User talk:GoodDay/Archive 2

Lough Neagh
No problem, GoodDay - I know you've been dragged through a lot of this kind of non-sense lately. I've made a change so as to refer to only geographical entities. I would however prefer a wider RfC on the British Isles issue. It has been dragged out for as long as I have been on WP - and both British and Irish editors have lost perspective on the matter - one always pushing it in, one always pushing it out. We need a neutral perspective on the matter. --sony-youthpléigh 22:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. I'll probably end up lining alongside Sony, even though we've had our (mostly mild) disagreements in the past. The term "British Isles" seems to raise more fuss than it deserves, and much of it is based on ignorance or emotion. "Pro"s generally assert that dislike of the term is the preserve of the loony few and that the term itself has been the universal term for the archipelago for thousands of years. Both ideas are demonstrably and significantly wrong. Also, in an NI context many "pros" are passionate Unionists with strong political views. Similarly, many "Anti"s are probably basing all argument on a visceral dislike of anything British. This is a quasi-political view and not a helpful one in the context of a WP page (and often not helpful in Ireland either). As for "consensus", taking one side of the argument and saying "a majority support that position, therefore that is the consensus" is neither correct nor likely to result in any peace. On things like Lough Neagh, which is in the Northern Ireland part of the UK, things are going to be more emotional still. It might be useful to peruse the text and history of the British Isles and British Isles naming dispute pages to understand the actual history before trying to decide "consensus". Have fun! Hughsheehy 12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Goodday, I hope you don't felt like I chased you away. Really, that wasn't my intention. Hugh sums up the situation quite well above. You wrote that, "The political atmosphere there, stinks." Yes, it does, and that is why reaching a mutually agreeable consensus is practically impossible within the confines of those articles. But please don't let it dog you down: I'm going to pursue an wide RfC on the issue as I believe that a wider perspective and debate would be more healthy, could I ask for your input when I do?

(On a personal note, I'm quite sorry that we've met on "bad terms" twice now. Honestly, I'm not always like this - though I wouldn't blame you for thinking that I was! - just two ugly wrangles over words and accusations in a too short a space of time. I hope if we meet again that you'll see my brighter side.) --sony-youthpléigh 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep this up, but you're missing a 'step' in the dispute before the "it's offensive excuse." There are two POVs in operation regarding how to categories Ireland geographically. Complicating both of these is the accusation that proponents of each come with particular political biases. POV 1: Ireland is an island in Europe (just the same as Britain or Iceland are). This would lead to a phrasing like, "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in Ireland and the 31th largest in Europe." POV 2: Ireland is part of a group of islands with Britain. That group of islands are in Europe. This would lead to a phrasing like, "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles and the 31st largest in Europe." While both of these are completely factual and absolutely valid, it is near impossible to express both simultaneously. To beign with, a straight 'jamming together' of the two POVs is unacceptable to the proponents of POV 2 ("... largest lake in Ireland and the British Isles ...") because they say that Ireland is in the British Isles, so you wind up with only POV 2 being represented in the article. On top of this, while those from POV 1 are largely okay with POV 2 being expressed in the article, they find the term "British Isles" leans too strongly in favour of POV 2's particular political outlook. Proponents of POV 2 are unhappy with any alternative phrasing because they feel that it leans too strongly in favour of the politics of POV 1. Nobody is interested in denying the 'facts' but expressing both outlooks on geography is made impossible by the politics of words. My preference is a compromise using the geographic outlook POV 2 with an alternative choice of words, but this is unacceptable to the proponents of POV 2 for the reasons above, which you know well. --sony-youthpléigh 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the concern, but it's a very long-standing dispute and has been warred over much worse than what little you've seen over the last few days. An equally factual term is "Northern Europe", but no where on the Lough Neagh article is it mentioned that it is the 16th largest lake in Northern Europe. Neither does the Ireland article mention that Ireland is in Northern Europe, yet this is an undeniable fact. Wikipedia deals in facts, but we cannot express them all. Some people are more interested in some fact over others. Certain nationalist British editors are very interested in making sure that it is said that Ireland in an obscure, archaic-sounding and now-defunkt geo-political grouping called the "British Isles" (indisputably geo-political if for no other reasons than because it includes the Channel Islands, thus is "purely geographical" is a non-starter). That is their POV, they are entitled to it, but this is a collaborative encyclopedia, and it is necessary for them to reach a consensus and agree to an NPOV. That is not forthcoming. I'm not going to reply to your post on the Ireland page, so you can be sure it more representative. Most UK-based editors are quite OK to simply ignore the British Isles or use an alternative phrasing (though the majority I would say are surprised that it is objected to, but most can see why when it pointed out). Your post may be ignored as trolling, so maybe look in the archives at Talk:Ireland/Archive_5#British_Isles_template and Talk:Ireland/Archive_5#Proposed_Common_.22British_Isles.22_Template. See some of the quotes in Talk:British Isles/References and British Isles naming dispute. --sony-youthpléigh 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Of course! And like I said before, I hope we meet under "better" circumstances next time around! --sony-youthpléigh 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Hi GoodDay. I can't say that I'm surprised by your reaction. The British/Irish pages often seem to attract more than the usual quota of nutters. I'll try to prove my "moderate" stance by referring you to an edit I put on the page of Darren Clarke [1] (a NI golfer), where his status as "Irish" or "British" had been the subject of edit-warring and general blockheadedness. Unfortunately, such "debates" are not always so easy to end. Good luck on WP. Hughsheehy 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) My point re Darren Clarke is that some flexibility is required wrt NI. For instance, would you also describe the Provisional IRA as being a British organisation? It was founded in Belfast by a Londoner. Both are in the UK. That makes it British, no? If you'd unambiguously describe the Provisional IRA as British you'd be one of the few I've heard to ever do that. In any case, Darren Clarke is (like Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams) also Irish. Hughsheehy 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC) I understand the POV. I guess one of the issues is related to nomenclature around the UK and the conception of the UK as a state. A confusion/difficulty nowadays is that "British" only really reflects the Great Britain part (England, Scotland, Wales) of the UK and doesn't really place "Irish" very well, even if that "Irish" is clearly "UK-ish". The UK used to be "of Great Britain and Ireland" and is more recently "of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Calling the whole lot "British" is understandable now, given the asymmetry between NI and the rest, but was equally common and less reasonable when the whole of Ireland was involved. It's one of the reasons Irish people get annoyed with "British Isles", i.e. that it treats "Irish" as a subset of "British" in a way that not even the name of the UK ever did. I think it was Daniel O'Connell who once said that the Irish would be perfectly happy to be citizens of the UK as long as "Irish" wasn't treated as some kind of inferior type within the UK, but that if such was going to be the case then the Irish would be better off outside the UK....and that such a situation did seem to be the case. Anyway, all I want to end up saying is that your POV should not be a handicap to editing pages. As the TV show said "Stick to the facts, Ma'am....and then an atheist can edit pages about religion." Anyway, this was my last word. Hughsheehy 18:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada
Sorry, GoodDay - last time, I promise! - but this edit made me laugh: "No - if 'Dominion' is going to cause this much disruption, then it's best to omit it." Facts? Or double standards? --sony-youthpléigh 21:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only joking - the last thing I want is another can of worms ... ! --sony-youthpléigh 22:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Well, looking through a list of contributers talking about "contentious terms" "angrying up the blood", it looks like a contentious editor has his work cut out for him. Best of luck tackling the bitter Canadian nationalist POV. (Still joking!) (Incidentally, if you're interested, for an explicitly British nationalist POV argument against the term British Isles, see this article - skip to the section on "Symbolic and Political Implications".) --sony-youthpléigh 22:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit
I was watching the editing with regards to the LA Kings. If there is a standard for listing captains, how do we deal with Luc's interim captaincy? Seems a bit out sync with the rest. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this Kings' website the only legal source for rosters for the Kings? What if Luc's captaincy is referred to in other verifiable sources, say the LA times? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RE
I wasnt having a go at you at any point - i realise the awkward way i structured my comments might have made it seem that i was. siarach 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

