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.

My talkpage

If anybody is offended by what occurs at my talkpage? Do yourselves a favour & remove my talkpage from your watchlists. If you don't like the show, turn the channel.

Obsession?

GoodDay, the only editor with an obsession is you, for haunting Talk pages and trying to stir things up.... --HighKing (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're the bugger fellow who started this whole crazy British Isles stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. I didn't "start" the crazy stuff, that was going on long before I got involved. Since then, I've tried to make sense of it, put guidelines around it, stop the edit wars, etc. The mess and craziness was caused by the disruption and socking - so much so, that BISE had to be abandoned (for a lot of the reasons Mick has written about at the AN/I).

But what I think is underhanded and sneaky of you, is when an AN/I report is filed which doesn't involve me, you try to rope me into it anyway by stirring up things at Mick's Talk page. That's low, and poor form.

And BTW, don't know about things in Canada, but calling someone a "bugger" is not funny.

As a suggestion to you GoodDay, keep away from areas where you are not a participant with views and opinions. And next time, if you're going to name-call or make insinuations behind someone's back - don't. It's not clever. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your reaction to any suggestion of your being removed from the British Isles topic, is quite predictable. You can't let go of it. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an ostrich reaction - bury head in sand. Pretends a problem/issue doesn't exist. Hopes it'll go away. Discourages change and dialogue, marginalizes minority communities and views.... Yeah - I'd hope most people's reactions would be just as typical to any sort of suggestion that hasn't been thought out properly. Of course, if the real issue was tackled properly..... --HighKing (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, G'day, if anyone was to be removed from the "British Isles" controversy on Wiki it should be yourself. As a Canadian subject of the British Queen you should really steer away from the topic. Sarah777 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Canadian subject of the British Queen"? Wowsers, Mies would argue with ya indefinitely on that. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me add this comment GD, and it's being issued in a friendly tone of voice. Anything to do with the British Isles has become for you an electric hare and you are instantly off and running like a greyhound at its appearance on the racetrack.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Be not afraid, the politically charged editors of the BI topic, will eventually cease their PoV pushing. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally think HighKing and LevenBoy should both be banned off British Isles terminology and articles as for a good while it seemed to be all their sole cause on Wikipedia. BISE just exemplified how obssessed they both were to the issue. GoodDay is entitled to his opinion, just as long as he doesn't become as extreme in the issue as those said two editors.

And i'm quite sure that HighKing knows full well that "bugger" is also used to refer to someone, maybe not in the best way, and not always meant in the derogative way the word actually means. I use it in casual speech as no doubt anyone else here has and never used it to mean anal intercourse or the like. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In English it is in common use as a jocular rather than a serious insult. I read somewhere that one form derived from "bodger" meaning daft/stupid/useless - as in "daft old bugger" from wife about husband. All my respectable elderly aunts used it and they wouldn't have dreamed of mentioning anything referring to even ordinary intercourse, let alone anal. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bugger" is a harmless phrase. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It's not. Really. --HighKing (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, it is a harmless jocular phrase. But, I've scratched it out, as you think otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wowsers, am I the victim of another Easter Rising? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

GD, a wee bit of advice. If you are ever in an English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Northern Irish, or Australian pub don't call someone a bugger. It could cost you an ass-beating (as we used to say at my high school) at the very least.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No offense but that's nonsense and all depends on the context of how its used. I've heard and used the word bugger many times without malicious intent, and would agree with Fainites better defined description than how i tried to explain its other meaning. HighKing is only trying to inflate the offensiveness of the term so it reflects badly on GoodDay. Then again what do they say? Always going out of their way to be offended?

In fact i've noticed over the past month or two that there appears to be a slowly increasing campaign of systematic putdowns and low-level abuse towards GoodDay by editors you could say are of the nationalist persuasion. Whilst i've only noticed bits of it here and there, it does appear to be in effect to be a case of wiki-bullying using GoodDays sometimes pointless contributions to discussions to throw abuse at him. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you wouldn't walk up to someone you didn't know and just call them a "bugger", but you would say "you silly bugger" when your friend spills his drink on you. Or - if you bumped into a long lost friend you'd say "where have you been you daft old bugger?"Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, it depends on context. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay knows I'm not ganging up on him. It would be prudent to find out how certain slang words could cause offence though, depending on the social milieu.Jeanne Boleyn. Can't find the signature icon.

Yesterday, was the very first time, I've ever been informed that 'bugger' was a bad term. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you GD, as I know profanity isn't your scene. However, it would behoove you to become hip to the meaning of slang terms; find out whether they have a vulgar and/or offensive connotation in other English-speaking countries. An example was on the JFK assassination article. The opening line used to read that Kennedy and Jackie were riding in a motorcade. I changed it to traveled as riding is slang for screwing in Ireland. Were a group of Irish students to come upon the word riding they would burst out laughing, thereby introducing an unseemly levity to a serious subject. Jeanne Boleyn. 16.06 (Automatic signature has a glitch)

Could greatly improve a number of tedious sports programmes though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What does "behoove" mean? GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In one's best interest. Jeanne Boleyn

