Jump to content

User talk:GoodDay/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Infobox

Hello, you should consider reaching consensus via talkpages before you remove information from infoboxes, particularly to the birthplace/country of celebrity infoboxes. Thank you.Captain Marshalls (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was being bold, but I will open up a discussion at WP:BOXING. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thats not necessary, just thought I'd give you a reminder. Captain Marshalls (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It's best that I do, as I was planning on doing more deletions. I'd prefer the countries being mentioned in all those boxing bio infoboxes, but I might get into trouble trying to insert United Kingdom. I also used NHL bio infoboxes for a guide on the lack of additions of Canada & United States. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Different subjects may have different needs. Ice hockey being heavily based in North America is the reasoning for it working in that topic. But that might not be the case for other topics. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I've opened up a discussion at WP:BOXING. Hopefully, I can get a consensus on what to do. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A Just Ruling ... in my (i.e., AVDL's) Opinion

Ruling: Re User GoodDay

"...I would note also that the "low level disruption" attested to does not fall under the remit of this RfAr ruling, and I would therefore suggest that normal dispute resolution or requests for comment be used--Cailil talk 01:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) ,..."


Thank God. My own faith in Wikipedia is being restored. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Next time, I'll remember the 1RR restriction, which was what that report was supposed to only be about. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I completely understand my friend. I am happy that you did not get Lynched. You are one of the good people here at Wikipedia. I enjoy your Own TalkPage and your posts on Other Pages, very much indeed. We may not always agree, but you always kindly make me feel that I have been listened to, and heard. For that I am very grateful my friend. Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
You are most welcome, my friend. Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

GoodDay in an exchange a month or so ago you were vigorously defended by an Ottawa based IP. You can't remember who it was can you? Your archives are extensive  :-) so I am looking for a human search agent. I half suspect block evasion so want to check it out and I know that whatever our other disagreements you hate socks. --Snowded TALK 06:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be 99.240.226.125, back in February? I always suspected that was either AVDL or Irvine22. PS: Don't let our past disagreements concern you, I don't hold wiki-grudges. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I half thought it was AVDL at the time, then his/her recent statement about coming from Ottawa re triggered the thought. If so its block evasion, although on a talk page so unlikely to be actionable. Will keep a note for the future if its necessary - thanks --Snowded TALK 17:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No probs. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Enforcement

In line with the resolution of the discussion on WP:AE with regard to your reverts at Northern Ireland, User:GoodDay you are formally warned for breach of editing and behavioural practices (WP:EDITWAR) on the article Northern Ireland, with no further action to be taken with regard to this particular breach of the Troubles RfAr. Please bear in mind that all articles relating to the Troubles RfAr are under a 1 revert restriction. Please also bear in mind that reverting an article 3 times in 24 hours may also be considered a breach of WP:Editwar in articles not under revert restriction - WP:3RR does not give editors a right to revert 3 times a day.--Cailil talk 15:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this is about TreasuryTag. GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

FA status

Hi there

I am curious about the point you made suggesting that the United Kingdom article would not get FA status if the lead described the UK as consisting of four countries. Why would that be the case? I could understand that the article may not get FA status if there is a dispute over content, but in that case both sides in the dispute are equally to blame, are they not? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It won't reach FA status, as long as an agreement isn't reached on the article intro & other content. IMHO, if we drop 'country/countries' as descriptives for the UK and E/N/S/W - the article would be better off. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdenting

Hello, GoodDay. I was busy tinkering with my comment and didn't intend to revert your correction of my outdent. Please feel free to format my comment appropriately. I haven't really got the hang of Talk Pages. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Italian majority

Hi GoodDay. I saw you added notes about the seats needed for a majority in the pages about the Italian general elections. Why did you add those notes solely about the House? Italian Constitution established a perfect bicameralism: the Italian Senate has the same importance of the House. Government Prodi was fired in 2008 by the Senate, not by the House where it had a large majority.--80.183.95.91 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got around to the Italian Senate, yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I take it you will not be rooting for manu(re) over Barcelona

The life of an Arsenal Real Madrid fan! I will be pulling for those British bums (aka Englanders, Northern Irelanders, Scotlanders and Welchers) eventhough I do not like their style of play. Did I hear right that the royal newly weds will be attending?

PS: Please stay away from the Hell Hole in Wikipedia! Raul17 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean those 2 young people, who are members of the English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish Royal Family? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The one and the same!! Or is it the one and the four. Raul17 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to ask the devolutionists, they seem to know everything. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Doug Weight

The local New York newspapers are gushing over Weight and his retirement and three different writers wrote that he was captain for the Isles for three seasons (2008-11) and was recruited by Garth (Don't call me Al) Snow.* I thought Bill Guerin was captain for the 2008-09 and there was no replacement after he was traded, and he was the one who wanted Weight because they scored more whenever they were together. Raul17 (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Leave it to news editors to mess things up. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

as the Tsars rule wasn't limited to Moscow.

sorry but this phrase reads like a joke, was it? please consider to base arguments on article title policy...and why not read the discussion about the sources.--Termer (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not changing my stance. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not what I said nor asked for, just mentioned perhaps you want to consider basing arguments on the article title policy instead of a personal opinion...but never mind.--Termer (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll let the closing administrator decide if my reasoning his good enough. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, give it a break

This is the only time I am going to say this to you. This edit represents a majority of what I see from you. You obviously have been repeatedly asked to stop making the one line, obvious, skewed and unsolicited remarks by several other people over the years. I would like to ask you to resist such interruption of the negotiations at Sarah's talk page, and if you would like to vent at me for making the request, please do so here and not there. Thank you, GoodDay. Sswonk (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let Sarah777 judge my comment, which was intended to help her. You're not her 'defense lawyer' & might only be hurting her chances. Sarah got herself into this mess, stop holding her hand & let her find the way out of it. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
For Christ's sake, for you and anyone reading, I am not anyone's lawyer. Sarah has thanked me for getting a few things straight over at AN/I with the crew there, so I don't think suggesting I'm hurting makes sense. I need help seeing how your comment helps. John gave her a list, probably the single most important set of guidelines and suggestions she can work with right now. She responded and made a gesture to the blocking admin HJ in her statement. Then you chime in with your out of the blue statement of extremely well known fact. Help me understand why you do such things, can't you see that is a serious and crucial dialog in that section? And that your statements can be distracting and tiresome? John, her de facto mentor writes in so many words "here is what I think your editing career should be guided by", and she makes a dignified response, and then there is you going on about something which doesn't fit. Just let them work this out there please. Don't deny, GoodDay, that the welcomeness of your little asides is dubious. Sswonk (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
For whose sake? Anyways, I've struck my terrible comment at Sarah's talkpage. Please keep your emotions in check. I'll be away for a few hours, ta ta. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It's an interjection for GoodDay's sake; you won't elaborate on how your comment can been seen as helpful, so GoodBye to you as well. Sswonk (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