British Isles
A while back, a special sub page was created on the British Isles talk page for issues to do with the name "British Isles". This was done in order to keep discussion under control as many arguments over the name got out of hand and very ugly. I moved your recent post to the talk page there. There is a notice about this at the top of the page. --sony-youthpléigh 20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The decision to keep discussion on the name to a sub-page was made before because it does hurt. But, anyway ... --sony-youthpléigh 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC) The discussions are very disruptive, benefit no-one, hinder collaboration and divide editors. See the archive. That's why the subpage was made. But, anyway ... you know best, I suppose. --sony-youthpléigh 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Sure. Good luck. --sony-youthpléigh 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) That's what I'd hope, even further, not only at the "bad lands" frontier, but articles like River Shannon where it was fought over too. But it looks like Thark and Feline have had their noses put out of joint and only want to troll now. --sony-youthpléigh 15:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ireland
Goodday, you said you were not interested in causing disruption, but you have now dragged out another divisive issue all over again. I honestly accept that you don't know what you are doing or talking about - it is probably very easy from your perspective to believe that these things are not troublesome - but I'm losing faith as now it seem as if you only want to stir trouble. --sony-youthpléigh 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"We should consider re-naming the entry of Irish Sea ..." / "... after all some unionist in Northern Ireland might be offended with Ireland." Yes, GoodDay, you are trolling. --sony-youthpléigh 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) ".. the core of all these disputes seems to be Northern Ireland itself." Not really. You might be surprised to know that unionists (the Protestant, anti-united-Ireland half in Northern Ireland) eschewed the term "British" as much as anyone else until the 1970s - when the Troubles pinned them into a corner and they ditched "Irish" or a large part, mainly in reaction to their opposite numbers taking a monopoly on deciding what "Irish" was to be. Since the violence in Northern Ireland has begun to calm down, there are signs that they are moving away from "British" again, though not back to quite the same place as they were before. I saw your most the the UK Manual of Style page. I can understand that it's probably surprising that "British" would be a dirty word in some ways, but the facts are simply the facts. They are supported by many-fold references, from all quarters, and, honestly, it is more likely that someone insisting on the use of the word "British" in a UK or Irish context has the more extreme POV to push. --sony-youthpléigh 23:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC) GoodDay, I thought for a day or two that you were actually interested in the topic but it's entirely clear now that you are only trolling and generally trying to stir up trouble. Shame on you. Your "suggestions" on the various Ireland pages where you are trolling are entirely unhelpful and merely indicate your ignorance and your unhelpful attitude. As for compromising on "British-Irish Isles", it's either a neologism (and not a particularly sensible one) or merely a vanishingly rare term for the islands. As such it's not suitable for WP. You can use it all you like in private life, and good luck with that, but it's not suitable for WP. Hughsheehy 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC) GoodDay, either you are trolling or you are unreasonably stupid and also unreasonably unaware of what WP is and how it works. You are far too eloquent to be sufficiently stupid and you've been on WP far too long to have remained sufficiently ignorant. Therefore, I believe you are trolling. If future contributions prove me wrong then I'll be happy to be proven wrong. Hughsheehy 18:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC) GoodDay, I am absolutely not suggesting you are stupid. I'm suggesting you are trolling. The reason I suggest you are trolling is because I do not believe you are stupid. Hughsheehy 18:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Not to pile on too much here, but I am also concerned about the WP:POINTy disruptions in which you are participating and, imho, aggravating. You aren't the only one doing it, but if you could reconsider the approach you're taking I think it would go a long way to improving things for the community of editors who work on these articles. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodie, I dunno why you´re trying to prove points based on what you seem to think you know, but you´re not the first and you´ll probably not be the last. If you took the trouble to read the actual articles (and the references) you might find that there´s something interesting there. Alternatively you might still decide that your opinion and knowledge are better than OUP, CUP, etc. Several others seem to have done that. Hughsheehy 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC) GoodDay, you say you grew tired of the heated political discussions. Well, why then did you create heated political discussions? Also, I believe that you'll be unable to find anything that anyone said (except you, Thark, feline and maybe PR) that would count as political and the only thing which I said which you might be able to vaguely interpret as heated was when I said you were trolling. Hughsheehy 08:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Collaborative writing, consensus and NPOV
GoodDay, I think you are grossly misled about what consensus building and NPOV mean, if you think that they can be achieved by "blocking" editors representing other points of view. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and presenting a neutral point of view is a central tenet of it. That goal replies on editors of differing, often opposing, points of view to collaborate with each other and reach agreement. Without editors of differing points of view, we will not have NPOV, simply POV. --sony-youthpléigh 17:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I get you. Yes, that is at the core of it - though I believe it's more a case of the "pro-B.I. site" believing that the "anti-B.I. side" must be POV pushers, and so must be opposed as a matter of principle. It is a very old dispute - far older than the nine months I've been active on WP - maybe a mediation request (I don't see the value of an RfC has we have had lots of comments) or arbitration would be in order. --sony-youthpléigh 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

re-registration
Goodday, thank you for your suggestion that is most kind. Still have scruples about it, but will rethink. El Jigue208.65.188.149 01:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

!vote-ing
This is fully explained in WP:VOTE and WP:CONSENSUS among other policies and guidelines. !votes are shorthand summaries of to avoid lengthy and wasteful discussions on mundane and non-controversial issues for which there is normally no other outcome except to do or to not to do something. The rule is that a !vote (i.e. Support'/Oppose/etc.) is not as a vote - hence the !, meaning "not" in programming parlance - but a summary of the argument or point that comes after. So, for example, my !vote was Oppose but my real contribution was my explanation why I opposed it. This is why !votes without explanation are unhelpful in forming a consensus. Likewise, this is why explanations such as "as per User:Whoever" are quite pointless - they are just repetition since that point has already been made.

(You might also want to see WP:AADD and the rejected guideline, Wikipedia:Supermajority.) --sony-youthpléigh 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner
This banner is not now or never was the Flag of Northern Ireland, it was a governmental Banner used to represent the former government between 1953-72. It was never a civil flag, and is not recognised by either the British government or the Northern Ireland Executive.--Padraig 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I seen you had reverted your edit after I posted here, the Ulster Banner was a trapping of office of the Former Government under the Act which that government was setup by, when the Parliament and Government was dissolved under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 they ceased to exist.--Padraig 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Read this: The Union Flags and flags of the United Kingdom.--Padraig 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

2007-08 Ottawa Senators season
Why is putting 31st season of NHL hockey in Ottawa wrong? Alaney2k 15:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll
Quite - it's most frustrating when it's fairly clear there is a consensus. The "objections" and "re-openings" seem to me little more than provocational, distruptive and attempts to mock any efforts to engage with them and the wider editting community - I haven't even voted myself!

There's no way either side (by which I mean the eternally enbattled debators!) will "win"; it's clearly a devisive issue with material on each side. My intention was to gauge what a wider user base thought on the matter, and how we can bring about a compromise.... My next tactic is to keep talking about compromise. What do you think?

I'm glad you messaged me however. I was beginning to think that I was on my own! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on List of The Ring world champions
Hey there, just thought I'd let you know that and 🇬🇧 actually produce the same thing. Cheers! east.718 at 22:23, 10/15/2007

Your edit on "List of current world boxing champions"
Hello! Why do you fix something that isn't broken? OF course, UK works also, but it is exactly the same as GBR, and we use three-letters abbreviations in our list for the countries. Nevertheless, thanks for the heads up! Claudevsq 18:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

U.K. or GBR?
Flagicons use ISO/IOC/FIFA standards by convention. See: WP:MoS. Please use the standards of Wikipedia and don't change things that you are not entitled to. Thank you. Claudevsq 15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I hope you didn't interpret my comments as being too aggressive or such. No harm, no foul! Andrwsc 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC) To explain: "GBR" doesn't mean "Great Britain" (the geographic entity) in this context. It's a synonym for "UK" ... richi 00:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC) No apologies needed. The only reason I reverted you was because of both convention (see ) and because it kind of screws up the formatting of the edit window with a two-letter country name. Happy editing! east.718 at 13:04, 10/18/2007 The same for me! Have a nice day! ;-) Claudevsq 14:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Deputy leaders of Israel
It's not confusion, just the fact that the titles do not translate well - the Acting Prime Minister is designated with that title in case they do have to fill the role. As the Knesset website states, "The position of Deputy or Vice Prime Minister is not an official job, rather an honorary position". Her Knesset profile states that she is Acting Prime Minister. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added in the details to the page now - you were right about the confusion, as the MFA refers to Livni as Vice PM. However, I believe Acting Prime Minister is still the preferred term, as this is the role's name in Hebrew. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Yes, it would be nice to be simple and call her Deputy PM, but that name is already taken by another role! Only in Israeli (and possibly old-style Italian) politics would you need so many title to keep so many people happy! пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC) I believe that his title (when he succeeded Sharon) was "Interim Prime Minister" (another title!), as it was after the election and prior to the formation of the current government. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC) I've changed the Olmert one - I'll have a look at the others in due course. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"No surrender!"...?
I totally agree with your sentiments on this issue. It's just-wave-after-wave of disruption, agression and incivility on this issue, with middle-school 2nd rate Google source grabbing to aid a personal (but quite well organised) campaign. I don't (or probably didn't pre-Wiki at least!) have particularly radical or strong views on the UK; I considered my take on this to be the understood mainstream accepted consensual pov on the whole thing.