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

¿GD, what did you do now? I think you are a glutton for punishment, so you shall be banished to the Islanders related wiki pages!! Raul17 (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just informd HighKing, that he was obsessed with the terminology British Isles. Predictably, HK didn't take it too well. Banished to the New York Islanders related articles? oh well, atleast they're not named the British Islanders. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Another rewriting of a sequence of events GoodDay. Let's not fall out over this one, but I didn't give an iota about you saying I'm obsessed over British Isles. I placed the remark on your Talk page to point out that it was poor form trying to get me dragged into an AN/I report by making a sneaky comment on the Talk page of the editor who was actively involved, and by attempting to turn (yet again) an AN/I on an editors behaviour into a "ban everything to do with British Isles" discussion. --HighKing (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That 1-year ban is going to be in place (sooner or later) & there'll be nothing 'both sides' can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Attack of the NDP

Assuming this isn't Layton's version of Cleggmania, how peeved will Stéphane Dion and Bob Rae be on 2 May? Either of them could lose to the Conservatives, but losing to the NDP as well? -Rrius (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Very peeved if they loose their respectives seats. Also, I believe shortly after the election, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will leave politics. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I expect he'll leave the leadership rather quickly. If he leaves Parliament, he'll at least have a reason for not showing up. -Rrius (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep & the next Liberal leader will be? Bob Rae. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so too. With the way the polls are going now, I'm starting to wonder about Harper's future. -Rrius (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Conservatives will win another minority government. About a year or two latter, the party memebers will force Harper to retire. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It just dawned on me that there is something to consider about the next Grit leadership election: the caucus will be much smaller. The whole thing may come down to which Liberals actually manage to keep their seats. Also, will a shrunken party looking for something new turn to Bob Rae? This could be fun to watch. -Rrius (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, a merging of the left is inevitable, between Jack Layton & (former New Democrat) Bob Rae. Within 5 years, we'll have the Liberal-Democrats or Democratic-Liberals. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here Comes the Bride

Have you plans to watch the royal wedding tomorrow GD? I missed Diana and Charles' wedding as I was at work.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to take another gander at Catherine. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I missed Chuck & Di's wedding too. I was so sick of the wall to wall coverage, I spent the wedding week in Venice (booked the previous week, on a 'for the love of god get me out of here'). Nothing so drastic this time, though :) Daicaregos (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping there'll be alot of cleveage shown among the female crowd. From a republican PoV, it's mind boggling that these events (royal weddings) still occur, in the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there certainly won't be among the participants. It's the propaganda that's mind boggling. Apparently, the royal family do a wonderful job. Not surprising really, as their job is to maintain the power and privilege of the royal family - call it an incentive. Daicaregos (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully, the wedding is not occuring in Ottawa, Canada. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that Ottawa. Why? Daicaregos (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mies would never let me hear the end of it, if the wedding were held there. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We never seem to hear the end of it either. Can't see any reason why the wedding shouldn't be in Canada, or any other country their family purport to represent as head of state. Perhaps they think England is more important than anywhere else in the Commonwealth. Daicaregos (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're stuck with it in your (sovereign) country though. The wedding should've been held in Australia, where they would've gotten the biggest enthusiasm. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What? GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Republican sentiment in Australia is at its lowest for 20 years, and having the wedding there would probably lower it even more so it would be a real propaganda coup for Australian royalists. Royal weddings will occur long after this one, and why not? Accept it or not, a lot of people actually like having the monarchy, and many more in others countries for some reason are enthralled by them as well - and such public displays of pomp and circumstance are desired by them. If you don't like it, don't watch it, there are other things on TV or things to do. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also in responde to Dai. Perhaps William and Kate where born in England and wanted to have their wedding in their home country? Perhaps because Westminster Abbey is in London and it is the central place for British princes and princesses in the past century to have their weddings? No less than 10 since 1919, including Williams granny, the Queen. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just awoke 'bout a half-hour ago & I've missed the wedding (oh darn). I wonder how much it cost the British taxpayers. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the size and clamour of the cheering crowds outside Westminster Abbey, they sure weren't complaining! I watched the ceremony. It was lovely, with pomp and glorious colour. The right mixture of tradition and modernity with that Diana-like normality, so that bride, groom and attendants didn't appear like wax statues. Anyroad, I enjoyed it. It was a historical event I'm glad to have seen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Different people starring in a recycled reality show, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean reality show?! Realty would spark another debate about the royal couple's landed property.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe, I just corrected the spelling error. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No different to elections or Question Period being an ongoing reality show. I suppose they should be abolished, as well, eh? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparing democracy to aristocracy is a non-starter. The Commonwealth realm monarchies are a doll house game, which doesn't belong in the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was more like comparing aristocracy to aristocracy, the only difference being one is political and the other isn't. Politics is just an ongoing game, as well; you just prefer that one over the others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Castles, Kings, Queens etc etc, belong in fairy tales. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the history of fairy tales would indicate castles and queens do belong in them (I wonder why they tend to hold more fascination than offices and presidencies). They also have a role in the real world, though. And, at least nobody pretends monarchies are something they aren't, unlike republics and their myths about equality and every little boy and girl having a chance of becoming president. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The monarchies are a hypocracy to democracy. They must be abolisehd as soon as possible. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... T-shirt slogans aren't really an argument. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Whenever monarchies are abolished, republics just create their own plastic version such as the USA did with the Kennedys. White House=Camelot hahahahhahahhaha. See everyone secretly longs for the fairy tale castles peopled by kings, queens, princesses.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