GD, I've tried to give you advice before (as many also have) but get silly, inane remarks back in turn in either wiki-text or in edit summaries and now I see you are causing an odour in someone else's nostrils. My feeling is that you are now sailing pretty close to the wind and a complete change in direction on your part is now needed. PLease believe me, no-one is waiting on the pearls of wisdom that you continue to splatter across WP. If you want to be taken seriously, and not just disruptive, then take stock. Resist the tempatation to comment on everything under the sun--comment when you genuinely can add to the conversation with something approaching reasoned thought. I suppose you can take this as some sort of warning. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

On this topic, GoodDay, how is this helpful? Resolute 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeepers, you fellow Canadian hockey fans are sensative whenever I point out it's pre-mature to mention Thrashers-to-Winnipeg stuff. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me ask you serious question GoodDay. Do you enjoy the attention you get on your talk page when you make comments at article talk pages that don't help? You probably have a good idea that some people from the various pages you comment on are going to post here to give you a bit of advice or a reprimand. If it is attention you are looking for I should tell you that there are better ways of getting it. Carson101 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are constituent countries. No matter what you post here, you can't persuade me otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You realize his comment didn't meantion anything about them being countries right. Comment on what he is talking about if you are going to comment but do not make a comment about something that is irrelevant. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I was going to comment on this one as well...How did you think those comments are helpful? Have anything to do with building a wiki. You do know that wikis are not a forum or a social networking site right? Chatting for the sake of chatting is not allowed to happen here unless it has something to do with improving the wiki. Please listen to what people are telling you. I'd like to see you stay here but eventually you are going to push enough peoples buttons that they will do something. I've lost count of how many people have asked you to stop now in just the last 3 months alone...nevermind going back farther than that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't pretend that you or Resolute have never blogged at WP:HOCKEY. You both are only sour because I suggested the Thrashers wouldn't be going to Canada. Anyways, you're both administrators, so it's alright if either of you delete my post there. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't generally blog. I could care less if they do go or don't go. It would be nice yes. But your comment served no purpose but to try and piss people off. We shouldn't have to delete your post. We are asking you to think before you post. It is very clear you posted that comment because you hoped you would upset someone. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes we do get into the odd short discussion. That's fine. But the issue is with how you always seem to interject with pointless one-line remarks. Every single editor in the project knows you are of the opinion on the matter, because you have repeated it every single time the topic has come up. But that has no relevance to a topic on what we should do to improve the draft copy ahead of the possibility. Regardless of your personal opinion, there is a real possibility that we will have to create, move and clean up several articles out of a franchise move. Seeking attention by claiming it will never happen does not benefit the discussion at all. Please, add constructive input on how we should deal with these matters, if they should come to pass. That is all I am asking. Resolute 15:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
If I had posted "We're looking forward to re-location to Winnipeg" or "It wont be long Dolovis, before you can bring your test page to main page", you both wouldn't be brow-beating me. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments like those are all about intent. Did you intend with your unhelpful comment, or even think that your comment may cause upset? Carson101 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Resolute is peeved because I'm suggesting the Thrashers won't be going to Winnipeg. Djsasso's is peeved because I support the deletion of diacritics. You're peeved because I don't accept England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales being called countries. All 3 of you, have got to learn to control your emotions & chill out. PS: Everybody who's complaining in this whole section, should "give it a break". GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually I could care less about your position on anything to be honest. What I am upset about is the behaviour you are exhibiting in many areas which has upset many people. You need to stop shifting blame to other people and accept that your actions upset people and that you need to start thinking before typing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tried editing boxing articles, yesterday. I was doing fine until I came across the British ones, surprise surprise. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
As above, you are once again answering a question I did not ask. Goodness knows what you are going to reply to after this post. Carson101 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
One tends to be peeved, when the intro to United Kingdom isn't presented in a NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, GoodDay, yes I would. The issue is not that you are a skeptic of the move - you should see some of the arguments I have been in over the issue (and currently am) on hockey forums about it. Specifically, I am also very much a skeptic of the viability of an NHL team in Winnipeg. But that isn't the point. The point is your need to interject with unhelpful comments. And no matter how many times you try to deflect away, it comes back to this. You are being asked to comment in a constructive manner. Nothing more, nothing less. It shouldn't be this difficult. Resolute 15:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Once again, a sarcastic cool comment. What I see here is evidence of your trolling, baiting of editors and deliberate disruption to the project. You have to stop this foolishness right now. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The response "cool" means I get that editors are peeved & it's best I no longer respond to their complaints about myself. It's a way of saying "let's end the discussion". GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Right, so your "cool" means you have no intention of responding to anyones concerns but will end the discussion immediately. Is that right? Carson101 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming at this point, any response I give will be beaten down. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No, if you gave reasoned responses to reasoned enquiries about your behaviour then editors would have more time for you. As it is, folk are are getting mightily tired of trying to show you how editors should behave. You seem to want to turn WP into a battleground everywhere you go. Are you incapable of modifying your behaviour? --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, the sheer number of people who have raised behavioral concerns is becoming legion. You seem to be obdurate in your responses. I'm very tempted to go through the history and simply list the names, set up an ANI report and invite them all to take part. I'd prefer not to go that way and it would be a tedious amount of work (although I think volunteers could be found to help out). Try not to react to this but think first. --Snowded TALK 16:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and behave. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A Question: Do You Know What a "Professional Level of English" means?