I've left some comments requesting that people slow down, take some time to gather some material and then present it back to the team for discussion. What's wrong with that eh?.... probably everything. Hope all is well! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. There is certainly a nationalist agenda that creeps in on UK material (though they'll always tell you otherwise of course!). Thing is, it was massively over-represented on Wikipedia during the last few years by bad luck, and only challenged in the last 18 months or so. All I can say is if anything questionable is raised on the talk pages, just ask and ask again for citation; the cracks show very soon with that tactic. Forget the rest, because it doesn't matter. We write not according to our beliefs of point of view, but inline with proper reliable source material and stick to that and you won't be wrong. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Islanders' Roster: Injured List
At the beginning of the season, the Islanders 23-man roster had 13 forwards, 8 defensemen, and 2 goaltenders. Bryan Berard replaced Freddy Meyer on defense. The Islanders had Sim-Silliger-Hunter; Fedotenko-Comrie-Guerin; Hilbert-Vasicek-Satan; Bergenheim-Park-Bootland as the line combos with the sususpended Chris Simon as the spare forward. If you Shawn Bates wasn't on the injured list, you would have 24 active players so it stands to reason that Bates is on the IR. Jeff Tambellini is now with the Bridgeport Sound Tigers. He was emergency recall because the Islanders didn't have a spare forward when Sim was injured until Simon completed his suspension. Raul17 06:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I just followed what was going on last season. Raul17 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Cerdic
Here's what Barbara Yorke, the expert on Wessex, has to say in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England:

CERDIC (d. 534?) was the founder-king from whom all rulers of the Gewisse and Wessex claimed descent. His arrival on the Solent and victories over the British are described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (s.a. 495-534), but there are good reasons to doubt the accuracy of both the chronology and the mythic events. Not the least interesting fact about Cerdic is that his name appears to be a Germanisation of the British name *Caraticos. If he was a historical personage he may have been the leader of a mixed British/Saxon group in the upper Thames where the Gewisse are first reliably recorded." And there you have the short version. The long version is long indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the alert. I'm heavily involved with my local wikiproject at the moment, so struggling to develop the "British" content (though I've just bought a very large book about the evolution of the British people, which should be interesting for quotes!).

On the List of English monarchs, you may want to involve members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty to ensure a fair and lasting consensus is achieved. What do you say? Also, you may be inclined to reply to a suggestion I made at the Britons talk page regarding images. Hope all is well! Do keep me informed of these things, as I'm always keen to pass comment! Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try asking some English people as well? It is clear, User:GoodDay, that you have a certain agenda here. As I understand it, there are Wikipedia rules against canvassing votes. But it matters not in any case, because the royal website overrules any Wiki pedantry. TharkunColl 00:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Agenda for what? Also, how can I be canvassing for votes, when there's no votes being cast, the discussion isn't an Rfc. GoodDay 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Perhaps agenda was the wrong word. I feel that you are sometimes unfamiliar with historical realities, and seek to project modern concepts of "statehood" onto entities which did not organise themselves in those terms. TharkunColl 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Minor" edits
Please see Help:Minor edit. The M tag is for spelling and grammar error corrections. You changed the meaning significantly. You knew it would be controversial, that's why you added a note to Talk:Northern Ireland. If you are in the slightest doubt, don't use the M tag. --Red King 22:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We all learn by our mistakes and no harm done. The advantage of the M tag is that, if you are skimming your 'watched articles' list for changes, you can generally skip over anything with an M tag. Except if the article is Northern Ireland, where nothing is ever uncontroversial. --Red King 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Sorry, I'm obviously overlooking the obvious, but would you mind spelling out the inconsistencies a bit? Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I strongly suggest posting two notes, with details about the discrepancies, at Talk:List of Governors of New York and Talk:List of Governors of Alabama, and see what others have to say. Perhaps there is a difference of opinion out there in the real world as to whether a governor who serves twice, but not sequentially, should be consider only the Nth governor, or the Nth and the (say) Nth+3 governor (as with Grover Cleveland, who sometimes gets counted as one U.S. president and sometimes as two). Anyway, I have to assume that there are a lot of editors more interested in this than I am, and that posting at these talk pages will get some comments. If not, then be bold and change things yourself, and see what happens. (Do only a couple of fixes a day, don't do everything at once and then have someone point out a common error.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Regarding your statement It was an anon editor User: Rkt2312, just a minor correction: the term "anonymous editor" is used for someone editing via an IP address, not for someone who hasn't yet created a user page. And from what I can see of Rtk2312's posts, he does seem to be a good contributor. My guess is that he's using some sort of reference book. More to the point, I regard the discrepancy in numbering to be more serious than the dates when the office ended. In any case, you might ask Rkt about his sources - these two lists aren't the only ones he has edited. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment
Here. What Vintagekits declined to mention in his unblock request, is that the message was from an administrator (myself) who was warning him that his behaviour breached the probation he is under as a result of ArbCom. He thinks that, by unilaterally declaring I don't have the right to post on his talk page, he can avoid administrative action against him. I'm replying here to avoid further provoking him on his talk page. Rockpocket 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Kings
No worries. Just didn't see it noted, so I edited it the way I've been showing injuries for the Saskatchewan Roughriders and Reading Royals all season. I'll keep the format next time Shootmaster 44 05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

NHL stats list
That is possible, but the last two edits were done by registered users. Maybe we can put the comments about "As of the 2006-07 NHL season" before every single subsection, rather than just one before skaters, goalies, and coaches (which I thought would be enough to dissuade most people). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject
At the BRoy WikiProject talk page I said there might not be enough articles to warrant separate "sister-projects." However, on second thought, I wonder if there is enough for a Canadian royalty WikiProject. I figure at least all the articles in Category:Monarchy in Canada could fall under such a project; but, I still don't think it will resolve issues that arise when Thark, et. all, have a hissy fit about sharing their monarchy. What's your take? --G2bambino 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A "hissy fit"? We don't "share" our monarchy - rather we graciously allow you to continue to use it, until such time as you wish to sever the apron strings entirely. TharkunColl 16:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC) As I've noted at Wikipedia: WikiProject British Royalty, Disputed Ownershp of the monarchy, is the core of our problems. GoodDay 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Award
With you being a republican, I thought you might appreciate this:

The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar For your work in the article pertaining to List of English monarchs and the Commonwealth realm monarchies, I G2bambino, hereby award you The Barnstar of Royalty and Nobility.

Compromise
GoodDay, could you please not pursue this "compromise." Applying the same rule to every single article is not a compromise.

There has generally only been one opponent to this shared monarchy reality: Thark. I'm hoping that through discussion he'll see that this really isn't always as simple as saying "British monarchy/monarch/Royal Family." Your "compromise" undermines that necessary subtlty. --G2bambino 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad Wall
While in reality I agree with you, every time there's an election in this country people continually jump the gun with page updates marking the winner as Instant Incumbent!TM well in advance of their actual swearing-in. And if you revert it, somebody else will come along two hours from now and change it back to Brad Wall again. And you'll revert that, and two hours later another person will change it to Brad Wall. And this will keep going on for the entire two weeks or so until the change of government actually takes place. This is why we initiated the practice of noting premiers-designate in infoboxes and templates where necessary — it saves everybody a lot of headaches in the meantime. (One of the joys of being an encyclopedia that anybody can edit: the constant reversion war between accuracy and common belief. Blech.) Bearcat 21:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Bearcat 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Jamaica
I have moved the page back to Monarchy in Jamaica for consistency with all other similar articles. If this is not acceptable then all pages should be considered for a move together. TerriersFan 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Morrissey
Duh. That would be a textbook example of me writing on automatic pilot and making a dumb mistake I completely knew better than to make. And yet I typed the correct category. Weird. Bearcat 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the old ordinal-county style of PEI electoral districts should probably have their own independent articles, if only because it's very difficult for a Wikipedia editor or reader to track their incumbency histories as things currently stand. Which is why, for example, I didn't even know that Morrissey had been in the legislature prior to 1996 — until you raised the issue on the talk page, we didn't have a single article on Wikipedia which contained that information. Bearcat 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) I can start doing some pretty basic stubs, but I don't have nearly enough background knowledge of PEI politics to write anything really thorough. Bearcat 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks muchly. That'll help a lot. Bearcat 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

British Isles
It happens regularly - don't worry, it never goes ahead, not even worth discussing. It's an effect of the dislike for the term in Ireland, where the term seen as a dated throw-back to the age of the empire. (However, even desipte this regular practical evidience - as well as the manyfold published sources - a certain section of editors still claim that objection to the term is "made up on Wikipedia" by "POV pushing extremists" etc. etc. *grumble* *grumble*)

In sum, don't worry about it - not going to happen. It's just a random reader expressing their dislike for the phrase. --sony-youthpléigh 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply
You should have left the message quicker. I was done by the time I read it. -- Scorpion0422 16:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Motive
GoodDay, I'm just curious about your actions in the various debates currently going on. Is your modus operandi primarily to have a decision reached as fast as possible, no matter what the resultant text is? If so, I fear that doesn't do much for the quality of Wikipedia. --G2bambino 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My main concern? Article stability. GoodDay 22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Goodie - for consistency I replied at my talk. Cheers. --G2bambino 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