JFK, Jr didn't become Prez upon JFK's death. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You miss Jane's very apt point. In the absence of a real monarchy, a fake one is created, whether that be a political dynasty or a celebrity one. It's usually the latter, since most republics in the world are parliamentary ones and the president who fills the place of a monarch is typically such a drab, partisan, party hack that celebrities are given a higher status in the collective mind, instead. Go to Berlin and ask where you can go to catch a glimpse of the Wulffs, and you'll likely get a blank stare in response. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add: Even you, GoodDay, for such an avowed republican, demonstrate a strong fascination with monarchy! I still hold that, under all your anti-monarchical curmudgeonry, you're a secret monarchist! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here! Here! He probably wears one of those paper Burger King crowns when he's alone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe his plot to be rid of the present Canadian monarchy is so he can take the throne for himself. Usurper! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you have converted me. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The monarchy as can be clearly seen yesterday can unite the nation especially in dire times. The lack of involvement in politics by the monarch and the vast amount of charitable work the royal family do is immense. Many people envy the fact their country doesn't have one - and if it is the stuff of fairy-tales, well most people want some of that in the real-world. Even if you got rid of the monarchy what differnce does it make? The country would still be dominated by rich and powerful elitists which even republics have - at least the monarch doesn't get invovled in the politics. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all a bunch of silliness. Monarchists have got to get over their inferior complexes & thus stop putting these strangers on pedestals for them to worship. GoodDay (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean like those who support a politician? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I can assure you that as a monarchist, I have no inferiority complex. You shouldn't go around making sweeping statements without the facts to back them up.I could just as easily say sports fans have inferiority complexes as they put their teams on pedestals and suffer major psychological trauma when the team loses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I knew yas would be peeved with the 'inferiority complex' explanation. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't peeved just exasperated, which has a different meaning.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe GoodDay has an inferiority complex bourne out of jealously that he wasn't born a royal?? lol ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 13:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just as famous as the royals, I just don't have as many people who believe it. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as long as you don't put on a rabbit suit and claim to be Bugs Bunny!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Rollback

You did ask [1]. It has quite restricted use: only for obvious vandalism, but is handy when there are multiple vandal edits on a page. I think I have used mine about three times in 6 months. Bielle (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A way to broom away vandalism, cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny suit

I'm innocent! A demon rabbit possessed my body

Wearing a Bugs Bunny suit while carrying out a spree killing is a guaranteed trip to a mental institution rather than a common prison. Convenient, eh? Put on a bunny suit, wipe out a lot of people then claim insanity. The law needs to be changed so that those people go to prison as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The insanity plea is pathetic in Canada. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember this case: Son of Sam? The homicidal maniac claimed his neighbour's dog ordered him to kill. Bloody hell.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, a bunch of baloney. He should've been fried immediately. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All a killer has to do to avoid being sent to prison is to put the blame on the Devil. Convenient scapegoat. Poor devil.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The fellow who decapitated another on a bus trip in Canada, claimed that God told him to do it. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard the news today, oh boy

Gotcha Ossie! Can you believe it? After 10 years, Osama was finally caught.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally caught & eliminated. Wowsers, I knew there'd be big news today (Canadian federal election), but this caught me off guard. GoodDay (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange it happened the day Pope George Ringo was beatified (cue:Twilight Zone music). I wonder if he was wearing a Bugs Bunny suit when he was caught?! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but he & his son reportedly used a human shield (in this case a woman) to try to avoid their fates. They were cowardly to the end. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: John Paul II shouldn't be elevated to sainthood (whatever that is). Like his predecessors, he attempted to cover-up the pedeophilia scandals in the Catholic Church. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you really believe he was buried at sea? I don't. IMO that's being said to prevent his body being stolen by fanatics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's suppose to be so, to avoid his grave from becoming a terrorist shrine. If it's so? the pallbearers must regret it. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but without a body, there will be Bin Laden impersonators all over the world saying they got the wrong Osama!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And many will claim Bin Laden wasn't killed & it's just the Obama administration seeking a re-election boost. There'll always be conspiracy theorists. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already been told that by ignorant people here today who naturally launched into an anti-American tirade. Don't let me get started, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The birthers will likely claim that Bin Laden was about to reveal records of Obama being born in Kenya & that's why Bin Laden finally got killed. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have my own theory as to who shopped Bin Laden to US Intelligence. Can you guess who it was?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably his second-in-command. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It wasn't a member of Al-Queda. Guess again. (Remember this is just my theory)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Qaddfi, so that NATO & the UN will leave him alone. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...interesting theory, but I've got a different one. You're getting close though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The only other names I can guess are Bashir al-Assad, Muhammad Abbas, BL's western son or Hosni Mubarak. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Noooooooooo.....try again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha you'll just have to figure it out for yourself. Oh they're discussing the celebrations on Ref desk Humanities.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pervez Musharraf? Bielle (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just like to say guys that Osama did not use a woman as a human shield as first reported. Beware the nonsense that comes from right wing press of whom most don't even bother to try and verify their facts. Oh, and he wasn't armed either. I have no big complaint about Osama being killed, but please, people should wait for the truth (if it all comes out) before splashing these kinds of made up stories onto front page headlines. Carson101 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming more like Dallas everyday, and we're most likely to never learn the full truth about the incident. I don't care what happened to Osama, but we should be trusted with the true account for the sake of historical accuracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama-Osamagate? GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pope edits

You should get consensus for these changes, and find a way to work and link "Pope" into the first line. As it is these edits have a very POV appearance. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pope isn't a part of the papal name. Also, the article titles have Pope in them & mentions the individual was pope in the opening sentence. Saying "Pope X was pope.." is not necessary. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The ones I have looked at don't mention the word Pope in the opening sentence - they just have "bishop of Rome". I doubt these edits will survive long as they are. The article title is normally supposed to be the same as the bolded subject at the start of the text, as you well know. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all the papal bio articles have Pope in the bolden intro. My correct changes may bring about consistancy. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are wandering into more controversial areas than you may reallize. From your userpage you don't seem to be a Protestant POV warrior, but this is the appearance these edits give. If somebody was Pope, or President of the US, then the first sentence of their bio should say so. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article title & in the intro as to what position they held. PS: I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I decided to 'revert' my deletions & made additions to bios articles that didn't have 'Pope' in the bolden intro. Change my mind, when I realized the anti-popes were using Anti-Pope in their bolden intros & thus could've caused confusion. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Iggy goes down?

