User talk:GoodDay/Archive 25

Election
So, what's your opinion—will the Grits and NDP pull the trigger and force an election this spring? -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That depends on the poll numbers. If the Conservatives have the best numbers, the Liberals will chicken out (again), with the same old excuse - "Canadians don't want an election right now". GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep thinking they won't because (1) they won't have enough time to get their poll numbers up, and (2) Harper will put forward a Budget bland enough they'll have to let it pass, but then won't be able to turn right around and vote no confidence after letting the Budge go through just weeks before. But if they don't force an election, won't an election have to wait until late summer or early autumn? -Rrius (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The next fed election must occur no later then the 15 October 2012. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

New Year resolutions
Help me out here GoodDay, give me some diffs of where you have worked to reduce conflict on British Isles related issues. I have a very long list of diffs of where you have done your best to provoke or perpetuate it. -- Snowded TALK  06:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer involved at BISE & therefore no longer concerned with where British Isles is or isn't throughout the articles. I've no more comments on LM/LB's whereabouts. I've even thrown in the towel on the infoboxes of Canadian provinces & territories. I don't quarrel over British bio-related infoboxes content 'anymore'. Common-sense is what's behind my stance at the UK infobox-heading. Nobody has yet, shown me that Welsh is an official language across the United Kingdom. I wouldn't be doing accuracy a favour, if I simply roll over & let some of you introduce erroneous additions to that infobox. When/if Welsh is made an official language of the UK, then I'll agree to the Welsh version, but only until then. If you (or others) have me barred from that infobox discussion (via administrator or whatever other choice)? then I will respect that barring (since I don't wanna be blocked). I implore you (and others) end this now & leave the infobox heading as it was for years. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote the above comment before I realised that you had edit warred on the article as well. This particular issue aside, as far as I can see your whole edit history is one in which you have encouraged conflict (multiple statements of you view even when a compromise is emerging), tried to get controversial editors to re-engage by dropping notes on their talk page and then generally adding your opinion to ANI and other cases.   I have not seen (or do not remember) any occasion on which you worked to resolve conflict.  All of that before we talk about your making statements and then going back on them all the time.   As I said before this is a community not your personal playpen but I will happily withdraw that comment if you can give me an example anywhere in WIkipedia where you have worked to reach a compromise or reduce conflict.-- Snowded  TALK  06:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head. The Ice hockey articles. I helped bring about a compromise between pro-diarticis & anti-diacritics editors (I was of the former camp) concering how Ice hockey articles were named.

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on United Kingdom. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

No consensus has been reached to change the article. Please self-revert -- Snowded TALK  06:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall not self-revert, on the basis that no consensus was ever reached for inclusion of any non-English versions of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the infobox heading. If I'm to be blocked for this? I shant dispute such a block & will serve it fully. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well that the Welsh version received no objections for several weeks. Experienced editors who share your perspective on the content issue have accepted that (James reinstated the welsh version). Since then we have been discussing how to move forward and the community is split.  Starting to edit war just when a consensus is starting to emerge on a compromise solution is provocative and stupid.-- Snowded  TALK  06:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You made a slight change to James' temporary addition. I disagreed with it & didn't know how to revert it (which you said was OK to revert, if anybody disagreed with it), without wipeing out 'in between' edits. Therefore, I opted to change to a version which 'was not' challenged for years. I'm dissappointed, that you only seem to object/revert when 'english only' is put in place. I've no desire to open a RfC or anything else on you, but as of now, I've no confidence in your participation at that infobox heading discussion. I do have concerns that your pride is clouding your judgement here Snowded. You're wrong on this issue & must admit it to yourself & move on from it. No one will think less of you & you'll have restored my confidence in you. GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GoodDay if you want to revert that addition then all you do is delete the text, its not difficult although I realise that despite your extensive experience on talk pages you have little or no experience in articles. However removing three words in brackets should not be beyond you.   If you had any respect for WIkipedia process you would now reinstate the version and make that edit if you really want to.  Otherwise have a look at the informal vote, have a look at the discussions, the community of editors is split on this issue.  The rules are very very simple, do not change content when its under discussion.  Nothing would give me greater pleasure by the way than you raising an RfC on this.