Howdy GoodDay,

You are my "go-to-Guy" when it comes to things like this. Profession Level of English http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1W1TSNB_enUS359US359&source=hp&q=%22professional+level%22+english&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&rlz=1W1TSNB_enUS359US359&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3e88d0b83481983f&biw=983&bih=415

Do you know want this means? I actually do not have a clue. Help please. Thanks, Don. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what it means. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

1994 Stanley Cup Finals

Shouldn't Adams be included as an "A" on the roster list? Sure, he wasn't an official alternate captain through the season, but for a roster reflecting who played and who did what on a specific series, it should be reflected that Adams wore an "A" through the entire series. I would disagree with his inclusion in the Canucks' season article, but this is an article for a specific series, and he wore the "A" in each of the 7 games. For instance, the current Canucks' roster. They don't have 5 alternate captains, but 5 are listed because of Manny's injury. Thoughts? – Nurmsook! talk... 01:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Momesso & Murzyn were the 1993-94 alternate captains. We should have injury-replacements. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem odd to be blatantly misinforming the reader though? I mean, Dana Murzyn was an alternate captain, I have no argument with that. But Greg Adams was, by all meaning of the term, an alternate captain during the final two rounds of the playoffs. And particularly in this article, where the reader is looking at who played in the Finals, seeing that Dana Murzyn was an "A" but did not play, it becomes confusing to answer the question, "If Dana Murzyn wasn't playing, who wore the second "A"?". To have no mention of Greg Adams wearing the "A" in this article when there is no question that he did just seems like a deliberate attempt to misinform the reader. Now I've been around here for quite some time now so I can see the flipside of that, being "Well, we're misinforming the reader as claiming that Adams was an "A" might lead them to believe that he was that for the whole season." But that's there the Canucks season article comes into play, that's why we only have official alternates listed there. Like I said before, the roster on this article isn't the roster for the season, it's the roster for the Stanley Cup Finals. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
If you restore an A next to Adams, then you should put an Injured Reserve tag next to Murzyn. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
And you're ok with this as a compromise, or do you want to see further input? Honestly it's not a huge deal to me, so long as even a blurb is added about it in the prose, I just wouldn't really know where in the article to add that. I know it's such a small detail, but really one that should be made clear. – Nurmsook! talk... 02:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Also add a note at the bottom of the roster explaining Adams' filling in for Murzyn. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

Drop this here GoodDay. If you want a diacritic style guide sort that out at the MOS and refrain from making it personal (including assumptions about others' motivations). These edits, and others of this sort, are inappropriate[1][2].
If you feel someone's comments here are baiting etc ignore them. DJSasso is correct some of the above posts by you are in breach of civility; and your alterations to others' comments and signatures (without policy basis) are inappropriate--Cailil talk 15:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's best that I invoke 'deletion' in future, when these situations flair up. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In fairness Cailil (and I don't want to encourage GD when he should go out for a walk), but re the link [1] above - did you properly read the comment he replied too? He was only talking in reference to diacritic use when he said stay on the Eastern EU Wikipedias - GD is from Canada after all! The reply was hardly worse than the comment, and this is GD's own talk page too - which does count for a little here I think. I felt people jumped on GD's back too-quickly and very unfairly here. He'd been called "culturally ignorant" by Vejvancicky prior to his reply too. (Incidentally, I find that I'm not prepared to look for the right diacritics when typing that name - though it was a bit silly of GD to remove them, granted).

The whole diacritics argument (inc the various consequences) is not as simplistic as some people are making out, and English itself is a flexible language that sometimes does and often doesn't use them. Also Wikipedia has never quite made it's mind up who its audience exactly is. ('everyone' being a cop-out here I think).

GoodDay clearly wants Wikipedia to be a very uniform place, and underneath it I personally see a lot of sense in that. I feel uncomfortable myself when it gets a bit too 'internationalised' (for want of a better word), partly because anything that makes Wikipedia hard to contain also makes it just a little bit more complicated, potentially anarchic, and inclusive too - which is not the way I want Wikipedia to be. The idea of a literal "encyclopedia of everything" seems to me more of a nightmare than anything else. The Wikipedia I quite-cautiously signed up to was supposed to be a "first stop". Personally, I can usually see where GD is coming from, even if I disagree with the way he's gone about it.

When it comes down to it, I think it would be quite hard for anyone to build up a strong case against GD as a disruptive contributor, despite the occasional (and sometimes spurts of) 'irritating' behaviour. If instead of straining the infamous AGF rule on occasions, he added a little more content to his 'single liners' instead, he'd be pretty indiscernible from anyone else in here in my opinion. Aside from his oddball personality that is! (Sorry GD!) As I've said in the past - and he never disagrees - having a mentor could be the best way of helping him focus on this. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the Wiki-enviroment at those articles, Matt. Right now, I've been rendered an outcast, a creature which is too smart for his own good & needs to be controlled. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Moose relocation

Yes, the BOG approved it unanimously yesterday. If you want me to update the source to this [3], I will. - MichiganCharms (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, update the source. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing of Manitoba Moose players to state their membership of St. John's team

Hi GoodDay. Just wondering why you have gone through and edited the current Manitoba Moose players to state that they are members of the Manitoba Moose / St. John's AHL team? It has been clearly identified and confirmed through multiple WP:RS that the St. John's AHL team will serve as the affiliate to the new Winnipeg NHL team. However, you are making edits that place Vancouver Canucks prospects on this St. John's team. This is wrong. While the players under Moose contract will remain with the Moose, the players under Canucks contracts will certainly not be playing in St. John's. The majority of the current Chicago Wolves roster will be the players moving to St. John's, as they are Atlanta Thrashers prospects. Would you like me to revert/change these edits, or did you want to go through and correct them? – Nurmsook! talk... 01:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You may correct any mistakes I've made. I just went by the fact that the Manitoba Moose are now the St. John's team. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"This is how we did it in the summer of 2010"