royal family
It sure won't help the discussion! I'm just incredibly sick of this tediousness. I'm willing to be constructive in working out an acceptable compromise, but really, the fact that we need to constantly compromise on these things compromises wikipedia by allowing it to be the platform for G2's POV, in however reduced a form. There is absolutely no need to mention the commonwealth realms in an article about the royal family's burial grounds in Windsor. Including the same tedious pedantry in every article that mentions the royal family (even if only in a footnote), makes wikipedia look ridiculous, and detracts from the quality and clarity of our articles. The best solution would be if we didn't have to deal with that nonsense - i.e., if G2 could be banned. In the absence of such a possibility, minimizing the damage is the best that can be hoped for, and I'm willing to do what I can to accomplish that, and I think a footnote is the best way to do it, but it'd be a lot better if we didn't have to have ridiculous arguments about this every couple of weeks. john k (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as that's clear. Everyone interested obviously has the right to work on the article. But a lasting compromise cannot be found by letting one side write one part of the article, which is what I thought you were suggesting. I'm fine with mentioning the commonwealth realms in a footnote (although, as noted, I think it's entirely unnecessary). I have some interest in seeing that the content of that footnote is not misleading. john k (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re clarify
GoodDay, I see what you do and you try and mediate between warring factions which I admire and appreciate but by moving out the indents you change the whole meaning of the posts. Your post and JK's were made before I had made mine and so by moving the indent it made it look like you were commenting on mine and leaving JK's made it look like he was replying to me, if that makes sense. Anyway I realise my edit comment was not appropriate and am sorry if I caused you offence. Regards,--Bill Reid | Talk 19:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Article title poll
GoodDay- sorry about the poll at Talk:Commonwealth realm monarchies; I wanted to set something up for discussion before actually opening it to the "public," so to speak. That talk page was the wrong place to do so. I've moved that stuff to User:G2bambino/sandbox. --G2bambino (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's weird. Must be a ghost in the machine. --Lholden (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC) GD- The Commonwealth realms monarchies article has been deleted, along with the talk page. Wisely, Nat archived the discussion at Talk:Commonwealth realm/monarchies, but this hides the discussion where, I imagine, a number of people previously involved won't know where to find it. In my mind, the discussion is done; there was a strong vote in favour of making all the artilces the same under the format "Monarchy of [X]." Thark's pleas about consensus aren't really valid; the vote was set up in such a way so as to lay out all the options, and those inbetween the two extremes of all and nothing were soundly defeated. With them out of the way, "all" received double the support of "nothing." I think the moves should therefore take place, but worry Thark will still cause a stink. --G2bambino (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, "with them out of the way", you're right. But in fact, many of those favoured exactly the same solution as would be the case had the "nothings" won, so to exclude them is completely invalid. What the vote showed, as also so did the previous one you conducted, is that there is no consensus for change. TharkunColl (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No disruptions
I won't cause any disruptions if a proper move vote is conducted. You'll see that moving them all to "Monarchy of X" was one of the options I voted for. john k (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, misread you - I looked very quickly. If Tharkun makes disruptions, this can be dealt with through normal processes, I should think. I don't see how he could object to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, given parallels like Monarchy of Belgium, Monarchy of the Netherlands, Monarchy of Sweden, and so forth. john k (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's how approval polls are normally done. john k (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth stuff
I always welcome your contributions on the monarchy related pages. I glanced at your comments to G2 and Thark. Hope you don't mind. I feel frustrated too - as soon as we start having a reasonable discussion, we have the Dynamic Duo take over the floor. One with the pro-Canadian agenda; the other with the pro-British one. And both are red rags to the other, and treat others as if they are mere onlookers. Oh well, we do what we can eh?--Gazzster (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

One or both will eventually hang themselves with their own rope. Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

All I see thats ok. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 04:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, he's lost it and we may not hear from him for a while. Mind you, he has lost it before and come back. I'm sure he will return.--Gazzster (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NHL Statistical Leaders Delimna
While he may not be "active", the problem is that this is supposed to be through the 2006/07 season. Now, when do we update the "active" status -- at the end of the season -- or now. Remember, we do not update any other current player stats until the end of the season. Thus the root of the problem. -Pparazorback (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thark
Hey GD - I see Thark is trying to goad us into an argument over the poll pertaining to the titles of the Commownealth realms monarchies articles. I'm going to modify my earlier promise to ignore him into one in which I'll ignore him for useless spats like the one he's trying to bait us into now. I think silence is a better response to this than anything else. Do you agree? --G2bambino (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd
Hi GoodDay. Thanks for the message, and thanks for the civil debate. It's always good to grapple with a strongly-held alternative view in a constructive and peaceful way. Just a note of friendly caution: When it comes to specific terms which are widely used in one country but not necessarily in another, even though they both have Westminster parliamentary systems, it's usually best to let the natives have their way. (Mind you, some Aussie editors were also arguing for designate, so I would have had a battle anyway.) I guess what I saw your position coming down to was why you believed "PM-elect" shouldn't be used by Australians. I understood your argument entirely, which is why I explained it the way I did most recently. We could debate forever whether it should or shouldn't be used by Australians, but the fact is that it is used by Australians, and it is the widely accepted term here. That's all that really matters in the end, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Enough of that. I too keenly await a republic, so bring it on. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, what a period. You could not imagine what it was like to live through that. Every day we were left wondering "What on earth is going to happen next?". The culmination, Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam on 11 November and the immediate aftermath, was actually far more exciting (if that's the right word - dramatic and unbelievably shocking would be better) than any report of it I've ever read conveys. I lived in Canberra at the time, we all heard that Gough had been sacked, through the grapevine at work even before we could get to a radio, and I was only 15 minutes walk from Parliament House. I have few regrets in my life (not because I haven't made mistakes - colossal, stupendous mistakes; I just don't generally believe in regretting what can't be changed) - but one of them is that I didn't take a sickie that Tuesday afternoon (or just say, I'm going to be where the action is, like it or not) and go down to Parliament House and be a part of history happening, rather than waiting till I got home and seeing it on TV. If you can get your hands on the DVD "The Dismissal" (1983), I recommend it. It's a dramatisation of the main events. I haven't seen it for years now, and only dimly remember what some of the acting was like, so it may have dated a little, but it was compulsory viewing when it was made and generally very well received, and is still a good seller for the ABC. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl WQA
Quite alright. I appreciate your frustration with this situation, and I think User:TharkunColl's behaviour has been problematic, to say the least. But Wikiquette alerts only work when all involved are willing to listen to the views of and work with third parties. TharkunColl has indicated that he wants nothing further to do with this at the Wikiquette alert level, so unfortunately escalating to WP:RFC/U or letting it drop are the only remaining options (as he made abundantly clear with his most recent post). Please let me know if you do decide to go the WP:RFC/U route; I've only been very tangentially involved with this, but I'd be happy to provide my two cents at that level if desired. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: British monarchy
No. Actually, that potentially could be perceived as abuse of my admin tools, just make another request on WP:RFP and somebody else will take care of it. east.718 at 01:40, November 27, 2007

Re:TSO1D
Actually editors did call for all the X monarchies to be moved to Monarchy of X. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

and no, i don't think Tharky would have cooperated, but that's my opinion, i might be wrong though. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC) I honestly have no idea how Thark would have acted. But I think his main (and really only) concern was to keep the page at British monarchy. I can understand his reasoning, although I do not agree with the way in which he acted. So in summary, I don't think he was very interested in how the general debate about such articles went. I think the only thing that might have helped convince the others to accept the move is if a discussion had been held on that article's talk page and the move was supported by a strong majority. TSO1D (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators
And yet again, you have to muck it up! Why can you not just put something to discuss on the Sens' talk page. Where do you get off putting non-encyclopedic text into my fine prose? :-) Alaney2k (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

However, you feel the need to editorialize, which is what "NHL no longer recognizes", surely is. I still have to figure out how to finish up the section on Bring Back the Senators Campaign. "The Senators were back" seemed to fit. Seriously, instead of being helpful, you seem to want to provoke, doesn't it seem that way? Alaney2k (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC) My point is, why not leave out the editorializing, and stick with what is encyclopedic. In a section about bringing back the Senators, the certificate fits, it shows the NHL was happy to have Ottawa back, it's not a legal statement. It only took $50 mil to get the city back in the league for starters. :-) It's how the NHL president welcomed Ottawa back, not some sort of 'waking the dead'. Besides, I'd put the Senators failed at the top of the section. How about your comments in a citation? Alaney2k (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC) I have no objection to having the Eagles stuff there. It's encyclopedic. Great, thanks. See we can work together. :-) I'd prefer that next time you just put a note on my talk page, first, though. Alaney2k (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) There is another issue on the Sens' page. Jersey number 18 is either retired or honoured, it seems. It probably should be listed somehow. I put it on the Sens' talk page. Alaney2k (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy of the UK
GD- don't mind User:Merkinsmum; he's Tharky's bestest friend here on Wikipedia and backs him in everything he does (did?). --G2bambino (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