With a quarter of the vote in, Ignatieff is losing his own seat. I heard he had five speeches for tonight, do you figure any mentioned losing the national election and the local one? Though with Duceppe down, at least he won't be alone. -Rrius (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And you must be thrilled to have been wrong about your minority Conservative prediction. -Rrius (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahem? There is only one Iggy. ;) Resolute 03:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WOWSERS, I didn't expect these results: Conservative Majority Government, New Democrat Official Opposition, Liberals have worst defeat in party history, Bloc Quebecois crushed in their beloved Quebec & the Greens breaking through. HOLY SMOKERS, Duceppe & Ignatieff loose their respective seats & now both have chosen to resign as their respective party's leaders - Duceppe in a few days, Ignatieff in the fall. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Duceppe didn't slap any timeline on his resignation that I can see in reliable sources. He flatly resigned. He did say the party would meet in a couple days to determine a way forward. Perhaps the best way to word the article is to say that Duceppe "announced his resignation"? Resolute 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the most accurate, until we can nail down the exact date of his resignation as BQ leader. We know it's sometime this week, so I suppose it's nothing for me to get too nitpicky about. As for Ignatieff, as I understand him, he's staying on as Liberal leader 'til the fall (when the party chooses his successor). In the meantime, the Liberals will be choosing somebody to lead'em in the House of Commons (not an interim leader of the party, as CBC has alreday erroneously reported). GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Duceppe described himself today, as a 'private citizen', so I reckon he did resign as BQ leader - last night. Besides, I'm not prepared to get into an edit spat at Bloc Quebecois, with any IPs. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Skookum1 is gonna be very angry with the election results. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton

Your recent smutty comments on the talk page of this BLP are unacceptable and have been removed. When we handle the biography of living people we act in a professional and respectful way, not with immature personal comments. Consider this a warning.--Scott Mac 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lighten up. A simple "your comments have been removed", would've sufficed. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the comments, if this is what Scott is referring too, are that bad and warrant a warning. Removal on the basis of WP:NOTAFORUM would of sufficed. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment on her talk page. I have to say the sexist comments are childish and unencyclopedic. I think it's understood that she has a great body which was displayed to perfection in that slinky white dress. But to make leering chauvinistic statements in the article reflects poorly on Wikipedia. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, but she was asking for it. Wowsers, a few days after the wedding, she was wearing skin tight white pants. I mean, if ya don't want that kind of attention? dress differently. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

She has the right to wear whatever she damn well pleases. Britain just happens to be a democracy. If you were wearing a pair of tight, crotch-enhancing jeans (see Sticky Fingers LP cover) and a bunch of dog-ugly women came up to you and started squeezing and fondling your genitals, does that mean you were asking for it? For fucks sake that's the sort of warped, primitive macho mentally that justifies rape. "Hey man, she was askin' for it". I suppose you belong to the lad's club that believes all women are whores gagging for it (apart from mama and the virginal sister, that is). That type of thinking is par for the course on the island I live in, but didn't think it flourished in Canada.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Miscommunication

Apologies for any confusion; my "good grief" response was certainly not directed at you, it was a general statement regarding the discussion in general. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Scott's following comment confused me. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV

Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) ✝DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding seats required for majority in election infoboxes

Can you advise me what other electoral jurisdictions have this in their infobox? Timeshift (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been concentrating on the sovereign legislative elections. I'm guessing the Eastern European countries would have parliamenty elections. I've done so many, that it's becoming tougher to think of many more. The next step maybe the non-sovergein legislative elections, like provincial & territorial elections in Canada, state legislative election in the USA, state elections in Australia. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. You have added the seats required to form a majority to every Australian election. Why? What other jurisdiction has this? I'm asking before I start to revert. Timeshift (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

