reader (like me). GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is the English-language WP - and you're entirely missing the point. The words are used, in Ireland and Britain, when one is speaking English! Or do you want to move ambulance to vehicle for transporting sick or injured people, and the same with every other loanword? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Taoiseach, is a silly strange looking word, Prime Minister of Ireland is more recognizable. Heck, 'prime minister' is even used in that article's intro, so laymen english readers can understand better. The current article title is there, merely to appease Irish editors. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's 2 more bad cases: Bundestag (which should be Parliament of Germany) & Folketing (which should be Parliament of Denmark). GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, what about loanwords like voyage, pizza, karaoke, taco, burrito, tamale, sushi, wurlitzer, mafia, meringue, samba, parliament (Derived from the French (parlement), risqué, soufflé, I could go on.... Garda and Gardai are also Irish loanwords as they are used by English-speaking Irish people to refer to the police-which happens to be a French word BTW! They only look silly to you (I am presuming that you mean strange and not silly in the stupid sense which would be highly offensive to Irish people) because you are not familiar with Ireland or things Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I oppose that article's current title. Whether any editors are offeneded by this or not, is irrelevant to me. Wikipedia should'nt pander to such sensativities. If it did, Japanse & Chinese articles would be un-recognizable. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Tánaiste, should be Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland. Yet another article title, to appease the Irish nationalist. We once again ignore that this is the English-language Wikipedia, for the sake of sensativities. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is not titled Tànaiste "to appease the Irish Nationalist" but rather to provide for readers the correct names for Irish ministers that are used by ENGLISH-speaking Irish teachers, journalists, newsreaders, writers, the Government, and the average man and woman in the street. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Request a RM to Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland & you'll soon find out. You'd face an onslaught of angry editors, seeking disiplinary actions. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarify? GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

* The title of the "Prime Minister of Ireland", in both the English and Irish languages, is Taoiseach. The title of the "Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland", in both the English and Irish languages, is Tánaiste. The Irish parliament, in both the English and Irish languages, is Oireachtas. The lower chamber, in both the English and Irish languages, is Dáil Éireann. The upper chamber, in both the English and Irish languages, is Seanad Éireann.

• The above titles derive from the Constitution of Ireland. The English-language version.
• They are all in common use on the island of Ireland. And in the UK. And in the European Union.
• This is the English language WP. The terms are used in English.
• The fact that you haven't heard them outside WP is not WP's problem.
• WP is an encyclopedia. It's objective is to inform people of factual information, not to mislead them.
• All of the above has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple people, in multiple locations.
• You continue to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong, despite the above points and you not offering any argument other than, it appears, repeatedly stating "I've not heard those terms, they're Irish-language terms, and this is the English WP".
• Therefore, WP:ICANTHEARYOU.
• Q.E.D.. Oh, wait, this is the English-language WP, we should move that article... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Your conduct on wikipedia has been brought up at WP:ANI. John Hendo (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You've been on Wikipedia for 1-month, while I've been around for over 5-years. You're leaving Wikipedia in about a week & this is your going away present for me? cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• - handy direct link - Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A cheery way to start the day. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see Dai & Dj there. The former disagrees with me on the components of the UK, the latter on usage of diacritics on ice hockey articles. Not exactly 'neutral/non-involved' participants. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Ani is high profile and attracts all comers. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well of course people who have encountered you in the past are going to comment, since they are the ones who have seen the issue. Its not your position that I have issue with. Its the way in which you act. There are others who hold the same opinion as you but I don't have issue with because they don't act as though they are just trying to cause trouble. Which is a reoccuring theme in your commenting. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been a dios argument at WP:HOCKEY, in a long time. Lately, I simply remove them from North American based hockey articles without much fuss (from me). GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispite you trying hard to start one by inserting comments like this into discussions that have nothing to do with diacritics. You insert these one liners into discussions that have nothing to do with diacritics all the time. If you can't see why that is an issue then there probably is no hope. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's 2-months ago & I'd hardly call it an attempt to incite a revolution. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I just picked the first one that showed up in my search but even if its 2 months ago so what?...there are others both more recent and older. No one comment by itself is a problem. But its the fact that you repeat those comments in almost every discussion that is even remotely open to having the comment made in the context of whatever is being talked about. I could probably list off 10 from the top of my head just from the begining of the most recent hockey season which is only a few months. And thats just hockey, I notice you do the same thing in the UK articles with the issues you have there. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I toned down my participation at the British/Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? So what do you call your involvement at the Taoiseach article? Martian? French? --HighKing 13:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't re-start the discussion there. My involvement there is called presenting a NPoV, an internationlist PoV. Your emotional reactions to any suggestion directly/indirectly of an RM for that article, are prooving my concerns. GoodDay 14:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Off2, Rashers, Rrius, Micky, Mabuska & Crohnie, thanks for defending me at the ANI (which should've been a Rfc), I appreciate it. To James, Deacon & Errant - you guys weren't too rough on me, tank-u. Right/wrong is irrelevant in this situation. What is relevant is a bunch of editors find my posts irritating, particular at British/Irish political articles. Being censured stinks, particularly from those British/Irish articles (which IMHO, have an Irish nationalist bias & devolutionist bias to'em) but I'll accept the censurship. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay - please don't suggest your own punishment - wait, let an uninvolved administrator do something official if anything is required to be done - it is enough imo that you simply recognize these users complaints and address you behavior accordingly, such actions do not require you to have a talkpage ban - there is no such thing as I know anyways. Also - let them open a RFC if they want, thats their business, you are not involved in that, unless they open one and then you can comment there, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy smokers, BHG prefers me banned from the whole project. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just let them get on with it GoodDay, BHG - after I spoke to them I was very surprised to see their admin status. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My fate is no longer in my hands. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good feeling sometimes - just accept that whatever happens will be the right thing for you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, you seem to have missed the second part of what I wrote at ANI: I suggested that you be banned unless GoodDay rapidly and completely drops his pub-talk approach.

