User talk:GoodDay/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

NHL captains

Hey mate, why do I have a crappy attitude? To 99,9% of the peolpe - I am guessing, but it would make sense- nhl.com is the primary source of info for NHL-fans, as it is the official website, so why shouldn't it be reliable? I usually agree with you, because you spend a lot of time in here and know a lot about hockey, but don't let it get to you head... and btw: you let the Hawks' "A" as vacant, because it was like that on nhl.com, so why not the one from the Bruins or Caps? Austin19 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Oh and strictly speaking, a UFA is NOT part of the team anymore! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin19 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wales Page

Hiya GoodDay, There have been a couple of edits to the Wales article - apparently "Wales is a Principality of England" - that seem to be obvious vandalism. I would have undone one edit myself, had it been only one, but I don't know how to revert to a much older, correct, edit. I've had a look at the editor's talk page and he/she's had a couple of vandalism warnings. Also, there's an edit in there that I'm not certain of - someone's changed the Welsh people from Cymry to Cymraeg, which I thought meant the language, not the people. Would you mind having a look at it for me please? Thanks & best regards, Dai caregos (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, GoodDay. I must learn how to do that! Best regards, Dai caregos (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I'd thought 'Oh ****. Here we go again.' It's difficult not to become paranoid about it. But, fingers crossed, the worst is over and we could be in for a period of calm. Well, we can hope. Cheers Dai caregos (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
My vast and ever-expanding watchlist brought me here - I thought G'Day was vandalising the Jimbo Wales page!! We live in hope I guess.... Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Been there done it! Just kidding. :) Jack forbes (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Barnstar-lightbulb3.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For such a great conflict resolution idea on the British Isles article. You rock dude! Johnpigg (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang on in

Hopefully you and others can come up with a good compromise. I'm sure it will come to a conclusion in the near future, fingers crossed. Jack forbes (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I won't be there for some time to come, but when I do I will look forward to giving my opinion on the subject of the British Isles. Jack forbes (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Shannon

Hi GoodDay, No problem, but even that doesn't cover everything - IoM etc. But then, there wouldn't be any long rivers in the IoM :)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterBar (talkcontribs) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It rises in NI but for most of its length it flows through the RoI. CarterBar (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiculturalism

Thanks for the feedback! I hope all is well with you (I think our paths haven't crossed as much as former times of late). With regards to the most recent debate, I can understand that a few users have fallen in to a trap about identities owing to some media coverage, but thankfully, my own educational experience allows me to see this for what it is. As I say, every locality in the world is multicultural - people can chose whatever identity they want, in any place in the world, with any density or vocality! Humanity itself is a multicultural body! Monoculturalism is only achieved by a single individual; the world is a pluralist place. Of course the UK is multicultral, but I could add "X is multicultural and its citizens may identify with Y" to every settled place covered on Wikipedia; its a compromised sentence that allows the editor to imply things that they may inforce upon the reader, which I'm not comfortable with, as I'm sure you're also appreciating! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(butting in from my own talk page) Aren't you over-intellectualising just it a bit? Wikipedia is for the common user. multicultural is a commonname now (not just a highbrow term). 'Diverse' could be used too (etc) - the issue is whether it is notable for the UK or not. I would say it most definitely is.-Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is for the common user"? You'll have to refresh my memory - when did that one take effect? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant "general reader" - it's in MOS. I quote it all the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you mean laymen. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
We have a Simple English Wikipedia for those readers who struggle with advanced vocab. But let's keep this on point though! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to be him lol

Sorry- fixed it before I got your message (I hope). I was experimenting with trying to make his sig in the mercian colours like he said he originally wanted as a surprise, (it didn't work lol) so was using it the other day just for tests, then forgot to change it before that edit. I'm on holiday and much abuse of cornish cider and food has happened over the week :) Sticky Parkin 22:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Young Prince Joe

Seeing your recent edit to Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, I noted you're the first Wikipedian I've encountered that shares my view that the terms "great uncle" and "great aunt" are less correct than "great uncle" and "great aunt". Although I understand that language is a democracy and that if a term has currency one is on weak ground calling it wrong, I still prefer to replace these less-logical terms with the more-logical ones when I see them, just as you did in this article. Happy editing. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

your review of the opening statement of Ehud Olmert

After your comment on talk page, I've simplefyed the opening statement of Ehud Olmert, and I need your review to tell me if it's clearer now ??

ThanX in advance, --Shevashalosh (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well here is the thing:
January 4, 2006 - Ariel Sharon suffers a stroke - and Olmert becomes Acting (caretaker) Prime Minister.
April 14, 100 days passed to stroeke, the legall limitation of being caretaker of this possion - and so he becomes officially head of government and Interim (transitional) Prime Minister untill already nearing schduled election on March 28.
Meanwhile, since he was declaired on april 14, as the new head of government,
March 28, alraedy scheduled election, instead of Sharon (lying in hospital with severe stroke), he runs under Kadima ticket, and wins the elections.
he legally needs to form his own new government (cabinet) - and this takes time - untill may 4, 2006.
Having formed his own cabinet on May 4, and after elections took palce, makes him the Prime Minister of Israel, without additional titles.
there is no other way to explain this, he was "all kinds" of Prime MinisterS, after Prime Minister Sharon suffered a stroke - and didn't infrom wikipedia that he is confusing the readers...;-) --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added one more line to opening statement, can you review the opening statement again, anf tell me if it is clear ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You are doing alraght ;-), - but is it clear now ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of this portion of "Acting Prime Minister" chapter

Here it is:

On 4 January 2006, Olmert became Acting (caretaker) Prime Minister of Israel as a result of the serious stroke suffered by Ariel Sharon. This occured, after Consultations took place, between Government Secretary Israel Maimon and Attorney General Meni Mazouz, whom declared Sharon "temporarily incapable to carry out the duties of his office". Then, Olmert and the Cabinet reaffirmed in an announced, that the 28 March elections will be held as scheduled.

During the days following the stroke, Olmert met with Shimon Peres and other Sharon supporters to try to convince them to stay with Kadima, rather than return to Likud or, in Peres' case, Labour, in order not to make Kadima party collaps, after Sharon's stroke, and reaffirm himself as the new leader of the party. Peres announced his support for Olmert, as did Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is regarded as the strongest political force other than Olmert within Kadima. On 16 January 2006 Olmert was elected Acting (Caretaker) Chairman of Kadima, and Kadima's candidate for Acting (Caretaker) Prime Minister in the nearing scheduled general elections of March 28, instaed of Ariel Sharon, who was lying in Hospital under severe stroke[16] [17]

The previously scheduled elections for 28 March, with the Kadima Party headed by Olmert, as caretaker of Sharon's political and Government positions, made Olmert continue his role as Acting (caretaker) Prime Minister.