UK, Canada, etc. As for why, I can't speak for GoodDay, but as a reader, it makes it easier for me to interpret the infobox when I can see how many seats were needed for a majority for then looking at how well the parties did. -Rrius (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you wanted to know 'cuz ya wanted to help. Informing readers about what's required for a majority, is helpful & certainly not harmfull. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just don't consider it adds a lot. A majority is 50% + 1, I didn't think we needed to spell it out for them. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't do any harm & saves a few seconds of working it out in one's head. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the number of seat required to form a majority from the 'National Assembly for Wales election' pages. The National Assembly has 60 seats. How many seconds would it save to work out a majority of 50% + 1 in one's head? No need to dumb down the encyclopaedia. Daicaregos (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Timeshift (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Those addition aren't doing any harm. I could open up a discussion at the Welsh election articles, but eventually, Daicaregos would attempt to claim I was a conflict-junkie or trouble-maker - then try and drag me to ANI or something. No, I'm not gonna entertain him today. Someday, I'll re-add my edits there & it'll be up to him, to show how petty he can be. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not totally surprised, that you would revert anything by me, pertaining to Wales. Ya wanna be that petty, fine. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell me, how long did it take you to figure out that 31 out of 60 was a majority? Anyone that does not know that shouldn't be allowed near an encyclopedia. It's information for the stupid I'm afraid. Carson101 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It didn't do any harm, to have it there. It also emphasized that a majority in the Assembly, was required to secure a stable government. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, adding that 31 seats are needed for a majority out of 60 seats is not only not worthwhile, but is petty in itself. Would any reader not be able to work that out for themself? Indeed, wouldn't they wonder why Wikipedia would decide to insult their intelligence by having it there? I know I would. Your claims about my motivation are pure fantasy. Your edits were pathetic and unnecessary, so I removed them. Daicaregos (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You reverted them, 'cuz of the moniker behind them. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a lie. And a personal attack. I insist that you strike or delete that claim. Daicaregos (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Describing my edits as pathetic, is also a blow below the belt, so I've struck that. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes are only supposed to contain the most important info in the most concise possible way so as not to overcrowd the infobox. This could very well be adding too much information to an infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out that a 'majority of seats' is required for a stable government, is quite important. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not gonna fuss to much about Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland's elections, as they're not countries. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You really have to stop this trolling. You know perfectly well that they are verifiably countries because you've been down this road more times than I care to remember. Leave off the pot-stirring. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not countries. PS: There's nothing any of you can do, to change my views on that. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You are familiar with Countries of the United Kingdom because you contributed to its talk page and you actually agreed that E, S, NI & W were countries [2]. So if this is not trolling what is? --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to it, 'cuz I had no choice & wasn't interested in getting blocked. But, on this talkpage, E/W/S/NI are not countries. Nobody's gonna change my opinon on that, here. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox parameter is now up and running. 117Avenue (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Then why aren't you using it? 117Avenue (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You've been on Wikipedia for over five years, and you still don't know how to use an infobox, or read template documentation? 117Avenue (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't help it, I'm always being badgered over trivial things, from the British & Irish. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop informing readers that '50% +1 = a majority' on election-related articles. What are you thinking? RashersTierney (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't stop, because there's no harm in it. It's instant information for readers. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Its potentially misleading. It implies that such a number was required to form a government which frequently was not the case with certain parties sometimes declining to take their seats. RashersTierney (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It implies that if a political party gains a majority of seats, it can potentially form a majority government. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That might be your considered opinion of what constitutes a majority government, but this reliable source does not agree, at least wrt Cosgrave's 1923 administration. The issue centres on the number of deputies voting in parliament. RashersTierney (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I won't reverse your reverts on the Irish general election articles, again. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, please stop making edits like this (one of a series). Do you honestly think any readers would be unable to work out the majority required in a chamber of 300 seats? It's completely pointless and makes the infobox look ridiculous. Daicaregos (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like it? bring it up in a more public area. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretenders

Hi, I noticed your interest in renaming a bunch of succession articles. I was involved a bit in the Ottoman one. I just want to point out a potential problem with your renaming. A "pretender" is someone who makes a claim to a throne.[3] If the throne has been abolished, then making such a claim is similar to (if not identical to) an act of treason. At least in the Ottoman article, I tried to make clear that the listed people are not necessarily making any claim to the throne. People have been executed and/or exiled for making claims to abolished thrones, and it therefore seems problematic to label a bunch of unwilling innocent descendants as "pretenders". You probably were not aware of this issue, so please let me know what you think about it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this involve only the Ottoman empire? GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it involves all of the articles that you have renamed. All of those articles list people who are not making any claim to a throne. They are merely people who would be in a line of succession if the throne still existed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But they are pretenders, as they're in line of succession to a non-existant throne. I followed the 'page move' example at the Greek related article. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you click on the link I provided above? A person can be in a line of succession and yet not be a pretender to the throne. I'm sure that the article titles can be rephrased to address everyone's concerns. If a person is not saying "I belong on the throne" (or the equivalent) then the person is not a pretender.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What's your idea of an article title? It's gotta say "former throne", in it. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a move has to be discussed first. It's clearly controversial. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just figured those monarchies no longer existed. Where's a good place to discuss such changes? They fall under monarchy & republic. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Line of succession to X throne", is a misleading title. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it was misleading. I have no problem with "former" in the title. It's just the word "pretender" that is problematic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We need a new title. Something like Line of succession to the Greek pretender (for example). GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the word "pretender" is problematic, because it implies that someone is trying to overthrow the current government. Something like "Line of succession to the former Greek throne" would be okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you be in line of succession to something that doesn't exist? GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's one reason why all these articles are pretty silly. But if you like the following title better, then that would be fine with me: "Hypothetical line of succession to the former Greek throne". Feel free to suggest other titles. Just please realize that using the word "pretender" is problematic if some of the listed people are not claiming that the current government is illegitimate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald might have the solution "Line of succession to the former X throne". Though it still begs the question, "How can ya be in line of succession to something that doesn't exist?". GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If Scott MacDonald has suggested that title, then it would be fine with me. Or you can stick in the word "hypothetical" to address your concern.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anythingyouwant, the word "pretender" is problematic. But what about the alternative word often used: "claimant"? It's much more neutral and it only means that he or she is claiming a throne; it does not mean they will get that. And what about: "Line of succession to a defunct throne"? 'Defunct' is also an often used word in this context. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm implimenting Scott's idea. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding Mr. D. E. Mophon, the word "claimant" would be problematic, because many of the poeple listed in these articles are not claiming any throne. They are merely descendants of a former monarch who are perfectly happy living average lives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed them to Line of succession to former X throne, as the best possible title I can think of. Though 'being in line of succession to something that doesn't exist', is strange. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good enough for Wikipedia work.  :-) Thanks, on behalf of myself, and on behalf of all the descendants of monarchs who don't give a hoot about reclaiming the throne. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I hope the monarchists don't come after me. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