I don't like seeing editors banned, but unless you reform, some sort of restriction is likely. It's up to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What's pub talk to some, isn't to others. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of different terms which could be used to describe the problem, but plenty of editors have warned you over the last few months that there is a persistent problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

How do I handle a BRD situation? GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(If you don't mind my butting in here...) Exactly as one is supposed to handle BRD: Be bold and, if you're reverted, discuss. I think, from my perusal of the situation, that what's irritating other users is not that you discuss, but the method you employ when doing so. Barring yourself from talk pages is one way to appease the aggravated; the other (and, to my mind, the better; no bias of course!) is to adjust your talk page tactics. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

From this moment on, I believe particpating at any article talkpages, will be difficult for me. Any posts I make will be scrutanized; any slight mis-understanding of my posts, will brush-fire out of my control. Any editor will have greater opportunity to sabatouge me. Any tiny little disagreement & GD will be dragged off to the 'shed'. TBH, I'm 'hesistant' to particpate in any article talkpages, after this day. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, little is remembered if the test isn't difficult. Yes, it's likely that your comments will be scrutinised; but, so what? If you cease re-igniting old disputes and show at least that you're making an effort to improve your debating skills, what further complaints could be taken seriously? Likely your haters, if there are any, would end up being the ones chastised for wasting other people's time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My name is tarnised as that thread should've been an Rfc, not an ANI report. Now, article talkpages will be like land-minds. Even my own talkpage is under attack at the ANI report, by Daicaregos. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ya know what annoys me, though? The ANI reporter, John Hendo, has only been on the project for 1 month & is leaving within a week (due to loosing his internet). He began the 'report', just as I was cutting down on my talkpages involvement. Sorta like a guy 'farting' & then leaving 'before' the effects hit ya. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to knock off the snide remarks. People here are trying to speak to you and I think its in your interest to try to listen. The ANI/RfC issue is essentially peripheral except that ANI might have ended in an immediate and disproportionate sanction, which is the main reason I supported you there. Please take some time to think. Mentorship was mentioned, and I think that is something you should consider. RashersTierney (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've no plans to appear on article talkpages (in the future). I won't agree to a mentor, but if my detractors (who are a majority) think otherwise? I've no choice. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