PMs directly elected
Israel's populace directly elected their PM for a while (1996-2001) see Prime Minister of Israel#Prime Ministerial elections but I agree I have not found any other such aberrations. Prime minister#Entry into office seems to cover the possibilities with a qualification at the end of the section about mostly appointed not elected.--Matilda talk 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regretful / Regrettable
(Fulfilling my daily quota of quibble here. :-) ) I see in a Talk page that you several times referred to things as "regretful". AFAIK, people may be "regretful". ("Full of regret; sorrowful or sorry") Things may be "regrettable". ("Eliciting or deserving regret") http://www.bartleby.com/61/73/R0127300.html http://www.bartleby.com/61/74/R0127400.html (Though I guess that this could be a Commonwealth English / Non-Commonwealth English issue, in which case please ignore this.) Have a good one! -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Cash Line
As I mentioned, let me put the data into the article, then judge. There is the benefit of hindsight with the lines that you have mentioned. We shouldn't prejudge their notability. They are signed for a few more seasons together, they may anchor a Stanley Cup win or two. That said, they are all notable players already. Alaney2k (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised by Djsasso's reaction. These 'line' articles have been around for a while now. I didn't create it. I worked on it so we could discuss it. Hard to say what the line of notability is. Every team has a top line, except maybe the Habs, according to Lafleur :-) You've got to be somewhat notable to make it to the Finals, and I think the line carried them there. Alaney2k (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I think the line's notable already. But it's not up to me. Consensus is fine. Alaney2k (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Re: the copy in my space. It's my copy in my space. I don't know the rules about recreating an article. Obviously creating the one in the Sens space was a mistake. I was going to propose housing the article proper there. The reason for creating a copy was to work on it, for the future. I don't think that 5 days is enough to work on an article, so I figure, well, I'll create a copy to work on. As for spying on me, you and Djsasso have been doing it for a while. I've gotten used to it. It's no big deal. I feel a bit like the round peg in the square hole, and I am learning about the Wikipedia politics, etc. Alaney2k 15:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) No offense about the 'spying' thing meant. Really. I am learning about it must appear to others. I tend to do things, like the editing first, (e.g. Sens/CASH line) not thinking about how it's going to look to others. Sometimes, it means something to myself, but others think it means the opposite. I'm learning to tolerate them. :-) (And I always have to remember to put in the 'smileys'.) I still think I am on some ed's bad side, however and I realize it won't make any points in any debates I raise. Alaney2k 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

PM Elect
Yes, I agree; if you wanna be technical, PM designate is the way to go.I was surprised when I heard the media talking about PM elect.But not for the reasons G2 and others say. I thought it was an Americanism, and I'm suspicious of Americanisms. On the other hand, PM elect reflects the Aussie attitude toward politics. Australia's a republic with a queen; at least, that's the way most Aussies think of our country. But of course, if the Australian media has made the term acceptable in Australia, Wikipedia must accept that too.--Gazzster (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just would like to clear one thing up regarding Australian politics. I have seen this issue raised in a couple of places recently about prime ministers. It is true that in some countries (I believe France is one), the president appoints the prime minister and the prime minister is never actually elected. However, in Australia the prime minister is elected and not appointed by the head of state (the Governor-General) - merely sworn in by the head of state. The people elect the prime minister - or rather, vote for the political party he or she is the leader of. I hope this has cleared some things up - I would like to ensure that the same facts are known by all in AfD debates, etc. Auroranorth (!) 13:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Um... sorry, no, that's not the way things work in Australian elections. Rudd was elected to his seat in the House of Representatives and he was also elected as leader of the Australian Labor Party, who the Australian voters voted in majority for. Hope that clears things up - Australia's a democracy! Auroranorth (!) 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

El Jigue
I can understand that, and if he had just restricted his complaining to myself and people who had actually interacted with him I might have left it unprotected. But he's apparently watching the Cuba page and complaining about anyone who edits in a manner he doesn't agree with, and I feel like that's unfair to a drive-by editor who's not familiar with the situation. But I suppose if you wanted to keep dialoguing with him you could give him your email address. :) Natalie 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Evel Knievel (1938-2007)
RIP Evel, you had guts man. Stuntmen bow their heads in silence. GoodDay 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground
Oops, you're right. I shouldn't have tagged it with Lame, then - convention is not to do so to an ongoing edit war, only to those that are historical. It looked to me as though the dispute had been resolved, but obviously I should have looked closer. I'm sorry for that, but on the other hand, I stand by my judgement... it is a rather minor thing to be arguing over (although one that people obviously care about deeply). Anyway, good luck with reaching some kind of consensus soon! Terraxos 02:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and RIP Evil Knievel as well. Terraxos 02:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving bot....
Hey GoodDay, I came across an archiving bot last night which I set up on my Usertalk page and thought you might want to look at it. If you are interested, look at my talk page, edit the page, and the additions I made were the stuff from the top of the page down to where it says 'do not add anything above this line'. The User:MiszaBot is the archiving bot and it runs between 7:30 AM and 9:30 AM every morning. It will archive based on whatever settings you set automatically. Additionally, I have set up links to the archive as well. Thought you might be interested. --Pparazorback (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been meaning for awhile to point him in the direction of a bot. I use a different one but saw this one last night when Maxim added it. Its much more configurable than mine so I might have to switch over to it. --Djsasso (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Australian Politics
Thanks for showing me the Harper stuff. Yes, the PM designate thing was different, because PM elect is simply a matter of fact. The term is used in Australian politics. Why should the terminology of a nation be judged by Wiki editors? It is PM elect. And no matter how editors may deplore it (I cannot fathom why) the fact remains that the term is used in Australia. In the context of Australia it is right. And this idea idea of context fits into this other issue. The article is about an Australian head of government, not the Monarch of Australia. In context it is simply irrelevant. This consistent obsession, bordering on mania toinsert the name of the monarch wherever it could possibly fit is positively anal. I'm referring of course to only a small group of editors. Simply because a fact is accurate does not mean it needs to be inserted. It is inserted only if it has relevance. Think of the MOnarchy of Australia, also called Monarchy of Australia thing! Granted, that was extreme, but really, must we be confronted the Sacred Name everywhere?

As usual, stimulating and enjoyable discussing with you.--Gazzster (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I meant to say Monarchy of Aus. = Australi. Monarchy--Gazzster (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I'll do a bit of research after lunch, bud. Back to u soon!--Gazzster (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Back after creamed corn on toast. Yum! I should think the place to go would be Wikiproject biography. WikiProject reform gives guidelines and advice for proposing reforms. Give us a hoy if you want a hand. Wouldn't mind helping. Cheers, fellow wikiphile!--Gazzster (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All?
You can't just say that all countries need to confirm to one style. That is not how wikipedia works, and will not work. Timeshift (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record
Orderinchaos, the latest to chip in, is an administrator and does know the workings of wikipedia pretty well. Timeshift (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Head of State I'm with you (it has little bearing on the PM except in countries where the President or monarch is in command and chooses the Prime Minister) but why Elections? It seems elections are really key to the role of Prime Minister and election campaigns can shape a Prime Ministership (our last PM Howard, for instance, will probably be able to be judged on little else by the history books). Orderinchaos 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC) See you all tommorow, it's bedtime for me. If things are straigtened out by then? All the better, for us all. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC) I like that reasoning OiC - whichever it is that in practice chooses the party and/or PM, the HoS or the electors, that should be added. In Australia's case, the HoS is a formality and has no bearing, unlike the election which has every bearing. Timeshift (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

PM Infoboxes
Ta. I added my comments. I'm loving this! Something to sink my teeth into. Cheers!--Gazzster (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!
The United Kingdom Barnstar of National Merit For your tireless work and thoughtful dedication put into various aspects of the United Kingdom!... We'd be lost without you! Keep up the good work! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC) this WikiAward was given to GoodDay by -- Jza84 · (talk) on 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'd been meaning to give you one for a while but couldn't find a template. I ending up making one for purpose and you're the joint-first to get one of these! Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't leave the British Monarchs alone, now we have to tackle the French ; lol !
Thanks. I reckon I might have to do a rethink. If the sources are right (and I would feel happier checkin em) Henry V was proclaimed king by the French people. 'Louis XIX' is a bit iffy. And I've thought of someone else! --Gazzster (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what makes Wiki such fun! (Sigh) I suppose I may get a real life one day! lol Cheers--Gazzster (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kings of France??
Legally, yes, Henry and Louis-Antoine were each King of France and of Navarre. Known as such though? Mostly not and certainly I doubt they are really counted as such inasmuch as Jane Grey is omitted at times as an English monarch. These are exceptional cases which means WP:NC(NT) does not have to apply. If anything though, I would certainly have the regnal names in the very first line with "more commonly known as... " or "known to history as... ". The user you speak of is just arguing for the sake of it. Article titles are dictated chiefly by most common name if it differs significantly from legal/actual name. Charles 06:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lord Loxley
I don't know who the previous user is; if you have good reason to believe the two are synonymous, I suggest you report the IP. Michael Sanders 16:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, tattletale! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting response. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Red herrings are my specialty. Are you ready for a fishing expedition? Come join the fun! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't be bothered. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC) The thing is, I believe a "username" is vanity or hubris. If one cannot be taken seriously based upon edits alone, then there is too much reliance on appearances and facade. To put it plainly, Wikipedia is not about me--it's about the data. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, there's no fixing Wikipedia's apparent design flaw. Crazies run amok and I ought to let it go into the quicksand. Who cares? Nobody takes it seriously. I'm not going to take it un my shoulders anymore. If you want to rectify these particulars, then you can be the hero. Good luck. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency
Hi GoodDay. I can understand your push for consistency regarding PM infoboxes. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. Of course, consistency should mean real discussion about which option is best, not arguing "it has to be like ...", as happened with the royal anthems, where a Canadian editor added GSTQ to all the Commonwealth realms and then people argued it had to be in the Australia infobox "because all the others have it", without even considering the fact that most of the others shouldn't have it anyway. Similarly, if someone objects to "federal monarchy" as a description of Australia because it is OR and unsourced, perhaps it shouldn't be used for Canada either.