Actually, no, it wasn't. That said, I still don't understand your obsession with pretending that a team captain (and the alternates, for that matter), stop being the team captain in the off-season. It's a role, same as GM and head coach. The player holds the role until they sign elsewhere, are traded, retire or are otherwise stripped of it. Resolute 18:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure its cause he is obsessed with captains period. I think its his little fiefdom. I personally get more confused that believes that people aren't assistant captains when they are filling in for someone injured. Even though they clearly have the A on their sweater. It's never been something I have bothered caring about because its pretty silly to fight with people about it when clearly it is true for that point in time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Why have the 'captains' on only three 2011-12 team articles & yet not the rest? Last summer, we kept the captains & alternate captains as TBD, until September 2010. Why do it differently this coming summer? GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
erm, I was pointing out that you yourself added the captain to at least one article early in the summer last year. As to why only three, my guess is because the creator of the articles was lazy, and only a few people have moved to update at this point. It seems more logical to me to retain the cpatains/alternates where known (they are still citeable to the team websites). If things change in the future, we will naturally update. Resolute 18:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I still think it's presumptious to suggest who the captains & alternates will be next season. However, if you're going to revert me 'again', please fill in the capts & alts. for all 30 2011-12 team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:NODEADLINE. No one has to do anything on every article. We are all volunteers. Someone will get to them eventually. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll complete them all. It's better then having to revert future IPs. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I missed what brought about this discussion, but DJ, you truly believe that we should list the players who are replacing injured Captains & Alternates? The Islanders alone last season were pains in the arse with all the injuries to their captains and acting captains. Your statement seems to say that a player should be listed because he wore the A on a particular when one of the captains were scratched. The suggestion that the captain/alternate had to have a long-term injury (I believe over thirty days) before the acting alternate was listed. Again, the last season's Islanders made that requirement an headache with all the long-term injuries to their replacement alternates! Ther were several times in the past seasons where a player actually wore an A but was not listed in the team website (the Islanders' site is number 1 for this) nor in the Game Day roster produced by the NHL which means that there is no reference. And is it encyclodedic to list those replacements? And do not forget the sad trend of naming a captain (or no captain) with home & road alternates which adds to the clutter when those players are injured!! Raul17 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't add them myself probably. Its the fact that edit wars often occur over them between him and anon IPs. As for a source, remember sources don't have to be paper. Most games are broadcast these days on TV and the source for the A would be the broadcast footage showing him wearing the A so you would just cite the broadcast. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but hard copy sources are easier to prove. Raul17 (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A canuck (with apoligies to Foster beer)

I guess canuck is choker in Canadien!! Raul17 (talk)

Yep, they couldn't even get 1 goal last night. Simply pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, do Canadians find the word "canuck" offensive? Where does it originate?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What is known is explained here Canuck. And no its not offensive or we probably wouldn't have named a hockey team after it. :) -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've never considered it offensive. Per Dj's example - the Vancouver Canucks. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

???

I have nominated List of Prime Ministers of Canada for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 117Avenue (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Grrr, there's nothing wrong with the PM tenure dates. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Project offwiki

http://www.organocoffeecompany.com/ thinks England=UK. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Silly willies, aren't they? GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So what was this about never approving it?

Not only approved but unanimously so. ;) Guess you aren't always right eh? -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe, I'm overjoyed to be mistaken about this event. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft article image alignments

Please stop doing this. Not only does it make for a remarkably ugly layout (IMNSHO), but it utterly destroys the page on my laptop. All of your left-aligned images end up on top of the text, rendering the article unreadable. Resolute 01:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I put some of'em on the left, because they were making the page overly long & leaving the left half as white space. GoodDay (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahnentafels

Hi! You might be interested in this. Your input would be appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to modify the navigation box in the Joan Mondale article because in this case it is rendundant to list her as both the "Wife of the Vice Presidential Nominee" and subsequently as the Second Lady of the United States. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed them from all the First & Second Ladies articles. There's no such thing as an office [elected or not] called "spouse of the presidential nominee" etc. Sometimes, one has to put the foot down, on these types of navboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Family relations

Err ... take a look at the discussion again. It's clear the consensus is to include head coaches and GMs.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were trying to trim down the article, make it more manuverable. Including only former NHL players, would gurantee that. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Nelle Wilson Reagan. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't use navboxes for such trivial info. What's next? "Second cousin, once removed"? GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes GD Welcome to Wikipedia. Nice to have new editors around the joint. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hehehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Alas, my time on the public PC is up. See you later, GD.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, 'til then. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RE Elizabeth II opening gambit

I've recently been directed to the archived discussion Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive 26#Current lead needs changing regarding the United Kingdom's uniqueness amongst the 16 realms of the Commonwealth. You are correct in what you have been saying, and the wording "...of the United Kingdom and 15 other commonwealth realms", or something that equally displays the difference between the UK (as the focal point of the Commonwealth) and the other colonies, such as "Elizabeth II is Queen of the Commonwealth realms, which she rules through being monarch of the UK. Other realms include...", would be adequate to describe the difference in the nations of the Commonwealth correctly. Unfortunately Wikipedia is very much ruled by consensus as opposed to correctness, and that is what we are left to deal with. For that reason alone, I doubt Wikipedia will ever be a completely reliable source.

The problem could be worse. On the List_of_longest_reigning_monarchs_of_all_time page the realms that Elizabeth II was ruler over were given as "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other Commonwealth realms", which not only suggests that the UK is no different to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but suggests that they are unique when compared with the smaller states, something which is completely untrue. This has since been changed to "United Kingdom (and other Commonwealth realms)".

Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The current lead is a by-product of the political PoVs of many non-British editors. It's shameful, but without enough editors to counter it, little can be done. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I witnessed the debacle that the monarchists brought to this page whilst I was away. I don't understand how monarchists outside of the UK can think that all countries are equal in when the monarchy is British, taken to those countries by their former inclusion into the British empire, and holds two crowns (that of England and Scotland). The continued existence of the monarchy in Canada and other commonwealth nations relies on our continued maintenance of it as well as their own. Alas, it is futile to argue about such matters. Burbridge92 (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Very difficult to reason with nationalist pride. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh the irony of "nationalist pride" in something that belongs to a different nation that was adopted because of colonialism. Regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Earl Ray Tomblin

Earl Ray Tomblin is not governor in his own his right. If he was, there would not be a special election this year. He is Senate President acting as Governor. Please discontinue editing his article infobox to indicate he is governor. He does not hold that office. Bitmapped (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is he called the 35th? Why was he sworn in? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
He is the '35th governor' of the state, as per press, the state, and his own words. He is serving as governor in an acting capacity. He does not hold the office of governor, but he is performing its duties, and is the 35th person to do so. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If he's not Governor, then he's not the 35th Governor. If he looses the 2011 special election, the winner will become the 35th Governor. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if they, the press, and the state say otherwise? Wow. --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
And wait, 35th? Don't you mean 34th, seeing as how Daniel Farnsworth was only acting governor as well? --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It's all confusing. Atleast Massachusetts numbers their governors correctly. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Farnsworth did not serve under the current constitution, so it is not necessarily a good precedent to cite. Bitmapped (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, in Farnsworth's time, the WVA Constitution called on the Senate President to become Governor should the previous Governor die, resign or be removed from office. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no "right" way to number these things. For instance, sometimes people who have non-consecutive terms are counted twice; sometimes they aren't. You just have to go along with whatever the sources say. -Rrius (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It's just so confusing, West Virginia seems vague about whether Tomblin is Governor or not. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the West Virginia Supreme Court was quite clear on this issue in its January ruling. Tomblin is not governor, is not acting governor. He is the Senate President temporarily exercising the powers of governor.[4][5] Bitmapped (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Why then is he numbered 35? Also, if he's excerising the powers & duties of governor? then he's acting governor (i.e. acting as governor). GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The "35th" designation is unclear other than that Manchin was 34th. The West Virginia Constitution does not recognize a position called Acting Governor. See the footnote on PDF Page 22 of [[6] and discussion in [7]. Bitmapped (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If Tomblin looses the special election, it would be interesting to see if the next Governor will be numbered 35 or 36. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and that is basically my point. Trying to guess now if Tomblin will be considered the 35th is premature. We should just wait two months until the special election occurs when there will be some finality. Bitmapped (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll be cheering for his opponent. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You can add

... being called an 'imperialist' on the wikipedia to your resume. Which is a bit ironic/funny, considering your interest in the English monarchy :-). Although it does not specifically name you, I think it paraphrases something you might have said. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And people thought I was strange for thinking our compromise worked well. This whole ridiculous mess is a clear indication of when a smaller group working to a solution can sometimes be better than a big group. I mean we implemented it in 2007 I believe, so really it lasted 4 years without any major issues. Oh well maybe something will get worked out eventually. Some of the people in this discussion on either side make GoodDay (our local extremist) look moderate by comparison. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It is looking more brilliant all the time. But what does our extremist ;-> think? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Darn it, Dolovis should've kept things within the WP:HOCKEY sphere. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Dolovis never actually cared about how they were titled which can be seen by how he had been creating them with diacritics right up until the day when he saw you arguing with me on a page of one player about them. That day forward he was very anti-diacritic. It was very clear he was trying to embarrass me and didn't actually care what the outcome was. It was sort of sad really. Its kind of funny because many editors have since pointed out his sudden change of opinion. So he wanted to make a big noise about it to try and make me look bad...only ended up making himself look bad and got him banned from moving pages. -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm a pussy cat, compared to him. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Somehow, the discussion hasn't turned to the potentially contentious issue of what to use in article text. I suppose it could be proposed that the native spelling of a person be used in the corresponding article title where no established English-language usage exists, and the basic Latin letters be used for names within article text, which would roughly correspond to the hockey compromise, but I suspect that this suggestion would not garner support with those who strongly support native spellings. isaacl (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I never had a prob with dios being in the 'bolded name' part of the intro, as a subsitute for having them in the article title. Article content is extremely tricky, as it's quite difficult to go through it & add/delete diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
If you're referring to singing the alphabet, ironically, the quoted text appears in the RFC itself, so apparently the editor is calling the RFC drafter an imperialist. isaacl (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Article titles are gonna end up being shown in Chinese characters. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DENY

Good day to you, GoodDay~! After reviewing your earlier replies here and here, I understand that it is our deep frustration to be dealing with these "competent editor" but could I interest you to take your mind away from it and read → WP:OWB#39? I guarantee that you will laugh heartily and agree with me after reading it. As for Micky, please note that rule 48 and rule 18 of that book applies to him. Cheers and have a great weekend~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've no sympathy for Micky, where #39 is concerned. As for #48 & #18, yep he's continuing to shoot holes in his hull. GoodDay (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Arrr... then he'd be destined for Davy Jones' Locker, may god have mercy on his soul. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
He's lost a supporter in me, thanks to his insults. I shant push for his ban nor prevent it. GoodDay (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Not that I care but I find editor with baggage from real life and editing on WP a real bother, especially when they go ballistic and become potty mouth shooting at anybody and everybody around them, pushing away even those who wants to help them. Forget it, we've done our best, he had his chances but he blew them all. Like you, I have no pity for him too. Perhaps the best line to sum this up is "good riddance to bad rubbish". There is never a shortage of wanker in the world, no matter what we do they will always be around us so why let them spoil our beautiful weekend? Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
He was just too sensative. GoodDay (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, please just stop these drop in comments on people's talk pages. I assume you were well intentioned but I would have thought everyone who knows Mick could have predicted his response. The guy does a lot of good work, but he can't handle interacting with other editors. We should be trying to resolve that not provoking him. --Snowded TALK 09:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's up to him, from now on. GoodDay (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Funny that. I thought Mick was a friend of yours. After reading his opinion on you I couldn't have been more wrong, eh! Funny old world! Carson101 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Right now, Micky sees everybody on Wikipedia as his enemy. PS: I thought you said you were never gonna post here again? GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Did I! Well, that's just me. The memory of a goldfish. I'll leave you alone again. Carson101 (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You're always welcomed here, as long as you're not provoking me. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Heaven forbid I would provoke anyone! Carson101 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'm watching HighKing's continuing obession with deleting/replacing British Isles, throughout the 'pedia. No matter how he tries to hide it, his behaviour is that of a SPA. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Not really my area of interest to be honest. Without knowing the in's and out's of it I think the general rule is that if someone is obsessed with deleting/replacing something there is another person out there obsessed with the opposite. On those occasions the only judgement on these things can be reliable sources,etc. Carson101 (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, there's one or more trying to stop HK. It's usually block-evading editors, like MidnightBlueMan. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nycole Turmel