According to Israeli law, an Acting (caretaker) Prime Minister can remain in office 100 days after the Prime Minister has become incapacitated. After 100 days, the president of Israel must either nominate a new Prime Minister (who then must get a vote of confidence from the knesset), or call an early election. In this case, the 100 days were over on 14 April 2006, just few days after the elecions were held, with Olmert as caretakers of all Sharon's political and Government positions, thus, making this process deemed unneeded, and so Olmert became legally Interim (transitional) Prime Minister, and formed a new Government on May 4, 2006, thus, making him the Prime Minister by all legal means.

One more time of your review is needed...:-) Deputy leaders of Israel

I've edited the Deputy leaders of Israel, and need you to read the article, in order to get your review - and see if after you read it, it is understendble to the reader.

I put much efforts there to simplify and add clarifications to the article.

When you have time, read it - and post me a message - I'd love to get your review on the matter.

ThanX in advance! --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aussie bound

Hi GoodDay, I'm off to Australia for a couple of months, I'll bring you back a boomerang. :) Jack forbes (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. What was that? Some song I've never heard of, or your own creation. :} Jack forbes (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I remember it now, I think that was the second record I bought, right after "Baggy Trousers" by Madness. He he. Jack forbes (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, have you heard the Lonnie Donnigan version? He was a skiffles man. Jack forbes (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh yes. 'Does you chewing gum.... A classic of our times. We Scots certainly know how to export music, The Bay City Rollers come to mind. Please pretend you never read that, I will. Jack forbes (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Over here it was just screaming schoolgirls covered in tartan who loved them. Maybe they were looked on differently across the Atlantic. Jack forbes (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, me too. Can't say I'm an absolute expert on them, but I think they were the most influential group there has been for music right up to today. PS; I'm one of those who think Paul Mccartney has been given a raw deal over the years. Anyone who can write 'Yesterday is alright with me. Jack forbes (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes me laugh is the amount of people who say they saw them play their first performance in the cavern. There must have been 100,000 there. Jack forbes (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I recall seeing it on numerous documentaries. It's funny though how things turn out. There was Elvis trying to get them barred from the US because they would be a bad influence. (Though I think it had more to do with keeping the competion out). They would be looked upon as choir boys now, certainly the songs they were singing then. Jack forbes (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, amazing how puritanical the US media were at the time. But as you say, different times. Going to sign out now GoodDay, a busy few days ahead of us before we go. Take care, and I'll talk to you in a couple of months. Jack forbes (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

olmert's infobox

Hey goodday - how are you ?

I'd like to ask you, if you know where Israeli Prime minister infobox is located (the one used for olmert's article)?

There are two things i'm cocerned about:

1) is the "Deputy" section, which states as if Tzipi Livni is the the deputy Prime Minister -instaed of Acting Prime Minister

2) second, the dates now are correct, but the infobox looks bad - so i'd like to add more section title by add "additional paramenter" title:

|Acting Prime Minister =

I know in Hebrew wikipedia you can add an additional parameter title:

{{Additional parameter|Acting Prime Minister|[[Tzipi Livni]]}}

- which will result as

Acting Prime Minister Tzipi Livni

do you know how can I do that in Englisd wikipedia ?

thanX, --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: IP 86.xxx.xxx

I believe User:Alison investigated and found them to be User:Gold heart. It's a dynamic IP range, which makes it difficult to block (and this would probably adversely affect a lot of other users too). And of course there's always the possibility that someone other than User:Gold heart who uses the same IP range might post something on a British Isles related page, which makes things even more confusing (given WP:AGF and all that). Waggers (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's either ignore or delete. It's hard to know which one does WP:DENY better. Waggers (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Dan

Hi GoodDay. I'm a little confused ... is there a reason you can't do this? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what you'd do would be to copy the text in question and restore it, rather than reverse all the changes since. It's pretty easy to do that, and I'd do it for you, but I wouldn't really know what text you'd want restored nor necessarily would I want to take responsibility for text over which I have no knowledge and little interest. Take care, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, GoodDay. :D Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - O cheery one!

G'Day - I've taken your advice ;)Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Highest etc in the British Isles

Sorry I'm taking my time on the BI examples: what do you think of this? I'm giving you the diff just in case! I notices that Carrauntoohil had nothing comparative in it, and that height of mountains aren't that straight forward. Using "absolute height" (per this) seems to be OK. It makes Carrauntoohil fourth! Question is, is that notable? I'm going to try and argue that it is. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

"Life would've been much easier, if the term British Isles had never been invented." Nonsense. This term was invented thousands of years before Irish nationalism (really just ethnic extremisim) reared its ugly head. It's not as if the British invented the term (which has always included the Irish.) Life would've been much easier, if the self-styled Irish Republic had not been allowed to break away from the rest of the British nation. Still, lets hope its only a temporary disgrace and insult to national pride heh and long may live the term British Isles, whether the hateful separatists with their anglophobia like it or not. Christopedia (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm also confident something will work out as well in the long run, not just any something but something very close to that which my heart desires. The nation will be reunited, but should never have been divided. There is much to be done and there is much that needs to change, but it is no longer in our hands. It's just frustrating in the meantime and it doesn't look like it will happen any time soon but it will one day, of that I have no doubt and I can certainly wait. People cannot live in ignorance forever. There is a long way to go but each day that passes is one day closer. It is just a tragedy and a shame that the nation ever had to be divided in the first place. Christopedia (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The British people can always join Canada and be United under the one crown. The Canadians would love to have part of the United Kingdom that resides in the British West Indies (the Turks and Caicos Islands) so how about taking the mainland territories in Europe and all? Then only Russia would beat us in terms of land area and we would have a population not far off 100 million strong. Sounds good to me! Christopedia (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Pipelinks

You obviously don't like the [[RoI|Ireland]] pipelink. I would like to try to appreciate the whys and wherefores. Can you explain it to me a little? Ta. Crispness (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

While I can't speak for the gentleman in question, I can give you my opinion while passing...The Republic of Ireland and Ireland are NOT the same thing despite Ireland being the Republic of Ireland's official name. Referring to the Republic of Ireland as Ireland is ambigious and so should not be used unless the context is made crystal clear. The Republic of Ireland does not include ALL of Ireland! Ireland can mean either the island, the nation (the whole island) or the state (the Republic of Ireland which excludes Northern Ireland). Christopedia (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GD. I'm thinking of the practicalities now, so how would a typical example such as Ballybrophy be coded? Would it be
OK. So, [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] would be replaced by [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]] throughout WP, yes? So instead of less familiar editors will mistake the piping of Republic of Ireland as to be Ireland you would have less familiar editors mistaking Ireland (state) for Ireland, which isn't nearly so bad, is that it? You don't want the less familiar editors to think that RoI is Ireland? Is that it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispness (talkcontribs) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just spotted the Oops. So what you are saying is that you would change it to
Is that it? Crispness (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. I think I get it. I personally ,think it would degrade the whole project and I can't imagine you have a cat in hells chance of getting it through, but I think I understand where you're coming from. Thasnks for going thro it with me. Crispness (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just amended WP:BRITISHISLES Guideline 2