PS- "...snide remarks"? GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks, if you prefer. RashersTierney (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall making any 'snide remarks' on the article talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

what of the personal attacks to GD?Raul17 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the personal attack as if you didn't know. And it would be in GoodDay's interest to strike it and apologise. The ANI hasn't closed. RashersTierney (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I truly wasn't certain of which remark you meant. I have a reason to gripe about JH, but I've scratched it on your advice. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

From reading this discussion I find that GoodDay is trying hard to co-operate with other's requests which to me is a good sign and is why I said what I did at AN/i. Good luck GoodDay. Just so you know I corrected the spelling of my user name above which is no big deal, just a pet peeve of mine I guess. I hope that it was ok for me to do that. Take care and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jeanne, wasn't that ANI report on me, one of the more bizarre ones you've seen? AFAIK, no un-involved administrator bothered with it -it wasn't closed or moved to an Rfc/U. Weird eh? GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, GoodDay, am I still welcome to discuss here? The thread was archived, would you like me to update the handy link? I think , no administrators intervention required was the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Everybody is welcomed here (including Daicaregos & HighKing) & always will be. My 'turn the channel' message, was mainly for editors who might be offended by the goings on here. Censuring my talkpage is a big no-no & it won't happen. As for the archiving of that ANI report? it's where it belongs, in the archives. If ya wanna update though, okie dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, as per your comment I will leave it where it is. Glad your editing though, if you ever want any tedious ,thankless mind numming tasks that help improve the wiki, let me know and I will dig you some out....a lot of people move on - User:TFOWR was a mysterious case, he just seemed to fall into the Bermuda triangle - Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting and sometimes perplexing why some editors seem to just vanish, but I can well understand why TFOWR did. As it happens, and by sheer coincidence, I've just come across this page [6]. Whilst browsing it I stumbled upon a previous incarnation of one of our number, who is partial to the odd British Isles battle, would you believe! And get this; in his previous incarnation he was an admin, oh yes! I'm 99% certain I've got a match here, but I doubt we could call it sockpuppetry because the two accounts don't have too much overlap and they haven't worked in unison. Who is it? Well, the person in question will definitely know who I'm talking about. LemonMonday Talk 20:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm intrigued? come on, spill the beans. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

TFOWR, likely got sick of the BISE stuff. That's why I don't bother with it (BISE) anymore. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that would be unfair, but if you look hard enough you should spot it yourself. Everyone is entitled to a clean break, although this user was editing with the two accounts simultaneously for a long time. Anyway, I understand that it's perfectly legitimate to run multiple accounts as long as they edit in different areas and don't operate to support each other. As it happpens, this is the seocnd time I've spotted an admin "leave" and then re-invent himself, although in the first case the admin was busted for vandalism. Anyway, I hope you are ingnoring all the self-righteous shite that has been directed at you in recent days. LemonMonday Talk 20:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I no longer particpate on article talkpages. Though that ANI report was a disgrace, I can't put up with the harrassments anymore. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that ANI report was a disgrace, GoodDay? Daicaregos (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never even been slapped with a Wikiquette report & I'm given an ANI-report, while I'm in the process of shutting down my participation at article talk-pages? A Rfc/U should've been opened, by a more seasoned editor (JH, who was on Wikipedia for only a month, was preparing to leave the project, when he filed that report). My detractors should've immediately requested the report be aborted, instead they took out their daggers (you had the sharpest dagger) & stabbed away. Thanks in part to ya'll, my name has been tarnished. Though I'm no longer participating at article talkpages, you (my detractors) have also stained yourselves, by coming across as mean-spirited. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Of my 9 detractors [John Hendo, Daicaregos, DJsasso, Snowded, Ghmyrtle, HighKing, Bastun, BrownHairedGil & Billreid], 8 were British or Irish. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, can I give you some friendly advice. I would cross out the above comment if I were you as it appears very confrontational and hostile; besides singling out people's nationalities is a bit Orwellian IMO.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As you can tell, I'm still bitter about the mis-treatment I got. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

But a comment like the above only sounds spiteful and does not serve to improve the situation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but that's how I see it. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