Anyway, whatever we make of consistency, I am completely baffled by the way you brought it up at Talk:Australia yesterday. You said it should simply be "constitutional monarchy" and implied that anything else was part of a trend to set Australia apart. This just doesn't make sense. Look at all the other Commonwealth realm infoboxes. They don't simply say "constitutional monarchy". How does including "parliamentary democracy" set Australia apart from the other realms? What is wrong with setting Australia apart from the realms which are not federations by including "federal" in some form, as is already done for Canada? In this case, I can't understand why you would mention consistency other than to complain about the completely unrelated PM infoboxes. JPD (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Emperor-Elect
Thanks for the note. I'm afraid I've moved on from that subject, though. In fact, I've moved on from Wikipedia, lately. Only seem to have time to drop in occasionally. If I get more active again eventually, we may cross paths again!--Eldred (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß
Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal WikiProject and template standardization
Hi GoodDay, I would your input on two discussions I have initiated at WikiProject Biography/Royalty, one on template standardization and one on name of the WikiProject and redirects to it. Thanks in advance! Charles 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding the Phillips Children
I addressed a comment to you in the discussion about including the Phillips kids at Template talk:British Royal Family that really shouldn't have directed at you. I think I misread or partially read what you were really saying. If you have read my post, I apologize for any confusion or annoyance I may have caused. If you have not, sorry for any confusion this post is causing,and I deleted the "GoodDay," from the beginning of the post, so never mind. -Rrius (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Edit_War
You know it! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just think, mostly the only people who seem to be causing trouble with the composite nature of Spain seem to be separatists like the Basques and Catalans, although can you believe it? There are some Castilians and Aragonese, as well as Balearicans too! I despise politically motivated editing and in this case, it is crisp and clear as a cloudless day. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Combine profile, edit history and style of personal approach or tone on the issues. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip I of Castile
It's annoying, but not excessively so. Just means that we can't necessarily take on trust that a monarch with a regnal number was ever actually monarch in their own right (what I find more annoying is when it's unclear how much power rulers who weren't rulers in their own right actually had - which isn't really the case here, since both the power balance between Isabella and Ferdinand, and the conniving in 1504-1506, are pretty clear, but which can be confusing in cases such as Eleanor of Aquitaine, whose inheritance got passed around a lot during her lifetime). Michael Sanders 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Too true. It would probably have happened in Britain if the circumstances had ever been appropriate (e.g. if John had died leaving only a daughter, who would have been at risk of the traditional fate of heiresses); however, as it turned out, most of the English and Scottish Queens were strong enough to be able to directly rule, and dictate how much power the males had, and most of those men were thus never titled King (and the only time this didn't happen - William and Mary - it was by will of Parliament). I'd imagine Francis II of France or Philip II of Spain might have got an ordinal had they left dynasties ruling in the Isles; as it is, however, there's no particular reason for posterity to honour them. Sadly, ordinals, like so much else, are political rather than rational - otherwise, why exclude Louis I of England or Henry II of France? Michael Sanders 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) If you want dodgy ordinals, you should look at the monarchs in the Holy Roman Empire and Germany - Lothar II never ruled either, there's a surplus Louis IV, and a few other quirks...Michael Sanders 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Offensive remarks
Our friendly neighbourhood anon hits a new low with a rant against "fags", transexuals (and those doctors who operate upon them) and both the Scots and those who attempt to portray James I/VI as being 'of their persuasion'. Any ideas on what to do about him? Michael Sanders 14:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

List of English monarchs
Could you fix List of English monarchs please? Michael Sanders 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't canvassing against the rules? GoodDay and I have had long discussions about these issues. See List of Canadian monarchs for example. I have provided an ironclad reference for my edits. TharkunColl (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Michael Sanders 18:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Please revert your reversion of my edits, or explain why my reference is no good. Also perhaps you could explain why you were far less keen to apply the same principles to List of Canadian monarchs. I will simply revert back tomorrow if you don't. TharkunColl (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Prof. David Starkey
Please explain why he isn't good enough to use as a reference for Wikipedia. TharkunColl (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hijacking
en.wiki has been hijacked? I couldn't agree more. But the issue remains open. Please do not lose heart, nor give up the struggle for what you know is best. Unschool (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Your principles are sound and in order, don't fret. If at all you feel stressed, take a short break from issues like this. If you feel wrongs are being made, try to right them if you can. You have a lot of like-minded people with you :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 12:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:
you need to show Gaelic for demonstrative reasons

That's clearly it! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC) That is indeed one of the hot issues atm: inconsistency. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I'm not that knowledgeable about that issue, and other things are taking up my time. I apologize. John might have something to say on that though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dates of US Congress
GoodDay, I have looked for new justification for changing the ending dates of the earlier Congresses from March 3 to March 4, but have been unable to find it. As you recall we went through this once before and I thought it was settled. I recognize you have information that many sessions actually ended after midnight on the 3rd, but regardless every record I have seen published by the Congress and all the source material perpared by the most pre-eminent scholars in the field- all give the ending date as March 3. What you have done amounts to "original research," a good thing for a professor, but one of the seven deadly WP sins for us, I'm told. Please identify the congressional or scholarly source that gives your dates in place of the March 4- March 3 dates, or I must ask that you please leave the March 3 date in place. stilltim (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I added my comment to the discussion. In re-reading the discussion I see no new information to what was said a year ago. stilltim (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Scottish monarchs
There's a mass move request for the early Scottish monarchs to the Gaelic forms. If you're interested, see Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland. Michael Sanders 17:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Message
There is a message for you here. LarRan (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Facial features of McCartney and Lennon
GoodDay 'eagle-eyes' should get a reward. (I'll think of one... :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You could add your name to this, if you like. :) --andreasegde (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:James_I_of_England#Category:LGBT_royalty_SECTION_BREAK_VI
Check out my change of approach! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But as always, they had to play innocent--anything to win. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a [Category:Conspiracy theories] and there might as well be simply a [Category:LGBT theories]. I would indeed vouch for that! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See here. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My only interest in King James is the political environment? I find it upsetting that some have taken it upon themselves to drag it through the mud for self satisfaction. As if King James and his son didn't do enough damage on their own, but taking their enemies' slurs to heart, while claiming to lift him up as a misunderstood "such and such", is only ensuring that the matter never becomes clear. I repeat, I'm extremely interested in the Tudor inheritance and struggle between the King and Parliament, as well as all the numerous events which seem to be obscure in the present day, ignored in the discussion of the violence. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah to Canada! Well, my take on the royalism is that the Scots have every right to be royalists on the matter and represent their view, just as the English have every right to display parliamentarian views. The best thing is, to present both sides in a conglomerate image of Charles II, for instance. Always listen to both sides of the story, if they be significant and not fringe theories, et al. After all, there are good and bad to all people and their reputations, or what they did/failed to do. While being opposed to what happened to the British Isles in one way, I can see pragmatically other important reasons why things went the way they did. Being Roman Catholic, it is unfortunate that the only way for England (and Ireland) were to remain a great power in Europe, was to conform to the Scottish dictates (consider the Scottish Ian Paisley in NI with respect to Catholics) and concede to only aristocratic control of our own home country. It would habe been much better for the Tudor dominions if the heirs of Lady Jane Grey were to win the Crown and then somehow annex Scotland that way, but it took Cromwellians and the Prime Ministers as a substitute for the natural pride Englishmen are bound to have with regards to the Scots and their rightful claim to France. The Stuarts and Hanoverians totally obliterated these cherished ideals and caused republicanism in both England and Ireland, but I think France's republicanism is doubly due to these issues and the Bourbon intrigues with Spain. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
Greetings, GoodDay! I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:

Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality. Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles. I value your input. If you wish to submit a review of those articles, just go to those articles's talk pages and click on the relevant links. Thanks, and I look forward to seeing your opinion. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Yup, thanks for the kind words both this year, and back in that messy Naming Conventions debate. :) Best wishes for a great new year, --Elonka 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk archive
Hi, I stumbled upon your user page and saw you didn't know how to make an archive. If you want one, click this link and create it: Usert talk:GoodDay/Archive. By adding a ' / ' (slash) behind your user page/user talk you can create any new page for yourself that you want, like your own sandbox. Hope I was being helpful and not causing annoyance ;-) Thanks. Harald Khan Ճ 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Clinton Lege
Did you even read the article? "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is the junior United States Senator from New York, and a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.

Clinton was re-elected by a wide margin in 2006. Long described as a polarizing figure in American politics, during 2007 she was consistently ranked as the front-runner in national polls for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president. She remains a leading presidential candidate.

Having it twice seems a little pointless - i wont breach 3RR so ill let you bask in your creation of illogic. Ricxster (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Delegate counts
Saw your question on Talk:Barack Obama about the number of delegates each candidate currently has. CNN has a pretty good list of the delegates (including a poll of superdelegates to determine who they are currently leaning towards) here. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First woman
I personally think that the fact she is the first WOMAN in the 300+ year history of the states with a chance at becoming president (after all the history of oppression, the suffragettes etc..) is historic and should be counted. It would be counted in any other woman no doubt - so why should hillary's achievement not be know? Ricxster (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You do make a good point - but i think that gender trumps age in terms of how momentous and historic her win could be...could you imagine a woman president in the 1800, the early 1900? Her achievement is testament to how far woman have come over the years, and should be reported. Reagan is not reported as being the oldest first term as age (most likely) is not a factor in deciding outcome - where her [Clinton] gender (and the fact that woman were instrumental in her NH victory and perhaps her campaign in general) will no doubt be.