All of these were clearly controversial moves. For a single editor to unilaterally move all these pages is totally inappropriate - and particularly after other editors have complained. There's a way to request moves which gives other editors the opportunity to express their views. Please don't use the Move button for controversial moves in the future. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I was being bold & accurate, as those monarchies were abolished. But in future, I'll go the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to be bold with ONE article. But to change dozens of articles without any discussion shows contempt for other editors. When another editor reverts your change, and then you change it again, that merely confirms the fact that you care little for the views of other editors. One might have expected more from somebody who claims to be a republican. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're free to revert them 'again' (note: you didn't revert them all, the first time) & begin a RM for all of them. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Archduke Karl

Hi GoodDay. I would appreciate it if you take a look at the exchange between Kotniski and me. Please pay close attention to what the naming conventions (WP:NCROY) say. I hope you will reconsider your position in light of the naming conventions, and not support the move purely because you hold republican views. Thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I read'em & have come to the conclusion that NCROY needs an overhaul, concerning former royals bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you may have your anti royal POV, WP:NCROY is careful to ensure a NPOV. But as things stand you are supporting a move which is against naming conventions established by consensus, surely the honourable thing to do would be to change your position or withdraw your vote, thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll withdraw. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - dwc lr (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's the wrong article title though, as he was born after Austria abolished their monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, you seem to have missed the importance of the first sentence in my opening rationale: "Archduke Karl of Austria" is a common name that refers to other men, not this one. Per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE we should only use ambiguous page titles when the article is clearly the primary usage. That is definitely not the case for Karl Habsburg-Lothringen. It's like having Charles Louis of Bourbon-Parma at "Charles II", because he is sometimes called that, even though there are plenty of other men called Charles II with a better claim to primary usage. DrKiernan (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I still believe that Archduke Karl of Austria, is the wrong article title. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

'Restraining yourself'

Restraint would have been not posting this rant in the first place. Common courtesy would have been an apology for it. RashersTierney (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And G'Day - I don't think Rashers is actually from the British Isles - I think he's from sovereign Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody told me the republic was removed from the island of Ireland. When did this geographic feat ocurr? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already retracted (deleted) my gripe, earlier. If you wish to dwell on it, that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Then stop picking at it. Your contrived comment was intended to raise hackles. You can be very boorish when you put your mind to it. RashersTierney (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What does "boorish" mean? GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To be boorish is to be rude and uncultured, which of course being a republican you are ;) Anyway, have you ever considered asking somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics about this? Would save you a lot of trouble with these islands nobody can name. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:POLITICS? I didn't know of its existance ('til now). I tend to choose the bold route on governmental infoboxes & avoid going through all the WikiProject committees. I don't mind if my additions to the Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish election infoboxes are reverted, since they're not countries. I was just peeved concerning the Welsh ones, 'cuz it was Daicaregos' who was protesting -again- about my edits. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: We republicans aren't boorish. We're just more practical, in our thinking - hahahah. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think you would make more strides in improving relations with other editors were you to omit singling out specific Wikipedians by name. I don't think that's a positive way forward and only serves to put you in an immature light. It is childish and generates a hostile atmosphere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's a natural reaction, when one feels ganged up on. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, can I ask you a question. You don't have to answer as I'm not your keeper. I know that anyone can edit any article on wikipedia. Did you edit Welsh articles in the same way before this little tiff you are having with Dai, or whenever it started? If not, could it be that you are maybe taking this a little too far? If I'm wrong let me know. Carson101 (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He & I have butted heads for years. I was overly peeved this time, as my additions weren't in anyway biased or harmful. But, I won't dwell too much about it, as Wales isn't a country. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this is your page and can say as you please. If you continue to say that Wales is not a country and say it without any provocation from anyone, do you think you will be the most popular person in some peoples eyes? You may not care, but my point is it just drags out any possible bad feeling. It won't stop till you stop saying it willy nilly and with no possible benefit. That's my advice, it's up to you. Carson101 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

When Wales, Scotland, England & Northern Ireland become independant, I'll accept them as countries. Until then, they're constituent countries. PS: I was jumping for joy when the SNP won a majority government in Scotland & I'm looking forward to their coming independance referendum. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, when you continue to say things like Wales isn't a country with smug, self-satisfied relish, you will piss people off and they will become antagonistic towards you with the net result that you feel ganged up on. I am not from Wales, yet you piss me off when you keep insisting its not a country despite other editors having shown you sources which describe it as such. You refuse to see the difference between a soveriegn state and a country as well as nationality and citizenship.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

When Wales becomes independant, I'll describe it 'here' as a country. A certain editor may get his way on Welsh political articles, but he doesn't get his way here. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah GoodDay, staunchly following one definition of country while other editors follow other definitions. If only people could agree there are multiple definitions, and they shouldn't be mixed, and life would become just that much easier for all of us. Until then though, you're just baiting. I don't care about it, but you know as well as I do that others will. There's no need to insert "Wales isn't a country" on every one of your posts ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

They'll have to seek to get my talkpage blocked, 'cuz it's my view. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, forget about the British Isles for a while. There's an interesting discussion over at Ref Desk Humanities about the Universe or Big Picture.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Depression City