I saw your edit at her article. During the period of his illness, Jack Layton was Leader of the NDP and Leader of the Opposition.[8][9] During that same time, Turmel was Interim Leader of the NDP and nothing more.[10][11] As to whether she is now acting Leader of the Opposition or fully so, we'll just have to wait for what PARLINFO says once it's updates. Bill Graham is recorded as acting Leader of the Liberal Party, but Leader of the Opposition. Iggy's first few months as Grit Leader are likewise marked as "acting", but no such qualifier appears with respect to being Leader of the Opposition. Others such as Herb Gray are handled differently. Currently, we have sources calling her "acting Leader of the Opposition", so we'll just have to wait to see what PARLINFO does with this case. -Rrius (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, we just gotta sit tight. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

All Quiet on the Wikipedia Front

Ever since I got back from my summer holiday, Wikipedia has steadily become more and more of a ghost town. I presume people are out enjoying themselves as the last carefree days of summer quickly rush into autumn, and then-all too soon- dreary winter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what going on. Also, we're in the calm before the storm, as far as the Ireland naming contest is concerned. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
What Ireland naming contest? Indeed I have been away from the joint far too long.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to join the throng at The Standells...! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh I love that dirty water....... Reminds me of swimming through the rubbish jettisoned from cruise ships in the Ionian Sea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm itching for September 18th, 2011. I'm not certain if I'll bring forth a proposal, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Why, what happens on that date? (I'm almost afraid to hear the answer). Jeanne whispers: I thought the end of the world is supposed to occur 21 December 2012.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The 2-year freeze on discussing the potential page movements of Ireland, Republic of Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation), ends. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
You know I opt for the name Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the country article should be Ireland, the island article should be Ireland (island) with the disambig page staying put or have Ireland (country), Ireland (island) & Ireland - the last for the disambig page. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Even Quieter

It looks like Carson101 may have retired. I guess some editors just aren't tough enough, to hang around. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahah, he's only taking a break & not because of me. Jolly good, I can't stand quitters. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I strongly suggest that you stop trying to provoke people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not provoking. Sometimes the tough approach is best. I would recommend that Carson modify his 'wiki break' message, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you are being provocative to the point of ballbreaking.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh well, it's just a cyber world. Carson's free to tune me out. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Break's over

Welcome back Carson. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Revisions on NHL captains page

I don't know how you do it on other pages, but is it really necessary to first revert anyone and then later revert yourself after you have checked instead of just checking first and THEN deciding if it's worth it? You did it with Senators and now the Avalanche... give yourself a day and then... greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin19 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What does it matter? the end result is it's reverted back to its current form. PS: You're supposed to have this at the bottom of my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
He is right. It is not a good method for action. You are supposed to AGF. Research an edit before reverting GoodDay. You know better. -DJSasso (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
What does it matter? A lot! 1)The page is constantly changing, unnecessarily, just because you can't take 5 minutes to check some facts. 2)You're the one always screaming when someone makes a "wrong" revision. Lately those wrong revision have all been by you! Austin19 (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Takes too much effort. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Then leave it for someone else. Reverting edits just for the hell of it is disruptive. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I reverted it initially, as it conflicted with the Avalanche official website. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Big deal. Put me up on charges of WP:OWN, next time. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh quit being dramatic. All I said was quit reverting without checking your facts first. We try to work as a team/community on wikipedia. No need to argue about stuff that is so minor or to assume bad faith of an editor. Just look for sources before automatically reverting, you know yourself that team websites are slow at updating. Takes two seconds to go to news.google.com and type in the players name to see if there was a news announcement of them being captain or whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Ugh I now see that you are replying to an out of order comment by Austin and not to me. Either way it does hold true. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the 'big deal' response was for Austin. I must've accidently indented to far. PS: I'll try to keep secondary sources in mind, next time. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New York Islanders website

0353 EDT and the Islanders' website still has only one Alternate Captain!! Raul17 (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool I just went with the rumour. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Officially, the team annouced their captains but the site as of 1941 EDT, they still has not been updated!!! Raul17 (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The roster updaters tend to be asleep at the switch. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What's up?

Or is that a rude question?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not rude. Such a question shows a woman's interested, hahahaha. Err, so far, nobody's been angry with me this past week. I reckon it's because I haven't been around Welsh or Scottish related articles (atleast that's my theory). There's been no Rfc filed on me, so it's been a good week. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This question got me fingered.....for being a sock!!!!!! I cannot imagine another editor like me...if such a creature exists, ach well, the poor wee thing!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with fingering a gal, hahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Let your fingers do the walking...la la lee la la la....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

God or the gun?

If it was a choice between relying on God or a gun to protect oneself, I sure as HELL know which one I'd choose. Otherwise, you could end up like these guys--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Go with what's real -- a gun. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Have Gun Will Travel.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
"A knight without armour, in a savage land". GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
"God dispose the day".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
"Paladin, Paladin, where do you roam?". GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh give me a home, where the buffaloes roam.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
..., and I'll show you a house full of sh-t.. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
You are like so totally unromantic, GoodDay!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hahahahaha, I've got badness of both the best & worst kind. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, and how do you like the article I have been working on non-stop for the last few days? It's a hot issue now and the final revelations are bound to embarrass both governments.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks darn great. Pesonally, I'd replace Northern Ireland with United Kingdom or add the UK to the current lead. But, we both know, my detractors out there, would jump at such suggestion by me & seek to get me topic banned. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the praise. As for your suggestion, I'll stick with Northern Ireland only. UK is superfluous, even if it is factually correct that Northern Ireland is in the UK.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Watch out for the big cats, honey

stay outta my way and I'll stay out of yours, ya dig?