It should be reported that Obama could be the first black candidate - that in itself is just as historic and really shows how far America has come. We all remember the civil rights moment and the fact that people were murdered over race - its shocking that its not in his lege - you should add it (or at least discuss what other people think) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have no standing to offer your opinion, this is a grievance between two party's - there is no ocassion for a third. If your 11 year career was insulted, you would wish an apology.

Jean Chrétien‎
I just saw your comment on the AFD. Seeing as the AFD is closed, I'll reply here. Actually, I made a semi-goof in my comment, although the nominator had made one that mislead me. The nominator had actually put an AFD notice on the main article, but the links in the AFD discussion were to the redirect page. I'll stick by my time-wasting comment though.:O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Federal monarchy
I've nominated this article for deletion. Care to check it out?--Gazzster (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Conformity
Well it's hard to make everyone like one thing, and the old saying applies 'if it's not broke, don't fix it'. Whilst conformity would be nice, the infoboxes aren't exactly an issue at the moment, they just aren't all consistent. That's why people are sticking with the status quo IMHO. What does annoy me however is those who advocate that all infoboxes of leaders regardless of country on wikipedia should be the same. Top-down consistency is bad for wikipedia, regional variances based on local editing based on individual or collective consensus at a local level is the only way IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Some of them. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that when there are contesting officeholders, co-officeholders, acting officeholder and people who have been officeholders more than once, it tends to skew the number depending on how you look at it and in the case of several times, it clutters the infobox. A prime example would be if people numbered the Popes. Switzerland is also a problem (though people don't generally number them), as there are so President and Councilors and ordering the Councilors is Hell. I'm sure there's a WikiProject, but I'm not part of it and have no idea what it is. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, If you find it, please come and tell me. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I am not moving The Duchy of Pless into Duchy of Pszczyna, I was just opposed to naming Pszczyna to Pless.--Molobo (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not discussing the name of the Pszczyna now. In English when the duchy existed, its capital was at Pless. The article read Pless (Pszczyna, Poland) until it was removed non-constructively. Charles 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice comments
The Socratic Barnstar I didn't know what kinda star to give to you. I was searching sort of "Refreshing Dose of Common Sense" barnstar; this comment and this one. I agree with you completely on this topic; it's a great tragedy that issues related to The Troubles have reached an article about the NHL. About North American hockey. Tragic story, really. Maxim(talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

NHL country stats
I'm with you on this. It's pathetic that people have decided to make this a huge political battle when the fact of the matter is they are outright wrong. Grsz11 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See my latest comment on the page. To imply that Owen Nolan and Sid Finney were from the Republic of Ireland is down right ignorant and stupid. Atleast we don't have to deal with this problem with the former Soviet republics, as that would be disaster. Grsz11 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I will go ahead a create a category of Northern Ireland, atleast for those two for now. There should be no question over that, and there is no justification to argue it or revert it. Grsz11 (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I know how you feel. Its rather annoying that people get involved in the business of others when it clearly has no bearing on them. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC) It's great how these individuals have never edited a hockey article before. Grsz11 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey article
Yeah, I know; if this is anything like previous Ireland-related articles it could drag on for a long time, thus I generally try to neutral the article while discussion takes place (or not, as the case may be). BLACKKITE 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It will indeed be a challenge, something I'm not looking forward to. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) If you know how to request arbitration, I think it is time we need it at List of National Hockey League statistical leaders by country. Grsz11 (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You werent having a very good day with links today, ha. You would think you would have learned the difference by now, haha. Grsz11 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: too late
Yep, it's a shame. A 7-day ban on editing a single article (and related talk pages) was hardly a big deal, but now she's continuing to make personal attacks against any admin who comes near the case, and has ended up with a full 24 hour block and her talk page protected! She seems to have a problem with me personally (and from her edits, apparently it's a long term thing) but I've got no idea what that problem is, or what caused it, other than my nationality and desire to abide by WP community decisions. I just hope she comes back calmer, otherwise at this rate she'll end up with an indefinite block. Waggers (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
You're one of the 'gents' I was talking about. I am still critical of Wikipedia; I've been thinking about it for a while. Unfortunately it is anything but collaborative. What it calls 'consensus' is a joke. And why should consensus determine content if consensus is wrong? The kind of intellectual thuggery one sees tends to determine content. But perhaps I just need a break. I have had a lot of fun. We'll see. Cheers, mate!--Gazzster (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moves
I thought you were following my contribs. See Wikipedia:Requested moves or Category:Requested moves. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

CCR
No, not Credence Clearwater Revival, but Citizens for a Canadian Republic, where a user seems to want to revisit the polls issue we discussed earlier at that page. Perhaps you'd like to comment again. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll stick around a while
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on Blackadder and George Burns!--Gazzster (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but
that's why I made the articles say "A leading candidate" instead of "THE leading candidate." Why do you insist on not using a descriptor that very clearly applies to both of these candidates (HRC and Obama)? As for the Republican race, I don't watch those articles, so I don't know if McCain, Romney, and Huckabee have similar descriptors, nor do I care. -- Bellwether BC 20:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It categorically makes no sense to not describe the leading candidates (HRC and Obama) as such. If, after February 5, one of them wipes the floor with the other, then the descriptor can become "the leading candidate." But, it makes no sense not to describe a leading candidate as "a leading candidate," whether of 5 February or 31 January. -- Bellwether BC 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC) "Five more days wouldn't hurt" isn't an extremely compelling reason for keeping accurate descriptors out of articles, in my view. -- Bellwether BC 20:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis Captains
I know you are big on captains and St. Louis page has someone messing with it again. I can't touch it myself or I will break the 3RR rule. So thought you might want to take a look and revert back to what was there if you feel it is appropriate. -Djsasso (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl Albert
You were right. There was clearly a conflict in that section. I have edited that section to remove that conflict (he would have been Acting President). I also removed a faulty reference to the Twenty fifth Amendment in that section. The Speaker becoming Acting President is covered by the 1947 Act, to the extent it's permissible under the Constitution, not by the Twenty fifth Amendment. Thanks for pointing out the error in that article. We make a good team. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal Page do's & don'ts
What is this cant you vandalaise the pages of muslim who support censorshið?

RE: Dominion
Did I erase it? If so, I apologise: you must have commented in between mine. Feel free to restore it. Anyhow, perhaps you've been mislead or misinformed: I recommend reading Alan Rayburn's Naming Canada; as well, please consult the talk page of 'Dominion' for relevant references. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Blues about St.Louis
I looked at this. But there are not reliable sources for the current season that I could find. This rotation business is a bit odd. I don't know what to suggest as I don't know if the St. Louis papers have anything on it. Would a St. Louis reporter be worth e-mailing? Alaney2k (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sens Captains
I hadn't noticed about the 3 alternates being used by Paddock. If anything, it could point to a dissatisfaction with Redden. I think it will be his last season in Ottawa, which would be a shame. IMHO, he gets dumped on unfairly as he usually has Corvo or Meszaros as partners, neither of which are reliable defensively. Alaney2k (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

about your initial question, I would put the 3 A's in the season article. But, what reliable source do we have? It's like the Blues captains in that way. Alaney2k (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sens vs. Tigers
I bring this up with you, partly because it's not ready for WP:HOCKEY and because we usually disagree. :-) The Calgary Tigers article includes both the times when they were with the WCHL/WHL (eligible for Stanley Cup) and the leagues afterwards. This is inconsistent with the Ottawa Senators (original) and Ottawa Senators (senior hockey) articles. While the second one is but a stub, the same organization operated both, with the same logos, etc. After I develop the senior one more, would you think it possible or 'right' to merge them both? After all the 'original' one includes the team from several leagues, as well. Alaney2k (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Gustavus Adolphus
I think GA is one of the few exceptions, because it's what I call him, and I believe I am following normal English usage. I would also use Henry the Lion or Charles the Bold, because they are normal usage. Kings are rarer, although I would use Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Edward the Confessor, Harald Hardraadi and above all Charlemagne, following English usage. Except for the Carlolingians and probably the Kings of Norway, I would not do so for other European monarchs; I do, however, strongly support Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the other Hellenistic kings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal Information
Hi GoodDay. I didn't notice it when it was first posted but you made a comment on Talk:Tom Freda 2 weeks ago that could lead some to mistakenly believe that I'm the subject of the page. I'm not assuming ill-intent, however, this is considered a violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy against posting personal information Wikipedia:Harass#Posting_of_personal_information. Would you mind removing the name? (Thanks) For the record, Tom Freda and other CCR members support and assist my editing, a task which I have volunteered to do as my contribution to the movement. - MC Rufus (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

G'day, GoodDay!
--Gazzster (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