The human experience is random...life has no meaning... Well that depressing philosophy is a perfect anidote to the lashing rain outside. Pass me that bottle of Jack Daniels. I need to get drunk and how!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's factual observaton on the 'big picture'. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's your opinion on the Big Picture, although lately I'm beginning to agree with you as regards the human experience and our very existance being a random act without meaning or importance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

War, disease, natural disasters & the ice capades - are further signs of there being no divinity. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything does seem to be a bit random....and yet, sometimes life seems like an illusion created by ourselves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Life is what happens to you, while you're busy making other plans". GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Time waits for no one. What is presently your reality will seconds later become your memory.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I rarely think beyond the next day. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What really bums me out is when I reflect on how much unhappiness in my life has been due to the negative influence of other people. I completely agree with the sentiments of Jean Paul Sartre Hell is other people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite nomadic. The longest relationship for me, lasted 'bout 2 months. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the right attitude to take, IMO. I once had the desire to become a drifter....travel across Ameria, take whatever job came my way.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Being a nomad, can get very lonely, however. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture is at fault. It makes single people feel like freaks with the innuendo they can't get a guy/girl. A woman cannot go to the disco/pub/cinema/concerts on her own because: It makes her look like #1. She's trying to get picked up #2 She can't get a guy #3 She's unpopular-has no friends.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In my area, a guy can't pick up a gal, unless he's obnoxious, fighting with somebody, drinking or doing drugs & has alot of money (year around employment etc). GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's the fault of popular culture portraying the violent macho type as sexy, a good screwer, etc. whereas the nice, respectable intelligent guy is framed as a geek and lousy in bed. How many women have ruined their lives because of this mad fallacy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's in the genetic makeup. Women will always seek the physically stronger, as they wish to produce physcially strong children. It's just 'natural selection'. It goes back to the cavemen days, the best hunter/provider always got the girl. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but .... that muscular macho stuff is not the key to success in society now. If you want your offspring to have the best chance of survival and reproduction you wouldn't necessarily go for muscle. I once saw an interesting experiment where they asked lots of women to describe their ideal attractive man and then asked lots of men to describe what they thought women would find attractive. Then they drew the descriptions. The womens one looked like a sort of young Alan Alda. The mans one was a sort of flesh coloured hulk.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Money, is the key. If you're financially secure, you'll get the gal. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Money and power.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles

Template:British Isles has been protected to allow for discussion of its title. It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:

• British Isles
• British-Irish Council area
• Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
• British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.

A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall look into it. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Numbered elections

Please see User:117Avenue/Atlantic Canada elections. I too was confused by all the numbers, so I had to write it down. 117Avenue (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ya'd think they (historians) would've made it easier on us. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? A historian noted the Nova Scotia error in 1983. 117Avenue (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean, it's too bad they didn't restart the counting after each colony became a province. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A historian is a person who studies history. You mean a person in history, a founding father. 117Avenue (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral?

Your edit here (adding British Isles to an article) directly contradicts your statements here, here and here at BITASK. It isn't as if you could claim you weren't aware it could stir up trouble, is it? What are you playing at? Things gone a bit quiet for you? Daicaregos (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking HighKing what he thought about this earlier - do you think this is sanctionable Dai, especially given the recent lengthy ANI opinion on GoodDay's conduct? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If ya's want to get me sanctionized? that's both your decision. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would open an RfC. Those sorts of edits are what is getting him in trouble. He is clearly trying to pull peoples chains and you all are playing right into it. Either take the next step or ignore him...because you are only giving him what he wants by complaining to him over and over. -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This might shock ya'll, but I wasn't in a trouble-making frame of mind, when I added the pipe-link. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't think of anything else to change it to. The British monarchy began in 1707 (though Tharky disputes that). I've proposed two changes for the linking article - either a page move or division. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, fair enough if you couldn't think of anything else to change it to. You probably didn't realise it may be inappropriate to use the term 'British Isles' in relation to defining a political area. That explains everything, thanks. Perhaps if I could ask you to look at WP:BITASK before you use the term in future ... oh wait. You seem to be involved there already and must have been aware of the sensitivities surrounding its use. I don't understand. Daicaregos (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If ya'll want to ABF & get me sacntioned from BI stuff? then that's your collective decision. I must advise you, I won't put up much of a defence. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Factually, you are incorrect to infer that there is a monarch of the British Isles, which implies a political usage. You could simply have changed the sentence to read "During her reign, which at 59 years is one of the longest for a British monarch...". The rest of the sentence is superfluous. If you wanted to differentiate from other definitions, including Tharkys, you could have stated "During her reign, which at 59 years is one of the longest since the beginning of the British constitutional monarchy..."

In either case, one edit like this does not make for tendentious editing, and is hardly sanctionable. "You should know better" is the sternest warning to be fair and reasonable. "Be careful and try not to do it again" would be fair and reasonable advice. --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't pipelink it as "...of the British Isles", but rather "...in the British Isles". GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a trout GoodDay. While I see where you're coming from, oldest reigning monarch in the British Isles, it would have been better to wait for a consensus on talk before making such a change. Aside from HighKing's second proposal, there's other options such as "longest for a monarch of England or the United Kingdom" or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"..longest in the British Isles" is the most accurate, as long as that article isn't divided. I'm surprised that Welsh, English, Scottish & Irish nationalist are accepting having the Welsh, Irish, Scottish & English monarchies called British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not the most accurate, so long as there's a reasonable chance that "British Isles" can be interpreted as both extra-territorial and as a united kingdom (historical or otherwise). I've already indicated a more accurate edit. And it's disingenuous to imply that you mischievously made the edit as a blunt instrument to force an article-splitting agenda to the fore. If that's true, then I don't see how you made your edit in good faith. --HighKing (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My pipe-link was ment to present the linked-article more accurately. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The article you linked to was List of longest-reigning British monarchs - no mention of an area. You still haven't responded to why you made this edit in the context of splitting the article. --HighKing (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It would've looked strange to pipe-link it as second longest reigning British monarch, not including the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And still haven't responded to why conflate splitting the article with this edit. Or acknowledged the problems with your edit. I withdraw from this discussion. --HighKing (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