I archived the taskforce page this morning (or yesterday now, I sould say), and added some revised guidelines based on new suggestions, and the first version. They were a bit jumbled at first unfortunately - I've just cleaned them up. Since I've put them in, nobody has made a comment or edit - a bit ominous!. What do you think on 'guideline 2'? It's a work in progress. I know there is debate going on elsewhere around the piping of ROI - but I'm very loath to get involved. There is no censorship on Wikipedia so it simply shouldn't affect the guideline, which need to be a broad as possible anyway. To be honest, I find talks of deals etc a little sleazy! Wikipedia is supposed to be an open project, even though it seems there are only about 30 people on it sometimes! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just worried they might look a bit confusing. It's hard to judge what you've done yourself sometimes - I thought the one I put in in the morning was OK and could be expanded - but it had a number of annoying errors in it (headings above wrong examples etc). I hope that didn't put anyone off! It's a shame people are looking elsewhere, and the wars are off again too, I see. If nothing happens I'll just keep pushing it through - people will ultimately have to at least fully deal with this, as I'm planning to keep pushing it to the finishing post. I'll give it a while first though - it needs work anyway. When we have a guidline, we need a propper BI Workgroup page to deal with things like Tharkunocoll's template! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about me and the guideline - If I'm in I'm in. I need to keep out of the main British Isles article though! I actually worked for months on that bloody line in the Intro (it's like a focus point for me) - and when I put the 'killer' proposal up (with a number of choices, not less) - with the quote by the Embassy spokesman etc - everything possible seemed to go wrong, and I ended up retiring! Sometimes contentious lines have to settle down for a while for the sake of sanity - but one thing that line isn't is a flipping "consensus"!! I want to just focus on a guideline followed by a workgroup. That line for me is the end of a longer road.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-censored Proposal for Introduction at British Isles

I've made a proposal at British Isles Talk (here). I hadn't actually noticed that the article was locked, and over the same line too (by DDStretch over Tharkuncoll no less!) - but it clearly needs sorting now if it is going to get unlocked again. What do you think? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious

Hey, I didn't mean to sound cheeky, I was just curious about the debate over the British Isles. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit complicated. It seems to me there is a bit of a stand off. I gave what I think is a neutral point of view, but there could be someone out there who thinks it may not be. I get the feeling you have came across the same thing? Skipper 360 (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

ps: I'm more into classical history, but that's my problem! Skipper 360 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, all roads do lead to Rome. Personaly, I wouldn't have minded if Hannibal had won, then all roads would have lead to Carthage. Skipper 360 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you luck in you road to a compromise on the term British Isles. I may pop in now and again to give an opoinion if that's alright. Skipper 360 (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A plea from WikiProject Media franchises coordinator

Dear GoodDay...I am writing today to ask for your participation in WikiProject Media franchises. You seem to have some interest in it, since you took the time to stop by and discuss the naming convention. It is just Emperor and me at the moment, and we could really use some additional editors to help us get articles identified as ones for the projects attention and assessed as such or written from scratch. Even if your only involvement is to keep an eye on what we are doing as a liaison from another project, that would be extremely helpful. I do not know everything there is to know about all the naming conventions, infoboxes, etc from the other projects, so I would love to have a core group of editors to help me coordinate this better. So, if you are willing to spend a little time with this project and help me figure out just how far and wide this project could, should, or would be; I would be extremely grateful.

Thank you. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 07:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland/ROI Questions at WIkipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)

This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ireland" the island and "Ireland" the nation - one and the same?

What do you think of my argument that the name was used first for the nation? Of course, the ROI isn't totally the country Ireland was before the British took it over, but it was certainly meant to be a continuation (or return) to it. The name "Ireland" is named after the nation, so didn't come first in a 'name' sense. Does that hold any weight for you?

Having seen the way Britannia does this (using an 'Ireland' article, and language like "republic" and "island"), I feel Wikipedia is constantly trying to patch the difficulty caused by not calling the country Ireland (it need to be used all the time, wheras the island hardly does at all). It means we afford a huge amount of 'weight' to the land-mass. But why? Britannica give no weight at all to it: I think that they have the best approach. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern Celts

Hiya GoodDay, would you mind taking a look at the article Modern Celts, please? User MacRusgail has made several edits that seem to be unconstructive/POV. There are too many separate edits for me to revert without falling foul of 3RR. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, cheers. Daicaregos (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Strike-through textIts still there GoodDay. I've just moved it above the Rfc. Skipper 360 (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Strike-through text

It appears I need all the help I can get at the moment. Thanks GoodDay. Skipper 360 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's me logging off for the rest of the day. Hopefully we will get an answer soon and move on from there. Pub, here I come. Skipper 360 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfc closed

Hi there, I have now closed the Rfc. There seemed to be no new editors coming in. In trying to help I hope I haven't confused it more. I'll be off to pastures new and wish you all the best. Cheers. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said to Matt, I shall very occasionaly have a look in to see how things are progressing, just a look. I hope you can all solve it soon. Cheers. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking birth dates?

I'm not seeing anything in WP:MOSBIO or WP:DATE that supports your edit summary here. Matter of fact, this section seems to contradict that assessment. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed most Biography articles do this. Therefore, I assumed that's the norm on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Consolidating discussion here. This comment was originally posted here. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The decision to stop wikilinking dates for auto-formatting was only made recently (in the last week). I think what you'll find that the reason why the birth dates on many bios are still wikilinked is because no one has been to the article to unlink the dates, not because their is a consensus to keep them link and unlink the rest of the dates in the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Governors of Arkansas

On the talk page, you asked about Riley and Purcell, and why aren't they numbered. I can't exactly say what I was thinking when I did that, but note that the only way really to get Beebe as #45 is to cut out a certain number of earlier ones. And it is official that he is #45, says so right on his homepage. I point out that the Lt Governor's page itself labels Purcell and Riley as acting governors. [1] They are probably recognized as governors in the portrait hall because, well, yes, at the time they were the chief executive. But only in an acting fashion, it would seem. --Golbez (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since both Tucker and Huckabee were later elected in their own right, it's irrelevant if they were ever mere acting or real, since they became real later on. --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
... Good point, that does complicate matters a little. --Golbez (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That would make sense... just need to find some official verification of that, maybe. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment

Hi. Remember Wikipedia has a civility policy. While it may be necessary and acceptable to give evidence in a suspected sockpuppet report, comments like this (also edited here) are unnecessary. Thanks for listening. Coppertwig (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the uncivil comment, as correctly pointed out. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Coppertwig (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection

geography articles should have geographical terms GoodDay (as they did when we started this). The absolute insistence on using controversial political terms, to which I have objected, invalidates the process to my point of view. Matt has insisted on the use of those terms and has refused to accept discussion (taking it to mediation at one point but then withdrawing). The journey started in the wrong place and sooner or later we will have to go back. When and if I have the energy (given the amount of vitriol that poured around this) I may draft something on those principles. --Snowded TALK 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection sustained. Mixing politics with British Isles is troublesome. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