USA>U.K.
Sorry, but it's an unarguably, objective fact. Hadagirlshedidmewrong (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, nevermind then. Hadagirlshedidmewrong (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay: I have no idea who it is behind the mask, but you might be interested in his lofty prose on my user page. Tvoz |talk 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC) You have that right. Tvoz |talk 21:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Talk about the speed of light! Thanks Tvoz |talk 21:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Yes - I was thanking you for letting me know as I hadn't refreshed my watchlist yet to see it. Unfortunately, the ways of trolls is that they keep turning up, as this one has and probably will again. Too bad he's not interested in a meaningful exchange where he might learn something about why I did whatever it is that's pissing him off so much, of which I have no idea. Tvoz |talk 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Joking!
Who says Charles is living lol!--Gazzster (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Quizimodo
I've reported this user's uncivil behaviour at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. As you're involved in the discussion at Talk:Dominion, you may wish to comment.--Gazzster (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't knock yourself out (he's a hard egg),but thanks. I don't even want an apology- just an undertaking to conduct himself more civilly in the future.--Gazzster (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikiquette
Thank you for your attempts to broker peace and foster amity. Unfortunately, I will not be participating in that discussion: it has no standing whatsoever, and (as with many other aspects of this situation) is an unnecessary distraction and time-waster for which the purpose and outcome are unclear. As well, I will not provide additional fodder for those who have issues nor will I provide an opportunity for said editors to snowball. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC) You are invited to a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo.--Gazzster (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to co-certify? Of course, acting as a mediator you may feel you can't.--Gazzster (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Under 'Users certifying the basis for this dispute'. That would be cool if you could. I'm not after his blood. But I do think his attitude is a major problem in Dominion. This Rfc could be the place to sort out other stuff too. Then maybe the article can be unblocked.--Gazzster (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Ta, mate!--Gazzster (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Banning editors from talk pages
Yeah, I need to tread carefully with that explanation: as you've identified, the fact that editors can't ban one another from their talk pages is not justification for an editor to just keep posting on the talk page of someone who has expressed a preference that he/she not. But neither does it mean that an editor has any right to expect that another editor will refrain from posting important messages (RFC notifications and the like) on her/his talk page upon request. Basically, it all comes down to a corollary of WP:CIVIL: you should respect other editors' wishes to the maximum extent that's reasonable. You seem to be making the right choice, anyway. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:G2bambino
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of G2bambino (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino. -- soulscanner (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Aussie PM boxes
Sure! Give it a go. I'd say they'd be less resistance than in Canadian or UK boxes. I don't know why we have the 'Holy Name' everywhere it could possibly go. Makes no sense.--Gazzster (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of exclusion. The box should be a personal bio. But the issue will never be settled. I guarantee you that someone will reverse the Harper edit.--Gazzster (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Btw, do you understand what the Soulscanner/G2 RFC is about?--Gazzster (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Right. I haven't seen the images concerned. Why get so wound up over pictures of the Queen?--Gazzster (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) You said you'd be back another day... and you were. Now will you accept that the community is ok with the infoboxes and that you just can't come along and impose your own wants? Good Day! Timeshift (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, that's really uncalled for. Shot info (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC) In agreement (with Shot info). GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Romney endorsment of McCain
Please source your edit to the 2008 Presidential election article. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Canadian PM Infoboxes
Yes, I would be willing to mediate. If you would go to Wikipedia:MEDCAB and fill out what ever needs to be filled out and I would be willing to mediate from there. (and no, I will not revert as I would be putting myself in a horrible position if I were to conduct the informal mediation.) nat.utoronto 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaf Nation
L'Assemblée nationale a reconnu l'existence de la nation québécoise en 2003. Appelle ça une connerie comme " Québécois nation", ou comme tu veux, quand on parle du Québec, on parle de la province mais aussi de la nation. Best Regards, Pgsylv (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pgsylv, you're in the English Wiki, so you must speak English to everyone. GoodDay, you asked me to translate, so here you go! S/he said: "The National Assembly has recognized the existence of the Quebecois nation in 2003. Call that a joke as 'Quebecois nation', or as you want, when we talk about Quebec, we talk about the province but also about the nation." Cheers! Pieuvre (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) You mentioned Pgsylv's posts in Quebec talk page in French, but I don't see any... Anyway, no problem and have a nice day. ;) Pieuvre (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We luv ya
All in good fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Castro
Have I said something to the contrary? ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because he was not President since 1959. He was then Prime Minister. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC) This is stated in the intro. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuba's leader is not in any way POV. It just means he has led the country under many different offices since 1959. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

G'day
I think with your username you would fit in quite well in Australia ;O) In any case, I noted your interest in the Naming conventions (use English), and was wondering if you would mind commenting on the discussion there in private if you are unwilling to do so in public. I also have an email account so feel free to contact me. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a more substantial policy change proposal. Please contact me.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I can't show you yet because you don't have an email attached to your account, but I am in the final stages of putting together a proposal for explicit policy change. Therefore I would appreciate if you did not make any hasty proposals that may be difficult to change later. A proposal for a policy change needs to be made in the Wikipedia:Village pump, and that has certain procedure to be followed. A browser is what you use to navigate the Internet. In my case a Mozilla Firefox.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I'm actually waiting on advice myself ;o). Won't be long.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
Yes, it's all rather unfortunate; certainly I think 2 and 2 have been put together and made something close to 5 than 4. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed
And I thought G2 kept his head quite well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quebec
I see what you mean, although please note that the same user (Soulscanner) has now challenged the wording twice in a row. In that sense, I feel it is closer to POV-warring from a single editor than a real controversy about the inclusion of the sentence in the lead.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm afraid there is no reasoning with such an editor. I have accepted that concept regarding Pgsylv long ago. Ignoring him is probably the wisest course of action. Great job discussing the issue at hand - keep up the good work. Cheers! — Dorvaq (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page
GoodDay- I wouldn't normally address such a small issue, but I thought I should explain to you that I didn't delete all of MC Rufus' post from my talk page. I cleared out a lot of stuff he's repeated elsewhere and responded to the only real assertion in his comments, namely that of the royals never representing Canada abroad. Just didn't want you thinking the wrong thing. --G2bambino (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unlikely. Not quite sure what he's gettin his knickers n a twist about.--Gazzster (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) You know, GoodDay, I wouldn't worry about me & Rufus; I actually kind of like him. He gets riled over absolutely nothing, but has such a fervent vive la revolution naïevite about him, it's almost endearing. I get maximum entertainment with zero effort. --G2bambino (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in the problems with diacritics
GoodDay, thanks for filling in your problems with diacritics. I hope that we can get a good list of common problems together and then find a solution. The whole discussion has not been exactly constructive from all sides, it seems to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, how many squares do you see on Ľubomír Višňovský? I just see some letters with some extra signs on top (and no square at all), so for me it does not look very annoying. I suppose your browser interprets the character encoding of wikipedia as ISO-8859-1. If you tell it to use unicode instead, your problems should go away. Which browser are you using? Jasy jatere (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Belfast
I do not think you should've been excluded from using his talk page in such circumstances. Infact I believe it breaches Wikipedia's spirit of open-ness. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". The blocking policy is there for disciplining bad faith editors, not those who have alternative points of view, or use phrasiology that is different to our own.

You're quite right that Belfast is in the United Kingdom, though admittedly it's not a phrase used as often as for those places on Great Britain. However, I do not believe that using "Belfast, Ireland", "Belfast, Northern Ireland" and "Belfast, United Kingdom" on talk pages should have such sectarian reactions. I liken it (and I'm being serious now), to racism, anti-British racism. That these words "offend him" is outrageous to me, and just shows how compromised any consideration he has to a neutral or alternative view is to him. Afterall, we are here to write an encyclopedia through discussion, not silence.

This problem of sectarianism is very deep, and very troubling. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be asking for the apology myself (!), but I suppose you could at least talk it through, or if you feel the need, give an apology yes. Are you in grave need to work with this user in the future? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)c Well, I guess you can only try. Worst case scenario is he/she says "no thanks" - or words to that effect. Failing that, you could ask for a 3rd (4th) opinion, or take it to an admin noticeboard? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC) No problem. Pleased that's worked out! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I'm looking for no "spat" either. I was only clowning around - hence ":o)" - on the British People page. Regarding, the comments above - which I can't really follow as I'm not aware of the incident involving ONiH - whatever terms one use they are going to be interpreted politically by someone. That is why I described using "Belfast, Ireland" as a politically loaded term also. IMHO, "Belfast, UK" and "Belfast, Ireland" are the most polarizing of terms and should thus be avoided (in my experience it is more common to refer to constituent country of the UK anyway i.e. "Edinburgh, Scotland"). The most neutral perspective, in my opinion, is to use the historically accurate constituent country reference. Thus the Titanic was built in Beflast, Ireland, yet the Harland and Wolff shipyard is in Belfast, Northern Ireland. --sony-youthpléigh 18:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Aussie Parliament
Yeah! Beats having to run the country, I suppose! Didn't realise it was world news!--Gazzster (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!
I was trying to clear out the personal attacks of that anon IP troll from UQAM. Terribly sorry, I'll be more careful in the future. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Favourite sports teams
You're the "dynastic" type, no? Canadiens and Yankees, not a bad choice.--Ramdrake (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Hi, if I understood your question correctly, you simply copy from here what you want in your archive and paste it into Usert talk:GoodDay/Archive and save that page. Then delete from your discussion page what you've just archived and leave a link to the archive, for example, at the top of this page. --Harald Khan Ճ 12:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)