When I supported you at ANI, it was, as I said, on the understanding that you were open to reasonable discussion. Now it appears you have 'opted out' of discussion pages while still editing on controversial issues. So where is this game leading? RashersTierney (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought my innovative edit at RTE, would've ended the 'pipe-link' dispute. If my edits are rejected on any articles? I won't dispute those rejections. I've limited my participation on article talkpages. If there's an RM, AfD or a Rfc on them? I may participate (but with few posts). I'm just tired of the fighting and harrassement, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor

It's a losing battle, I'm afraid. It appears the pro-Frederick Red-Beard crowd are gaining consensus. How does an article entitled Frederick Barbarossa in any way indicate that it's about the Holy Roman Emperor?! Frederick I Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor was introduced as an alternative (which I wholly support), but was quickly dismissed. Oh well......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

6-5 is no where's near a consensus for 'moving'. Hopefully, the article title will stay put. BTW: There must be a glitch in Wikipedia; twice in the last few days, your signature got mixed up in mine. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the fault lies with my laptop.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added a few more comments over there. I just did a check. Both the German and Italian Wikipedia's include his title in their repective article's name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Though I still participate in RMs & AfDs, I'm sorta reluctant to jump further into the discussion side of those things, per the recent ANI report on myself. I believe the article will stay put. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW: What was Peter III of Portugal? a co-monarch with his wife/niece, or a King-consort? GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

young* - i

• - Neil Young is a Canadian - Neil Young Old Man live in '71 - Off2riorob (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A former member of Buffalo Springfield & Crosby, Stills, Nash (& Young). -- GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Keeps me searching for that heart of gold, and I'm getting OLD....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, he's getting raggety. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have got some of that and then I also got some of the Grateful dead and Jerry Garcia - Dead - 6-26-94 - So Many Roads - I saw Neil in London in the eighties with Crazy horse but I cant remember exactly when - Rust Never Sleeps was the album - Neil Young & Crazy Horse Hey Hey, My My LIVE - Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw him on the Jay Leno Show back in 1993. Young IMO, is a bit weird. I recall he made a point to rearrange the potted plants.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Young's got a face that could hold 7-days of rain. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. That's a good one, GD!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyroad, it's 2.30am here. I'm off to dreamland......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Sweet dreams, baby". GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

These Dreams go on when I close my eyes.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Mischief making

Once again GD, you seem to be reaching for the self-destruct button. I forsee a RfC/U on the horizon. Your actions like those at David I of Scotland--an article that has undergone close scrutiny at FA with its wording intact--is starting to get very tedious. Please stop now. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That article's infobox isn't consistant witht the other Scottish monarch articles in that time-period. The article its links to are not of those gaelic writing, but rather the english writing. Also, the "I foresee a RfC/U on the horizon" comment, apparently prooves my point further - you & others who attacked me at that ANI, are now gonna harrass me further via attacking my edits & threatening. If you check the article William the Lion, you'll note it uses Malcolm IV in it's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Also note: The linking articles are called Malcolm III of Scotland, Malcolm IV of Scotland & Edgar, King of Scotland (i.e. english language). So stop hounding me, as I've complied to your (plural) article talkpage restrictions. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You couldn't leave my non-controversial & accurate edits alone, eh? You just had to push your ownership on those articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ownership? What are you talking about? No GoodDay, I have never attacked you but your edit comments are getting pretty close to attacks on me and up with which I will not put, so moderate, OK?. My comments at ANI at no point could be construed as an attack. Like the other commentators, we described your methods on talk pages. You placed a self-imposed withdrawal from talk pages but you are making matters worse by carrying out controversial edits without at least explaining why you carried out the edits on the article talk pages. On FA articles you will get an immediate revert by this type of activity.

Now you are accusing me of harrassment and hounding you--I think you'll find a study of my interactions with you at no point could be described as those. My statement on a possible RfC/u was not a threat but a heads up to modify your edit methods or someone is bound to get cheesed off enough to get an RfC going. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