Sorry for the lack of capitalisation but I felt I had capitalised on your name enough by blaming you for my mistakes LOL The Thunderer (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah well now you see? I'd have gotten away with it if I hadn't confesssed. Bugger! The Thunderer (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow

No, haven't heard about that? This ios Stephen Harper, right? If its a minority how is his government governing? If he's lost the leradership of the House surely he should resign?--Gazzster (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Crisis looming then, eh? If the GG follows advice though, he'd get his new Parliament. Has he asked the GG for fresh elections?--Gazzster (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidates in Infobox

Did you notice this diff where McCain and Obama switched places? How long till someone switches it back do you think? -Rrius (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Before Iowa, I supported Richardson, so I'm definitely a fan, but I am happy with Biden. Biden has foreign policy chops, he will speak his mind to Obama, and he will be a great attack dog. Richardson has the first one, but I am not sure of the other two. The guy has more charisma than Richardson, so I think Biden will be more effective in the media than he would have been. Another concern with Richardson is his relationship with the Clintons. It might have irritated that wing of the party to name him. Most importantly, Biden can help make inroads with blue collar whites. Having watched the guy since I was in middle school in the early 1990s, I think you will be pleasantly surprised as the campaign moves on. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain needs to be careful about the age thing. If the running-mate looks too young, it makes McCain look even older than he is. Romney could help bring an air of "the grown-ups are taking charge again". He might help with Michigan (I'm not convinced that will happen in the general like it did in the primary), but he should lock-in Nevada, which has a lot of Mormons. That get-out-the-vote machine from the primary would be more likely to carry over into the general and help McCain. I really have trouble seeing anyone who would be a better pick for McCain. -Rrius (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Good points, sure, but I'm probably wrong. 2. Five hours? That's hilarious! -Rrius (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I still say anything but Romney was a dumb choice and Palin especially so; it may work out well, but it's akin to taking the rent money to the craps table and winning: it is still a bad idea. It looks like you guys are going to have an election this autumn, too. Will Harper get a majority? It's actually looking like a busy end of the year: the Aussies just got a new GG who might fire everyone at Government House, the Japanese might have a snap election, and British Labour is never too far from dumping Gordo. And that ignores all the stuff that was scheduled to happen this autumn. -Rrius (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, Harper makes it easier to picture David Cameron as PM. -Rrius (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

I imagine Quayle would have been blocked until 1994. -Rrius (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind

Hello again GoodDay. I'm back! Jack forbes (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDay, how have things being going? Jack forbes (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see my name was mentioned by Matt concerning the British Isles debate. I think he gives me too much credit. Jack forbes (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So do I. He is not a bad guy, in fact, he's a lot like me. Maybe that's the problemJack forbes (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got two pals who were brought up in Canada who could tell me everything about ice hockey. They have eventually came round to the real game, Football. Have a look at Glasgow Celtic now there's a team.

Soccer! Soccer!! No, No, NO. its football. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow is a football city. Edinburgh had an American football team that took part in the European league a few years ago. You should come to Glasgow, best city in the world, you would be hard find to find a Scotsman in Edinburgh. Jack forbes (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds and looks like a fine place GoodDay. Jack forbes (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay

Thanks for popping by. I see you're still making use of your suberb NPOV skills. Good job! Though you must find it tiring sometimes listening patiently to us bickering British and Irish! ;) I myself have been working more around British Crown Jewels recently (very uncontroversial!). I have also grabbed myself some adoptees. We have a backlog, wouldn't you like one yourself? :) Kind regards, --Cameron* 09:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aww, what a shame. We need friendly wikipedians like you to welcome the new guys! Regards, --Cameron* 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving is tough

What I did. 1) I created a Archive page User talk:GoodDay/Archive 5; 2) I highlighted my talk-page; 3) I cut it' 4) I went to my newly created archive page; 5) I went to paste it on the Archive page. Problem, the computer refuses to make the transfer (i.e paste) to the archive page. When I do step #5? the word 'paste' on my computer is faded (i.e. won't work). I beg all of you to drill the solution into my head; what am I doing wrong? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I use two separate browser tabs (if your browser doesn't have tabs, use separate windows). The first should be in edit mode for the talk page and the second in edit mode for the archive page (if you haven't used the archive page yet, it should already have an edit box). Select and cut the threads you want to archive from the first tab and paste them into the second tab. Don't forget to save, you'll feel silly otherwise. -Rrius (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Browser Tabs? I'm hopeless - you'd have to give me button-by-button instructions. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving is a nightmare - don't ever do it in the context-specific way I decided to, whatever you do! What I did last night (and what should work for you) was to keep open the archive(s) to copy into in separate browser windows, and then cut and paste into them (although surely you did that?). Looks like you might have to do it again from editing a recent diff if it's lost, and sounds like it is. It's a pain, but nothing's ever lost. If the text is still there and you still can't copy/paste it - I don't know. Maybe your've been blocked? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's so frustrating. When I check the tabs: the words cut, copy, paste? are a sharp black (i.e. functional), allowing me to cut my talk-page. But then, when I go to transfer to the archive page? paste is suddenly a faded gray color (i.e disfunctional). Anybody care to take pity on me & archive my page? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Are there any you don't want archived? -Rrius (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to set you up with a bot that will do it for you. -Rrius (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the text for MiszaBot at the top of your page, so it should archive sometime today. I set it to archive after two weeks, but it will not archive unless there are three threads to move and at least five will be left behind. Given the amount of traffic you get, the limits shouldn't be an issue. It's all pretty easy to tweak. I also set your max archive page size to 100kb, which is about the same as two or three of your existing archive pages. -Rrius (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading it over, I don't think what I wrote is clear. Your threads will be archived after they are two weeks old so long as there are three of them old enough to be archived and so long as no fewer than five threads will be left on the talk page. When the archive page, e.g., Archive 5, gets to 100 KB, the bot will create Archive 6 and begin archiving to that page. -Rrius (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate Pictures

Why should pics of the candidates not be included in the '08 Presidential election page? You say it would be biased. I ask in what way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talkcontribs) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PoC