"These animals were on the move, they were showing some pretty aggressive behaviour". Oh my God, lions, tigers and cheetahs...watch out for the big cats, honey.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Grrrrrrr. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The police didn't have to kill them, they could have used tranquiliser guns with infra-red. I think they just went on a big-game hunt and used public security as an excuse.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It likely made them feel powerful, to destroy such a creature. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Like little boys playing safari hunt. If the human brain is superior to that of animals, why then was it not used to consider the other options which were available? As usual, the poor animals pay the price for man's ignorance, barbarism and incivility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It's happened before & will likely again. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As to your comment

It isn't exactly what I wanted either but it seems to have gained some popularity over all the various discussions from a variety of editors. Would you please give it your consideration and vote either way? Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to oppose it, as it's too long for an article title. Also, it gives the impression of there being 2 individuals. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Understood, but if that happens it will be quickly clarified after reading the first sentence though. Just think if we all give just a little bit we can get there. Enough said. Respect your decision.Mugginsx (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Note, the Kingdom of Ireland has been forgotten in the mix. We're dealing with 3 kingdoms, not 2. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Ireland was ALREADY part of the Kingdom of England when James inherited it. That is the difference, GoodDay. Also, come on for heaven's sake, first you said it was too long then you proposed an even longer title on the voting page. Read what you said. Come on and think about it in more defined terms instead of "broadening the lens" and diffusing the issue thus making any title impossible to work with. We could even add Ireland if you wanted. What is the big thing about a big title. Look at some of the titles in Wiki. I would give you some examples but I won't insult your intelligence because you are way too smart to use that rationale. Mugginsx (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, the Kingdom of Ireland to which you refer was a Tudor creation and was merged into the Kingdom of England; however it cannot be compared with the historic merging of the Scottish and English crowns in the person of James VI. Ancient Ireland was a nation of petty kingdoms with a High King.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
From 1541 to 1707, there were three Kingdoms on the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
So what would you call Henry VIII? King Henry I of Ireland?!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The Irish monarchs used their English regnal numbers, their choice. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, just as the kingdom of England was Henry's creation. It had nothing to do with the ancient kingdoms of Ireland. This so-called kingdom had already been merged with the English crown by the time James ascended the English throne. I do agree that the title King of Ireland should be in the lead, but not in the title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Kingdom of Ireland merged with the Kingdom of Great Britain, in 1801. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My Talkpage

Hello, GoodDay. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Where at on your talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Tonight's the Night...it's gonna be alright...ain't nobody gonna stop us now

I think I ought to warn you, this may be nonsensical, but it's not vandalism. That means both you and the IP are in breach of 3RR. I recommend you step back before somebody blocks you. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I don't go this far with it. But the IP is an obvious disruptor, what he's adding to the discussion - isn't making any sense. Seeing as he posted at the GoodNight sandbox - I'd suggest he's a block evading editor, seeking to have me blocked. Anyways, I'll follow your advise & let others deal with him. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, remember that tonight is Hallowe'en when all sorts of ghouls, goblins, witches, devils, and wee mischief-makers are given licence to run amok. I would ignore it a just a bit of seasonal mischief.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's only a matter of time before the IP is blocked. His posting at Snowded's sandbox was the capper, as his knowledge of it, shows he's likely a block-evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Its really stupid to accuse every IP that comes up of being "block evadding editors/socks. A lot of us simply go on to wikipedia looking at Irish and UK related articles for research purposes or just curiosity, but then we see your provocative comments and obviously pathetic trolling attempts, so we look up your history of contributions out of interest than we see you do it on almost every English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh articles, so its hard for people not to notice your behaviour, oh and by the way..accusing "these IPs" of being block-evading editors is just a stupid strategy by you to divert the attention of admins away from you.143.239.7.4 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, IP. Register an account, next time. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll go with DENY, as it's less commotion. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Snowded/GoodNight

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:Snowded/GoodNight, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Snowded TALK 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's merely a notification for those editors who've participated in the sandbox. As the creator of the sandbox, you may delete if you choose. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

MFD

Hi - you might get support for deletion in a WP:MFD discussion. If he doesn't delete it himself I suggest that route. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Allright, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you first explain to him on his talkpage that it is giving you feelings of stalking and harassment and request him to either action a report with it or to please delete it and keep it off wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Have followed your advice. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like he is not going to respond - I have written the MFD request and will open it, if you ask. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll wait until Snowded returns (he might be signed out) & see what he decides. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I will save it on my computer, if you want it, its there for you. Regards - Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Presidents of Ireland

I was going over some presidential articles and saw you altered the dates to co-inside with midmight , well done . You qoute the Constitution of Ireland - it doesnt mention it in it now , the thing being it could have been in a reform or amendment . This link from the Irish media broadcaster shows Micheal D. Higgins being called president before the inauguration ceremony if anybody edits it , just incase some editors point out his inauguration was in the afternoon not at midnight . http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1111/president.html .Murry1975 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain of when the actual transition of office occured, but I assumed there hadn't been a repeal of the midnight designation. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There are somethings that are still done , like such , but are not mentioned in the Constitution anymore . They have been used in Irish Law (Constitutional , civil or national) and have a legal precedent that is still used . Odd really . Well spotted I would have missed it ,and indeed had .Murry1975 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Now, If only Canada would become a republic. One can only dream. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Real World calling

I gotta take about an hour walk. I'm in a dispute at WikiProject Canada noticeboard & currently presenting a proposal to WikiProject Biography. The chair is hurting my ass. My eyes are starting to sting. Be back soon. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a nice walk. At least you've got a real autumnal atmosphere in Canada-crispy cold with all those fallen bronze and copper leaves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jeanne. Only one problem with my hour-long walk. Just before I got back home, I realized that my 'zipper' was open. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh my God! I feel like I'm about to faint.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I always remember to check yourself over, before going for a stroll. GoodDay (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I shall refrain from asking you why it was open in the first place!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed from my sweat pants to my blue jeans. GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Canadian governors general