But there was nothing controversal about my edits. They correctly pipe-linked articles that are currently in english version. You went beyond restoring the gaelic pipe-links & created re-directs of those articles. Of course I'm gonna view your 'edit summary' re-actions to my edits, with sceptism. Of course I'm gonna feel bullied & characterized (see this discussion's section heading). By your OTT complaint here, others from that ANI report, will show up here & start demanding sanctions on me from British & Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I despair! -Bill Reid | (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And so you should despair, 'cuz you may have opened up more trouble for me. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now Deacon is joining forces with you, in pushing those 're-directs'. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you realise you violated the 3-revert rule? I remember saying on your AN/I thread that you were a problem, but at least didn't edit-war. That I withdraw. Please find something better to do on Wikipedia than trying to suck away the time of good contributors to pointless disputes. Find an area of expertise or interest and do some content editing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not breach 3RR. Those links still show as gaelic version, I merely eliminated the re-directs. Why is this gaelic stuff being pushed on the David I article & not on the surrounding articles? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay you know better. Per WP:NOTBROKEN you shouldn't be piping links like that when the redirect would have done just fine. Making changes like this makes you look like you are being petty and playing a game. This is why people are getting more and more frustrated with you. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Deacon prefers those articles in their gaelic version, thus his reason for pushing of 're-directs'. Why isn't this stuff pushed on the other Scottish monarch articles? Why is 'David I' so special? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You did actually. You could take it to AN/3 and ask there, or recount? You actually have 5 reverts in 25 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not breach 3RR at the David I of Scotland article. Ya'll are just trying to bully & bait me, in hopes of getting me sanctioned from British & Irish articles. I don't get this kinda flack, concerning other articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did. Maybe you think the first edit wasn't a revert, but it too counts as a reversion of other people's edits. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. You're letting your preference for the gaelic version, cloud your perspective on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically its 3 reverts and one marginal as the original change does not count. Depending on the admin who reviewed it it might earn a 24 hour block as we have one editor (GoodDay) working against consensus. The edit summaries don't help much. This move on Scottish Monarchs however is one of a pattern across many several articles. Low level edit warring, stopping just short of formally breaking 3rr and provocative edit summaries. --Snowded ^TALK 19:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@Snowded: undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Almost all first edits count as reverts unless they consist of nothing more than addng content, though I have found most people do not realise this. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I have see at the 3rr notice board the first change is not counted - its being bold. You could test it by posting the case. --Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What consensus? What low level edit-warring pattern across many several articles? Blasted, if you'll are seeking to sanction me from British & Irish articles? Then do so. I took myself off the article talkpages & yet that's not enough for all you control-freaks - go ahead, get me sanctioned. Each time ya'll attack me & put up more road-blocks? it reflects back on all of you. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you see, Bill. 1-by-1, my ANI detractors are re-emerging, to bury me further. To discourage me from even editing British & Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Preference is for you to change your behaviour GoodDay, sanctions would be a last resort. Low level disruption is as I am sure you are aware, difficult to deal with as each individual incident is minor. Not using talk pages is disruptive, no one asked you to stop doing that just to make your contributions content based and to stop littering them with multiple repetitions of of your opinions without any justification or argument. As a friendly suggestion I would restrict yourself to 2rr and I would seek out a mentor who can help you here. Your responses to polite requests are becoming increasingly belligerent and evidence a failure to understand the points being made; you need help. --Snowded ^TALK 19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done nothing wrong. It's all of you & your ownership issues concerning British & Irisih related articles. Articles, that from now on, I shall no longer edit - thanks to all of your (plural) continued harrassment. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not give in. You are a good and kind person. Your opinion matters, and is greatly respected. (by Silent in Ontario). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.226.125 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't reason with'em, 99.240.226.125. More importantly, they've got the numbers (majority). GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are a good man, a scholar and a gentleman. I respect your opinion very much. (by Silent in Ontario). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.226.125 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Be careful 99.240.226.125. They might label you as disruptive, too 'or' demand a 'reliable source' for your discriptives of me. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