Well, GoodDay, it looks like you may have to turn your charm on for User:PrinceOfCanada. Seems he's had a kind of rough couple of Wiki-days and has now decided to quit. You and Gazz always seem to win me back, so, maybe you can give Prince a Wiki-hug and tell him he's still wanted here. Eh? ;) --G2bambino (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What the flying hell is WRONG with you? 'had kind of a rough couple of Wiki-days' as if you don't know that your bullying and your bullshit are why I'm leaving. Seriously. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Prince of Canada t | c 02:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Having a break is not such a bad option, because the psychological payoff is seeing other people get frustrated. It makes the bully feel superior. They rationalise to themselves that they are controlling other people i.e. forcing their decisions upon others and getting them write pages of refutation. Wikipedia works when there are 10 good contributors to 1 troublemaker. But better that Wikipedia fails than to have good people get bullied. --Dlatimer (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay, there is an enormous gulf between 'difference of opinion' and 'refusing to put up with abuse from a known bully whose history of incivility is well documented, and who indeed derives joy from gloating over bullying people'. You know that. Prince of Canada t | c 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay, as G2bambino's 'strength' lies mainly in violating WP:Civil and WP:AGF until people give up, I'm fairly certain I don't want to be associated with it. Prince of Canada t | c 21:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Work what out, exactly? Given his unchanging behaviour since 2005, what basis is there for belief that he will change his tactics? He is long past the point where good faith can be assumed; frequent blocks for violating 3RR alone show that. Prince of Canada t | c 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm staying until G2's bullying behaviour is resolved. The outcome of that resolution will decide whether or not I stay. Prince of Canada t | c 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, as Prince (predictably) removed my note to you and Cameron from his page, and I'm not sure if you saw it before he did so, please see here. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, you seem to be in the loop on the official goings-on between G2 and Prince, so let me know if one of the brings their dispute to yet another forum. I would like to point out in any such forum that both were provocative, both skirted or crossed the line of civility, and both share any blame that may be apportioned. Thanks, Rrius (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My condolences

Election campaigns - a necessary evil!--Gazzster (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Shannon vs Severn

Sometimes I wish the Severn was the longest (in the British Isles). Not just because it would save a lot of headaches at Wikipedia with the ongoing controversy of using the term British Isles (completely geographic and NOT political term!!!) in Republic of Ireland or even island of Ireland articles, but then so we could take another accolade for having the biggest in the BRITISH Isles, just like we do in the tallest mountain and largest lake categories.Christopedia (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What would be a hella of a lot cooler would be sea levels dropping to such an extent that Great Britain and Ireland become one. Christopedia (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear GoodDay...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

It seems to me you are stuck between a rock and a hard place with your two Canadian friends. I'm sure if anyone can mediate between them you can, it doesn't appear to be an easy job though. Jack forbes (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your probably right to step away from it. In my opinion they should agree to edit different articles for a while and let it cool off for a bit. I may not be the right person to advise on being cool, but then I'm a reformed character. Truth be told, it was out of character for me. Jack forbes (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have the ability to keep it all in check. I hope you don't take it out on the cat! :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't kick your cat or dog or whatever when you lose your temper on wiki. Just kidding. Jack forbes (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, diacritics. (I just looked it up). Everyone as you say can get involved in a heated debate. Jack forbes (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

slow weekend

Not much has happened since you've been gone. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, apart from this. You might want to look at this too (as promised at BITASK a couple of weeks back). Wikipeire's finally got his Wanted sign too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce

I believe you, although some might not! Crispness (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Validity of vote was not my point. Crispness (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi GoodDay, I expect you'll have to wait a while yet. I've just started WikiProject English royalty, which needs work doing and I'm currently having list of Irish monarchs & list of English monarchs reviewed to get them featured but somebody voted against it because it is "silly and pointless". You've just got to love wikipedia, haven't you? ;) Don't worry, I'll stick around...I've been called worse before! ;) Regards, --Cameron* 19:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to join if you're interested in monarchs before Anne of Great Britain. Adding yourself is a lot easier than at WP:Commonwealth! ;) --Cameron* 19:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I can see you are. You're doing a good job. Make sure you're not too pro-British, unionist! ;) --Cameron* 19:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

Your list of boxers was messing up the way the Heading "I'm a republican" was displaying on your user page. I took the liberty of inserting a {{-}}, which seems to have fixed the problem. I hope you don't mind; otherwise, feel free to deface my user page. -Rrius (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was wrong exactly, I've just figured out that if you need to separate things vertically, if <br> doesn't work, {{-}} usually will. -Rrius (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why a Republican?

Being an American, I am bound to have a strange perspective on the monarchy. On the one hand, having an unelected monarch whose only qualifications are birth and religion in charge of declaring war and, really everything else, is scary. On the other hand, the history is pretty compelling (especially if you happen to be British) and the pageantry is awesome. I would even miss Her Majesty's face on the stray Canadian coins that make their way into American cash registers. The pageantry stuff might come from being raised Catholic rather than being an American.

Anyway, why are you a Republican? Not why would someone be, but why are you. Also, what would a presidency look like in GoodDay's republican Canada? Who would pick her? How could she be dismissed? Would she be more emboldened than the Queen and GG to refuse ministerial advice? -Rrius (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I never expected you would support a presidential system. Having lived in one for my thirty years, I wouldn't recommend it, either. I would prefer a system with a figurehead president with just enough power to dismiss the government when it acts up or to refuse to dissolve parliament when a viable government could be formed or even to actually propose changes to legislation before assenting (there is something like that in the letters patent for the Canadian or Australian GG, but I don't think it ever gets used).
In the American system, the electorate feel they need to pick someone to represent some ideal of what it is to be an American, an expert on all areas of policy, and a best friend. Your PMs just need to cover the last one. I mean, sure, they have to be competent at something (at what I'm not sure), but they are backed by a cabinet or shadow cabinet, and the GG can take care of the national symbol bit. -Rrius (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Infobox Drama Continues

Check out the edit summaries on this diff. Actually, look at both. This POV stuff is out of hand, too. -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

86.xx

To be honest, I've had worse from trolls than them threatning to beat me up. Tempted to break it to him that I'm as Irish as I am English. His response to you was definatly a bit over the top though. Combined with the general agressive trolling, I'd suggest an ANI case or a word in an admin's ear? I fear calling you a gobshite is certainly, to me, far worse than the rather basic 'I can thump you!' tone of his response to me. Narson (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gobbie/Gobshite? Just means you are mouthy/lairy/all mouth and no trousers. That kind of thing I believe. I've tried to explain the differences between British Isles and British isle, and explain why he is confusing cause and effect. Hopefully he will understand. Narson (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You know, I keep on finding myself in these lame ass move discussions. Really, the ones that are hinging out a critical interpretation of policy are more fun than these open and shut ones. They just look complicated because everyone decides to bring several hundred years of crap with them. Narson (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was the part that suggested you knew it wasn't directed to you I didn't like, "gobshite" on its own I'd have probably let go. Smilies do nothing for me. I just think IPs feel they can get away with more. They rarely build up an argument, they are more into pot shots. This guy seems to want to do both to some degree (not that I find his arguments great). I think IP's being used for one-off edits are one thing - but should we allow people to carry on anonymously like this? He's had this since the 26th of August. The day I suspected Pureditor, in fact. Maybe it's another location for him..--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I've seen better POV pushers than him. Still, if you are getting worked up, tis as good to stay away. You don't want to get yourself blocked. --Narson ~ Talk 00:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" comes to mind. --Narson ~ Talk 11:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

careful

Bloody hell GD - do you realise you made that silly last comment to User talk:86.42.119.12 after he removed my Warning headings and this comment too:

You are correct Matt Lewis. This IP user has a history of such comments and edits. I think it is about time to make a report to WP:ANI if it continues. I think it may be necessary to block anonymous editing from this IP address. Ward3001 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful! It wont let me undo him now. Don't be fooled by these people! I have to spend the time now fiddling how to put it back. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

'These people'? Matt, you might be getting a /tad/ too invested in this. Narson (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay knows what I'm referring to - IPs and socks on the issue we both edit in. We have both seen what has gone on, and how much both IP's and socks can be disruptive.
Narson, do you think this is fair: "Trust me, any satisfaction you find on wikipedia will be ephemeral if you have achieved little in the real world on your own merits. That is undoubtedly your real problem, and your disproportionate anger here reflects that real-world situation."? It was written in a section the IP made called "Matt Lewis" in British Isles (I moved it to my talk page). This IP is joking around with making new proposals, removing stuff from his Talk page etc - we must not joke with him.
British Isles is currently a locked article, down to this IP and sock puppet joining in an edit change with myself and someone else. They both knew exactly what would happen. Bang - it's locked on the previously-standing edit. I am indeed invested in this subject Why am I too invested? What would happen if nobody stood up to these IPs and socks? On this issue they think they have carte blanche to behave as they want (esp the hidden freedom of an IP) - and in many respects they have simply been given far far too much freedom. People see them as a fact life, and few people watch their combined edits. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about my being silly with the IP. Sometimes my 'funny bone' filters into my responses. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:62.24.204.7

Hi. Can you fill me in on this message you left on User talk:62.24.204.7? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. I still don't understand why Jimmy Wales allows anonymous IP editing. I mean, sure, all of us, even those with usernames and everything are technically anonymous, but I figure that requiring an account (which is free and only takes seconds) would reduce vandalism and other problems at least by some amount. But yeah, until they do, we can't really tell people to sign in, though there'd be nothing wrong with encouraging it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but my understanding is that when a user is blocked, their IP is blocked too, at least sometimes. In any event, we can't assume that an IP is a blocked user, since treating them as such would violate Good Faith, No Personal Attacks, and possibly Civility. Nightscream (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank's GoodDay. Jack forbes (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Forcing IPs to register

IPs can't be forced to register. It's impossible. Most IPs belong to an Internet company, not to a particular person. --Raijinili (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Forcing IPs to register" means stopping editing rights for people without accounts, that's all. Its eminently sensible and long overdue. (See, GoodDay - even Sarah and I can agree on some things ;-) ) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not a new idea. It's been proposed and shot down many, many times, with consensus against it (and no, not by new accounts). See this, this, this, and this. If you're going to say something like that, at least make some attempt at being convincing, rather than assuming that this suggestion is obviously the right one and all you have to do is propose it for people to agree with you. --Raijinili (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay, please read the pages I linked above. A huge amount of Wikipedia edits are anonymous, and only a small proportion of them are vandals. They do more good than harm, and you can't expect Wikipedia to kill off all those edits just because you have a persistent vandal. The solution you should be going through is to get an admin's attention on this, so that they can' semi-protect pages which are problematic and restrict anonymous editing only on the pages which need it. --Raijinili (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Raijinili, GoodDay is perfectly entitled to express an opinion without being preached at. Its an opinion shared by many others. It may not have had consensus on previous occasions but that doesn't mean it can't be expressed. We all know about semi-protection etc. etc. Please stop lecturing --Snowded TALK 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
No, he's not entitled to any such thing. If he puts a message on Wikipedia, I can respond to it. That's how open forums work.
You make it sound as if I'm preventing him from expressing an opinion altogether. It doesn't work that way. If you can tell me that I can't tell him what he can do, then what's to prevent me from telling you that you can't tell me what to do? Your premise is inconsistent with your actions. --Raijinili (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Disagreement is one thing, preaching at length is another. --Snowded TALK 00:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about a right to disagree. I said that I have a right to respond, and he doesn't have a right not to have me respond in any way I want unless it's specifically uncivil. --Raijinili (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Having a right to do something, and exercising that right in an appropriate way are very different things. --Snowded TALK 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you realize how hypocritical you're being, by telling me what I shouldn't do? --Raijinili (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh please, I am saying that I think you are preaching, exercising a right to excess and lecturing people about things they already know. If you find me doing the same thing then the hypocrite accusation might have some substance, for the moment it doesn't. You might be better editing articles than taking this line (and I note you have also managed to upset Matt and HighKing). This is GoodDay's page, if you want to carry this on (although its a waste of time) then take it my talk page. I can respond you there without cluttering up his page --Snowded TALK 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not just that. Your initial comment was very combative without understanding what you were arguing against. Your next comment was to object combatively and in a way that took GoodDay's comment as though it were a specific proposal in the Wikipedia namespace for a change in policy. It was, rather, a statement made in the context of exasperation at the behaviour of some IP users. There was no reason for the tone and tenor of your comments. -Rrius (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
He seemed to have a misunderstanding of how IPs work. He also posted on a Wikipedia Talk page, so I assumed he was trying to convince people.
Actually, I don't see how coldly stating that what he wanted was literally impossible is combative. --Raijinili (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as mandatory registration is a distant dream? I'm stuck with them (veteran IP accounts). GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
My apologies Raij. As Rrius pointed out, I was peeved by IP accounts at British Isles, (but I still believe in mandatory registration). GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've posted up... well, you've seen it, so... --Raijinili (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

You may be in danger of assuming your agent provocateur identity on this, Mick really doesn't want to get sucked in (or that is how I read his comments) --Snowded TALK 18:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NHL captains

Thanks for the feedback! There'd been clamoring for references, so I figured I'd go ahead and add them. Some of them, like Michael Peca, took a little digging to find. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

Calgary Flames has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua (talkcontribs) 12:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens

Personally, it looks to be a technicality and would clutter the boxes. Maybe worth a mention in the main body of the articles though, Tom B (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Independence

Yep, it's going to happen GoodDay. Scots are finally waking up to the fact we can run our own country. You would be amazed at some of the misinformation given out by the press over many years. Jack forbes (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm a republican, but one step at a time. Jack forbes (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

The bot said it was archiving, but while it was removing threads, it wasn't pasting them where expected. I have put the threads where they belong, and I'll keep an eye on it as it archive in future. -Rrius (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm relatively certain it was my fault, so sorry. -Rrius (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Republcan

Hello again GoodDay, have you ever thought of starting a republican movement in Canada? Is there one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talkcontribs) 23:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes you wonder why they have one when most people don't know about it. Can I ask you a question? Can you understand how I feel about Scotland being Independent? Jack forbes (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, GoodDay, if only you knew. Longshanks and the rest of Scottish history is only part of it. We in Scotland have been made to feel inferior for hundredes of years. Our own language has been demoted to being just called Gaelic, while the Scottish dialect of English has been called by people who don't know any better Scots. I talk with a Scots dialect, but it's bloody English I talk. There is a wikipedia article here calling this dialect a language and it's a disgrace. I have said so, but do they listen? of course not! Jack forbes (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And who told you that! I'll tell you what GoodDay, if you or I are here within the next ten years and I'm right you send me a check for a thousand pounds. I'm telling you, you will lose your money! Jack forbes (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea, but go on, send the money now :) Jack forbes (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC

Good man! I've always liked you GoodDay, you always see reason. Jack forbes (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it off you anyway. Jack forbes (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your right! I have faith in my own people to do the right thing. And if they don't? I will still fight for it as I do now. Jack forbes (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope so, because I would fight in the same circumstances. I shoud have been born in those days, that's how strong I feel. Jack forbes (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Chat between Jack & Cam

Charming! Feel free to lop off my head to reach your political ends...--Cameron* 16:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like to make it clear, I do not endorse lopping anyones head off, different days, different way of doing things. Jack forbes (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I endorse any peaceful means of doing so ;). After all, the SNP wish to keep on our gracious queen! :) Btw, Cam = Camilla! --Cameron* 08:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I never said the SNP were perfect ;). Jack forbes (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Giano's page

GoodDay, I know you are trying to be sociable there. However, you must be aware that Giano is under a civility sanction right now. He's trying to edit content, and his orange bar keeps popping up. I am sure you aren't doing this to be annoying, just pleasant, but perhaps this is a good time to leave him be without attempting to engage him in conversation. This isn't a criticism, just a word to help you understand that sometimes good intentions have unintended effects. Best, Risker (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors

Hiya.. for what it's worth, I'm with you on that for the most part. I think major positive contributions to mainspace are worth taking into account only when discussing the content of edits; it's not an excuse for getting away with behaviour that would get anyone else smacked down. Prince of Canada t | c 01:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

CBC

I should hope not, we can't have all that smut on our tv screens. Seriously, I have heard they are quite conservative. Jack forbes (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we had someone like that, Mary Whitehouse, except she was for real. In fact, they look uncannily alike! Jack forbes (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are you also having trouble getting your watchlist up? Jack forbes (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, my computers going bonkers! Can't log in now and everything is going in slow motion. I'm off for a lie down. :)-Jack forbes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.198.73 (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Just think, if I can never log in again I will have to use an ip and never be trusted again. :) -Jack forbes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.198.73 (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Still having problems but have managed to log on. I think I'll leave it for tonight and see how it is tommorrow. Cheers GoodDay! Jack forbes (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All sorted now. It appears it was not just me with the problem. Jack forbes (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

WP:AE Your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Enough_is_enough.--Tznkai (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

still around

I'm still around. I just rarely post, mostly read. I see you are still around ;) have a goodday Masterhatch (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles"

Well, there could be a very good reason for that, GoodDay.:-) I hope that you and Matthew are immeasurably better now that I have finally got a nomme de guerre. In the meantime, 'Bloody hell GD', I hope you shall avoid any future 'silly last comment' situations and endure the wrath of the aforementioned. As you now know, defenders of the Realm here on wikipedia must be disciplined and organised. I only got a nick because it would impress the eternally feisty Sorcha, the Maud Gonne of modern Ireland who 'hurls the little streets upon the great' here on a quotidian basis. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

SPA

I think you are being accused of being a SPA on Joe Biden's talk page (hair). 903M (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Senators alternate captains

I removed Heatley, then went looking. The Ottawa Citizen is reporting that he's been named alternate captain, so I'm accepting their report as valid. Only after reading that article have I re-added Heatley as an alternate captain. (Plus, I spelled his name right.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rideau

Ha! I pray not in my lifetime. Besides, Rideau isn't really all that impressive. It just looks sort of drab and awful from the outside. Casa Loma in Toronto would make a far better Executive residence. Prince of Canada t | c 16:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor my lifetime! Surely presidents don't like pomp and ceremony? They're boring, expensive to keep up and efficient... ;) --Cameron* 16:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If I remember correctly the White House is one of the smallest presidential residences in the world. In the words of Tom Baker 'White House? Personally I find white a bit boring, why not freshen it up with a touch of cream?' ;) --Cameron* 16:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm wars

Cam? Since when is my name Camilla? ;) Personally I'm sick of the feuding. It's just not necessary...--Cameron* 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's only 2 letters off the full name. Off wiki, both Cami and Cams are used. I really don't mind though, as long as it's polite! :) --Cameron* 20:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama Talk Page Comments

I was a little taken aback by Wikidemon's criticism of me on the Obama talk page. Did what I say there offend you? If so, I'm sorry...I meant my preface as an acknowledgment that the article is the subject of many attacks, but that even though my question may seem like one, it wasn't.LedRush (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I am being bullied on the page. If you didn't take offense by my statements (as you said on my talk page), could you also say so there? I just want the "side discussion" to end.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Germain Doucet

Ay! I haven't seen you round much so thought I'd spy on your main page - found Germain Doucet from there! It must be quite something to have traced your ancestry so far back and to a notable person; my family tree invariably consists of cotton spinners and farmers. :s --Jza84 |  Talk  23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to my brother (who does all the family tree stuff), I'm descended of a Royalist captain who fought at the Storming of Bolton. Doesn't appear in WP mind, so I'm suspicious of his research! I'm proud of the poor simple folk up my tree mind. For some reason, I see them like the characters in a L. S. Lowry painting. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure - 2,500 hits on Google for Germain Doucet and 40 hits when adding "Sieur de la Verdure". Might make a good DKY? if it was expanded. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Prefer to be helpful IP or sarcastic disruptive user?

Hi. You'd like people to register. It's policy that they don't have to. Would you please stop it with the sarcastic, cryptic, unhelpful throwaway remarks and try to contribute? Please. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons that you register is so people can see your distinct history. For example, I know from GoodDay's history that he is a strong contributor to Wikipedia. However, I know no such thing about IP 83.34....LedRush (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I advocate mandatory registration for editors, after 1-month on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
...and I have no idea whether the person editing as GoodDay today is the same person as GoodDay a week ago. I don't particularly care. Contributions are about verifiable facts. It doesn't matter whether an editor has been on WP a long time. They could have been editing badly for a long time. I care that they make valid points with verifiable sources. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Since accounts are password protected and GoodDays edit history is consistent, I can be pretty damn sure he still the same person. Frankly, that is a silly point. -Rrius (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Register an account, please. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...Well, for my two bits, I don't believe in mandatory accounts, but on the other hand, having an account establishes familiarity with other users. See, over my many years of editing, i have seen a lot of things, including a lot of sockpuppets. I'd much rather seen an ip address being used than sockpuppets. sockpuppets are deceitful and always have an ulterior movtive (otherwise they wouldn't "hide" under another name). So, yes, if i see an IP address make a change on my watchlist, i scrutinize the edit a little more than if i see an account user, but that doesn't mean all ip address make bad edits all the time. Actually, there are a lot of ip address that make good edits. anyways, that's my two bits. Masterhatch (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying: My main gripe with IP accounts, is their participation in heated discussions on Wikipedia (like at talk:British Isles & talk:Republic of Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
yes, you are right...in heated discussions, using an ip address like that is the same as using a sockpuppet. Masterhatch (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I find people who use IPs in heated discussions and quite obviously based on their comments ans knowledge have actual accounts to be no better than sock puppets. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but it remains the case that you don't need to register to edit Wikipedia, and a good thing too. Just think, if registration was mandatory 100% of all vandalism would be perpetrated by registered users; how terrible would that be? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It would actually be good, because then you could track and block/ban them easier instead of having to try and follow the chain from IP to IP. -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, in response to IP's choice of section header? I'd prefer helpful registered users. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)::::It would actually be good, because then you could track and block/ban them easier instead of having to try and follow the chain from IP to IP. -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But you'd have very many more sock puppets. Probably as broad as it's long. Granted, forcing registration could reduce overall vandalism; it's just too easy not to log on and immediately vandalise an article, but you'd have a great deal fewer editors overall, and therefore fewer edits. I think that's one of the main reasons for allowing IP editing. Apparently going for quantity rather than initial quality works to the benefit of a Wiki, so I'm told. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
IPs who refuse to sign-in, create suspicion. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
And registered users whose only contributions are throwaway remarks create frustration. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If IP is frustrated? create an account & sign-in. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok guys, enough is enough on both sides. -Djsasso (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wales