Thanks for tipping me off to the fact you made those gramatically incorrect revisions to all the articles on Governors General of Canada. Generally, you gave in the edit summary "no need for fancy words" as an explanation for the change. However, that's pretty much equivalient to "I don't like it", which you know isn't a valid justification for an edit. Given that "governorship" is the gramatically correct way to describe the term during which a person served as governor, what is your objection to the word? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find where you had a consensus to change those, to begin with. I know you've a special interest in topics related to the Canadina monarchy, but that doesn't make you the boss. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Change them when, exactly? Do you mean when I altered them from "Governor generalship" to "Governorship general" after another editor pointed out how the former is gramatically incorrect? I didn't think one needs a consensus to correct a grammatical mistake. You also didn't revert my edit, but instead changed the headers to something completely new. So, now what you want and why you want it is even more unclear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Should be at Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Why did you re-add the British Prime Ministers to the infoboxes of the pre-1931 GGs? GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Now, after saying you wouldn't edit war over all those articles, you've gone and reverted my reverts anyway. On top of that, you still haven't articulated what the problem is with "Governorship general", instead just repeating your demand that it be "Governor General", which is both unclear as a header and gramatically incorrect. It's impossible to address your concerns if you won't express them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I had no choice, the 28 articles were inconsistant. Also, you're the last person I'd have expected to put British PMs in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The British prime ministers is another matter which I'll deal with when we're done with the header issue.
The 28 articles were, and still are, inconsistent because only 21, beginning with Johnston and moving chronologically back to Minto, have, so far, been tidied up and made consistent with one another; the last seven have yet to be done. That isn't even relevant, though, since, as I've said no less than three times now: "Governor General" is not the right header to use consistently through all articles, being both unclear and gramatically incorrect. I'd appreciate it if you'd give some indication that you're aware of the criticisms I'm making. It would also be nice if you'd explain what's wrong with "Governorship general" beyond your opinion that it's "too fancy". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen Governorship General before, it was unrecognizable & appeared to be OR. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
"Governorship general" may not be commonly used, but it certainly isn't OR:
  • "...[B]ut when he resigned the governorship-general in 1822... [A]nd the governorship-general of India for ten years..."[12]
  • "...[B]y reinstating the governorship-general of Sichuan..."[13]
  • "During his minority the governorship-general was in the hands of his aunt... We need pay little attention to the governorship-general..."[14]
  • "...[A] district, circumscription, or Governorship-General..."[15]
  • "The Governorship-General of Canada."[16]
  • "...Colonel John Graves Simcoe was made Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, the Governorship General covering both divisions."[17]
  • "...[T]he ministry of Lord Melbourne offered to him, though politically opposed to them, the governorship-general of Canada."[18]
  • "Letters from Arthur F. Sladen, private secretary to the 4th Earl during his governorship-general of Canada"[19] & etc.
  • "Only then, we ourselves will decide and say what your governorship-general means to us..."[20] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, you've prooven your point. If you're going to restore them, atleast have 'em in all 28 articles. Also, please don't restore the British Prime Ministers. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was only trying to "prove" (demonstrate, really) that the term wasn't simply made up. I sense though, that it still doesn't sit well with you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It does look odd to me, but that's my problem & I won't revert again. Getting close to any type of edit-spat, isn't good for me. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take to Talk:David Johnston. It does not look to be the most common use of the term, and for the record, the term referenced above is "governorship-general" while the one being restored to the articles is "governorship general". It's a difference of a hyphen. Feel free to add the third option. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, our dispute covered nearly all 28 Canadian Governor General articles. Anyways, myself & Mies have settled our dispute concerning the 'headings'. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Harassment

Howdy GoodDay. This section [21] appears to me to be something close to harassment. Maybe you should report it somewhere. Van Speijk (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just an attempt by those editors, to provoke me. I don't accept their political PoVs & therefore I'm an obstacle to them. If it gives them a feeling of empowerment to go after me or get me restricted in any form, then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
PS- My telling you this, will likely be added to the aforementioned sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There is one annoying thing about the sandbox, though. It does make me feel as though I'm being monitored constantly. As if I'm already topic banned from British & Irish articles - in the sense that anytime I raise a complaint on those articles, an editor 'runs' to the sandbox & reports my doings. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Harassment would you stop, GD has edited the page more than the creator of it, he loves the drama. Mo ainm~Talk 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Peaked in on the Adam Carroll discusson. Holy smokers, what's with the anglophobia around these Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales related articles? GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen any anti-English sentiment on any of the related articles you mention GoodDay. It's your talk page but if you are going to accuse people (even if you don't name them) of being anti-English you should really back it up. Carson101 (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The fact that British is discouraged from being used on articles related to Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales (haven't seen this on England), is a sign of anglophobia. The places & people are within the United Kingdom, they're thus British. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, an anglo is an English person and I certainly have never seen anything remotely prejudiced against them in any of those related articles. I'm afraid that you seem to be hung up on the word British when in the UK more often than not people from the different countries of that sovereign state are called Scottish, English, etc. When it is commonly used for a subject that has an article on wikipedia then that is how they are described. Perhaps living in Canada you are not taught that and your education was rather old fashioned in that many over there with ancestors from the UK fought against the French Canadians and it has always been a case of them against us, British against French, type of attitude. Carson101 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You're all British, no matter how you style yourselves. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Lol! I don't think you enjoy having conversations do you. I knew that conversations where a lost art and your reply has just confirmed that for me. Well my North American friend, my time is up. Carson101 (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, European buddy. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It's been deleted, Van Speijk. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

British prime ministers in Canadian GG infoboxes

The British prime ministers were listed in the infoboxes on the Canadian governors general's bios because, before 1931, the governor general was technically an agent of the British government. Though the Canadian prime minister could obviously advise the governor general in matters pertaining to Canadian governance, the GG was still appointed on the advice of the British prime minister and the British prime minister's direction (which wasn't even direct, but via the Secretary of State for the Colonies) to the GG trumped that of the Canadian PM. (Regard how, in the midst of the 1926 King-Byng affair, Mackenzie King urged Governor General Byng to seek ultimate instruction from the British cabinet.) It's explained in the second paragraph here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but it looks quite odd. Also the British PMs were only added in the 9th through 12th Canadian GG articles. They weren't in the 1st through 8th. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Again: Only Grey through Johnston have been cleaned up and made consistent with one another. The remaining eight have yet to be done.
Are you going to restore them where you deleted them? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The British Prime Ministers? nope. Wasn't there another British official, who was more closely involved? GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, what? Didn't you just agree it was apt to have British prime ministers in the infobox? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you gonna add them to the first 8? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope to, eventually. Though, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, you know. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Give me 'bout an hour & I'll revert. Though, having the British PM there, looks quite odd. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_30&oldid=1143540301"