English-Canadian honesty can be irksome for the "faint of heart". People from the British Isles do not like Colonials making more logical sense than they do. Home Islands arrogance you see. (by Silent in Ontario). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.226.125 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing but control-freaks. It's a waste of time, bothering with'em. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. You are a scholar, a gentleman, and a person of great patience. (by "Silent in Ontario). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.226.125 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, GD, no-one is trying to "bully you or bait you". Editors are trying to get you to see that your actions are provocative, unneccessary not to say childish but I urge you not to appear as if you're out of control. According to your posts further up above--for which you were given a rap--you seem to be spiteful and direct this towards those who have tried and apparently failed to pull you up. All you have to do is edit constructively and in a collegiate way and we'll all get on fine. Suggest you take time out to rethink your approach. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, it looks to me like you are deliberately manouvering here to play the role of hapless victim GD - otherwise why the sudden lurch into near-miss and now on-target edit-warring we've seen you move into? Do you really need to do this? Or could you not just confine yourself to constructive editing and constructive discussion? Might that not in the long run be more enjoyable than trying to prove the existence of conspiracies by needling people? Just a thought. At the moment, editors are mainly just reacting to the way you are doing things. If you took a measured, constructive approach, you would get further. You don't have to resign yourself from all articles and talk pages you previously took an interest in, but if you can't do better than this, then we'd all be better off if you did. Frankly, things have been noticeably calmer and more focused and constructive already at the article spaces you previously painted regular comment-litter on. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Too late, James. The BS thrown at me today, stinks big time. The 'gang' has succeeded in pushing me off the British (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish) & Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Every editor has persistently asked you to behave reasonably GoodDay, no one has bullied you, you have chosen not to listen. Just look at the cumulative experience of the editors who are raising this issue with you and the range of their editing positions. Love to know where that SPA IP address came from by the way --Snowded ^TALK 20:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop kicking the corpse. You've all got what you've wanted. PS: I've no clues who the IP is or was. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really, I think we all wanted you to edit in a a less disruptive way not to stop editing, if you simply transfer that behaviour elsewhere then the problem remains. Its your call of course --Snowded ^TALK 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this kinda flack at the American political articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are the Ring Leader of the Bullies, Snowded. (by Silent in Ontario). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.226.125 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, Deacon. You've gotten your way, with those 're-directs' and 'pipelinks'. In time (via an RM) no doubt, you'll likely get those articles changed to your preferred 'gaelic' titles aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

oh what a silly response. --Bill Reid | (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell, Bill. I was correct about a pile-on occuring 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

GD, I don't really know what to make of you to be honest. I would say the majority of us here would want you to see you as a constructive part of the community and to paticipate without prejudice but I don't think we are seeing this. Some share some of your views, I know, but many do not and so you have to engage in argument and persuation to get your message across; that has to be the bottom line. --Bill Reid | (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tried getting my message across in the past, but to no avail. Commonsense isn't welcomed on those articles-in-question & one who argues for it gets labeled a disruptor. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay, you have told us your opinion, and told it us again and again but you have not engaged in the arguments or discussions in any meaningful way. You seem to want to portray yourself as the ordinary common sense guy who is being persecuted and wrongly labeled. The simple fact that nearly all editors you have engaged with agree that you have an issue should surely persuade you to think differently and at least consider the possibility of change. Those editors also come from a range of backgrounds and opinions. Personally I would prefer you to change than withdraw, but you really seem to see yourself as a victim. --Snowded ^TALK 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all of you (my detractors) are British or Irish. These claims of GD's got a problem, are merely a smoke-screen to justify your (plural) harrassment. PS: Don't kick the corpse. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, never presume to control my talkpage. I changed this discussion's heading, 'cuz it was biased against me. You've a problem with it? take it to ANI or wherever is appropiate. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its bad form to change other people's edits GoodDay which is what you did, but par for the course ....

Bill's choice of heading, was bad form. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It accurately described his post and other people responded to it under that title. You have now, AFTER several responses changed the title. The posting was about your conduct not about David I per se. If you had changed it on the first response the behaviour would be more excusable, to change it after an extended discussion is a different matter. --Snowded ^TALK 03:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If it'll stop you from complaining, then I'll revert it. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but I couldn't help but notice this. I don't know the larger issue and won't get involved in that, but GoodDay is well within his rights to change anything he wants on this talk page. This is not an article talk page. He can delete any comment if he wishes and in that light, changing the subject heading is well within his rights especially if he sees it as an attack. I'd recommend changing the subhead to whatever he wishes and Snowded can take it to ANI if he sees it as improper. Or perhaps just let it go. What nonsense. freshacconci talktalk 03:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Fresh, they've complained about my usage of article talkpages & then my article edits. All that's left for them to complain about? my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)