  • Yes, granted; Wales is the only one (in the British Isle at least), but it does have them. Wales hasn't been a "country" since its conquest like, 800 years ago. Just like Northern Ireland isn't a country, it's just called such for laymens. Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I mean England. Wales was conquered by England, and became aprt of England following it conquest, becoming a principality in the process. Jasca Ducato (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ip's

Just being honest here GoodDay, I think continually asking ip's to register won't work, it may even make them more determined not to. Is there somewhere this can be brought up for discussion by the community? Jack forbes (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:AN case

How so? All !voters have opposed all options so far! I think a joint RFC would be better though Prince has stated he would not cooperate. PS: It's an AN case not ANI. ;) --Cameron* 13:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Btw, your "buddy" knows what to do again in order for me to personally push this up to ArbCom (as noted here in the green box when responding to G2's comment which is above in the grey box), although I hope that things will not have to turn ugly (as you've accurately put it). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • RFCs are indeed optional, but they're recommended as they offer a final chance to users who have displayed problematic conduct. However, if after an RFC and prior restrictions, the user continues engaging in problematic conduct, then such users are rarely ever even slightly pleased with what will happen next. Of course, the same goes for ArbCom cases because they never hand out barnstars or wiki-medals. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify; the second part of my first sentence beginning with "as they offer a final chance to users..." referred specifically to user conduct RFCs of course, but the part before it applies to both article RFCs and user conduct RFCs. Yeah, if an article RFC fails, you can try mediation - but, all users need to be willing to be subject to mediation. If they're not, the case is rejected. Yes, ArbCom won't take on content disputes, but they will handle user conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

About comment at WQA

Meditation Committee or Meditation Cabal - both are similar but slightly different. ;) But jokes aside, it's a good suggestion if they can't talk to each other on their own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(warning, essay alert)GoodDay, don't get me wrong or take the comment I left on WQA the wrong way, I know you like to comment and you're very aware of all the minutae at this stage. But it would be very easy to turn the WQA into a content dispute and we'd all be dragged back into the never-ending discussion about rights and wrongs. The WQA is solely to address Tharky's behaviour. I invite you to look at my behaviour, leaving aside the content. I edit articles, I provide references, I open discussions on talk pages, I ask for references. I conduct myself civilly and politely, I never make personal comments. I don't have a political agenda - indeed I don't believe I've ever editted an article with a political POV, and I really don't have any strong views. I'm not antiBritish - I'm not anti-anything really. But I'm pro-accuracy and pro-fairness and pro-correctness. If other editors object to my editting, they can simply follow correct protocol and procedure. They can provide references to back up claims, they can discuss the edits with me on the Talk page, etc. I don't ignore them, and I'll engage with them. After that, look at Tharky's behavior, especially regarding his reversions of my edits, his personal comments in edit summaries, his ignoring of requests for discussions, etc. This is what the WQA is about. Nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with content. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For a good example of HK's tactics when one engages him in discussion, see Talk:Alexander Thom. No amount of references were good enough for him, and he still continued to revert. ðarkuncoll 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Veteran IP accounts

Hi. GoodDay, I've asked Jimbo Wales about the ip problem and am waiting for a reply. Keep an eye out for his page and see what he says.Jack forbes (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't find it - can you give as a link? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales Jack forbes (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It must have been deleted or archived or something. I still can't find it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've put the link on your talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, got it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That's true, but there are plenty of admins looking at that page and I'm sure some of them can answer the question. Jack forbes. (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It's now being discussed on jimbos page! Jack forbes (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You should put a word in on jimbos page, just to back me up. Jack forbes (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though the issue has been done to death. I'm going to leave it alone, I get the feeling I would be wasting my time. Jack forbes (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, I'll have a look at Jimbo's page. However, GoodDay, your policy of withdrawing from discussions as soon as an IP enters in "cutting your nose off to spite your face". It's a pointless tactic. Don't spit your dummy out, talk to the IPs. I was an IP for a while, before being persuaded to sign up. I can tell you the discrimination against IPs here is shocking. I know of one admin who treats them all with utter contempt, and another who won't enter into dialogue with them at all - he just blanks them. They are not second-class citizens. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that we'll find tolerence levels are rapidly shrinking for disruptive anon IP addresses, especially where they relate to British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't see anything being done about it. It seems the discussions on ip's are brought up at least three times a year and have never been close to being resolved. I took the question to Jimbo Wales page and was told in so many words I would be wasting my time. Well, thats the way I read it. Jack forbes (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) And meantime GoodDay, why won't you work on the goofy BITASK page just because IP editors might try to help too. Mind you, since you thought that partition in Ireland happened in 1927 ...... 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's your decision not to participate. I have edited in line with policy and in line with sources. I might as well refuse to participate on pages where users with pretend usernames are contributing. Is your real name GoodDay? No? Then don't complain about IPs. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:What happened to PC

See the (second) last post on my talk page...;) His talk page isn't working yet so you can leave him a note on my talk page if you wish as he is checking there for replies from me atm! ;) Best, --Cameron* 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

sssshhhh...I'm in disguise...

Yes, I usurped a name. They haven't moved over my Talk or User pages yet, but everything else has been moved. roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the signature... and no, nobody else is using the POC account. Once everything's moved over I'm going to recreate the account and permanently redir to the new name to avoid any confusion in the future. roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't contribute to edit-wars by supporting edits that lack consensus

GD, it is really unhelpful for you to pile on a de-reversion of an edit that lacks consensus, as you just did at Template talk:Ca-residence. Please don't do that. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't claim consensus where apparently there no longer is one & please don't show up there again, making reverts & using your edit summary in place of discussing your reverts at the respective talk-pages. This discussion is now over. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)