GD, she's the second-longest reigning monarch, including the pre-1707 ones. And that's what people would be looking for, not merely the last 300 years, which wouldn't be much of a record. ðarkuncoll 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thus that article's title should be changed to List of longest-reigning monarchs in the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, and now you're getting tedious. The topic is British monarchs. If you want to start a new article with a different subject such as the one you're suggesting, that's a different matter. --HighKing (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the monarchs listed in that article, aren't British monarchs. They're English monarchs, Scottish monarchs & Irish monarchs, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What are the Benefits of an RFC?

After reading the above section I see that a user put forward the idea that there could be an RFC on GoodDay. I don't know GoodDay well but would think anything too heavy handed may not be the right thing to do. Can I ask, what is an RFC meant to accomplish, and in particular, what do GoodDay and the encyclopedia gain from an RFC. The bottom line is, would it be good for the encyclopedia and GoodDay if there were an RFC? Carson101 (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes - he is a pretty major distraction and irritant to the project and takes up part of lots of people's attention all the time that would be better spent on solving editing issues and having responsible and mature discussions with other editors instead of the inane, childish and repetitive nonsense we see time and again. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If yas wanna get me barred from British Isles stuff or even all British & Irish political stuff? that's your collective call. Again, I won't put up much of a defence. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's always possible that an RFC would be a good thing for you GoodDay. I heard you say previously that you were feeling bullied, and whether that is actually the case or not it may be a good forum for you to express your own concerns. Others will obviously express their own opinions but it seems to me that an RFC will at least be a civil way to talk these things through. Carson101 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no objections to a RfC or Rfc/U (not sure which is the more proper). I'm assuming this has to do with British & Irish political articles in general & not just adding/removing British Isles. Concerning the British Isles usage in articles, I'd hardly qualify as being a prime pusher for adding or removing it. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be about "floppy trolling". Kittybrewster ☎ 17:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been causing any problems on any pornography articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, GD but what does floppy trolling have to do with pornography unless we're talking major erection failure.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought that's what Kb was gripeing about, hahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What does impotence have to do with the British Isles? I'm lost at sea here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I was making fun of Kb's descriptive of my alleged trolling. PS: Be careful, "British Isles" is a dirty term. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What do GoodDay and the encyclopedia gain from an RFC. Quite a lot, actually. He might stop his trolling and start producing good work instead of letting himself down by coming up with such infantile remarks as those above. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't troll & I do produce good work & there's no such thing as infantile remarks 'cuz infants can't speak or write. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean! --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Smarty pants posts, will get smarty pants responses. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If ya'll are considering somekinda sanctions/restrictions on me? make it for both British and Irish political articles (which probably covers all British and Irish articles). TBH, I have no empathy for political sensativities on those articles. The worst thing you can tell me is "it offends people" etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

From reading your reply to me above it appears you would be quite content to have a Rfc or Rfc/u to enable you to get things sorted. I would have no clue as to how to start one but if anyone else knows the procedure then perhaps they could initiate it? Carson101 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no empathy for any political sensativities on those articles. Irish nationalist or British nationalist concerns are irrelevant to me. Within the UK - English, Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh nationalist concerns, are irrelevant to me. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot deny these are all nations, however. It's been pointed out to you more times than I can recall. The United Kingdom is not made up of states or provinces, but countries. A person from Wales, for example can hold a British passport, be a British citizen, yet be correctly termed Welsh by nationality.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Guys, we are forgetting some key facts. (i) Wikipedia means a lot to GoodDay as a social environment (ii) he is capable of doing good work (iii) he loves attention and knows full well the community are unlikely to sanction him at the current low levels of disruption, and RfC would only satisfy that need which is why he is encouraging it. He is a sometimes Troll who when he trolls flops (to adapt the conversation above. I've tried multiple strategies from being nice to pointing out bad behaviour and nothing has worked, although there have been some changes. I think the strategy is simple. Revert any trolling behaviour, report clear sanction breaking (that means any insertion or removal of BI GoodDay), don't get sucked into talk page exchanges when the trolling is just taking place ignore him. Enough of us watch articles where the trolling happens to deal with any damage through a simple revert. That will mean either (i) the behaviour will change or (ii) the attention seeking behaviour will result in a serious breech of wikipedia rules or etiquette at which point sanctions will come into play pretty quickly given the history. --Snowded ^TALK 08:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent post at ANI

Your recent post^diff landed in the middle of Diannaa's earlier post. Please don't do this, it separates another users post from their signature and can lead to confusion. pablo 15:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure as where to place my response. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also^diff2 – this is quite a complicated situation, perhaps you should take some time to research it a bit if you are going to comment. pablo 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with that case anyways. It's up to administrators to decide Jack Merridew's fate. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Gilles Duceppe

To answer your question about Gilles Duceppe, Vivian Barbot became interim leader on May 3rd. Kingjeff (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)