 * Incidentally the temporary addition was by me, not James. Shows how much attention you were paying -- Snowded  TALK  07:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking of James' temporoary re-addition of the Welsh version added November 17, 2010. Anyways, I've asked those at the discussion to request my stepping aside from it. If they wish it? I'll comply. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You wanted to reinstate the drop down box with all the languages? Sorry GoodDay don't buy it, you made specific reference to a deletion that had been OKed on the talk page, that was my addition (per the emerging consensus) of "{official in Wales)"  -- Snowded  TALK  07:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for "{official in Wales}". What of the 2-questions to be presented to the community? a commnity who's decision I would've respected? apparently abandoned. I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, but I'm no fool. Nobody has 'yet' shown me where Welsh is an official language across the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And it was OKed to remove that addition (although why you would I don't understand) not to delete everything. If you both to check you will see that editors on both sides of the debate started to work on a compromise,  good editors do that, bad ones edit war.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your view isn't shared by me, on this discussion. I think we've both made that quite clear to each other, in these last few weeks. Overall, I havn't panicked 'too much' (revert speaking) when the Welsh version or other langauges version was put in place (to see how it looked). Where's you've shown zero tolerence for having 'english only' in there (to see how it looks) - even for a few hours-. You've shown more anxious behaviour in having the infobox heading your way. GoodDay (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You want my revert undone? then undo it. If anybody accuses you of edit warring? I'll defend you, cause it wouldn't be edit warring on your part. Heck, ask Daicaregos or whoever you wish, to undo it. GoodDay (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See how it looks? Panicked? Anxious? GoodDay this is really simple, its the application of WP:BRD which is very very clear. Its bad enough to break WP:BRD at the best of times, but to do it when a new compromise is being discussed it to compound the error. You really, really should self-revert. -- Snowded TALK  08:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Continue to discuss this new compromise proposal, which is yet to have a consensus. I shall not self-revert. You're free to ask other to revert me, if you'd rather not do it yourself. It's 4:23 AM in my area, certainly it must be obvious to you, that I haven't changed my stance. GoodDay (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Making a mistake is one thing GoodDay, refusing to correct that mistake is another regardless of the time -- Snowded TALK  08:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt, within 24hrs somebody will revert me. It's happened before, with generally positive 'edit summaries' tagged on. Anyways, in the past you & Dai (plus others) have brow-beated me over providing sources for this or that. Well, you've yet to provide a source of the Welsh languge being official across the United Kingdom & yet in this situation, again I'm being brow-beated, sweet-talked, character assassinated, medically examined. I won't self-revert, so it's best you request another to revert me. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, here's a fair idea: Delete everything from the infobox heading, until a consensus on something is reached. Let the infobox top be the 'map', for now. GoodDay (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe, there should be 'no' infobox headings at all. Something for us all to consider across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You may have missed this, although it has been explained many times. The discussion is about whether a language which is official within the UK is an official language of the UK.  The current proposed compromise makes it clear that Welsh is official within Wales.  You are asking for a source for something which is not being asserted.  You then break wikipedia rules by edit warring.   If you do that sort of thing you must expect some comment. You description of that comment seems a little over the top, even for you.  As to deleting everything - how long have you been an editor?   That is comical-- Snowded  TALK  08:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been a registered editor for over 5-yrs, nothing comical about that. The content of the Infobox heading was the issue, therefore I removed the content 'til a consensus is reached for what the content should be. One has to think outside the 'info'box (sorry, couldn't resist). GoodDay (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be charitable and assume thats sleep deprivation talking -- Snowded TALK  09:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fully awake & functional. GoodDay (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, the infobox actually looks better that way. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the academic world we often make a distinction between ostensive and subjective behaviour, put it back to the version which has been in place throughout the discussion and demonstrate that the two are not in conflict -- Snowded TALK  09:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An emotional response, interesting. Meanwhile, I've made suggestions to Template:Infobox & Template:Infobox country. -- GoodDay (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Analytical really, can't see anything especially emotional there. There is a broad gap between what you say and what you do.  Bill gave you some sensible feedback on his talk page which I doubt you have taken on board.  The suggestions to the template pages are (to use his words) silly.  You are painting yourself into a corner here.  Simply following WP:BRD when your deletion was reverted, and/or self reverting after you broke WP:BRD would have been the proper way to behave and I suspect you know that.  No one will gloat if you do the right thing.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bill pointed out that blanking the infobox heading was silly (which I've now acknowledged), not reverting to 'English version' only, which BTW he's changed the infobox heading to. GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That answer confirms that you either did not read, did not understand or did not want to hear what Bill was telling you. -- Snowded  TALK  17:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why again, did Bill revert to the version you disliked? GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Read his comments again GoodDay, in particular those that relate to your editing style. I find it difficult that you could be that stupid as to miss them, so I will assume you just trying to avoid paying attention to them-- Snowded  TALK  17:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're being emotional again. Please control your passions. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

All these proposed compromises are merely smokescreens to get the Welsh version included. I've no clue as to the reason behind this drive to include it. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia as GoodDay's playpen: an example
This edit illustrates a point I have made several times about you being disruptive in your edit patterns. Here we have you encouraging an editor with a block log as long as his or her arm, and a similar record under a previous ID. I've seen you do this several times, finding a known disruptive editor and trying to encourage them to get back into the fray. The pattern seems to indicate that you like to see conflict, like your provocative deletion and then "silly" deletion yesterday. I wonder if the resolution on United Kingdom led you to go seeking out the next conflict? Please reconsider this sort of action, its very visible for one thing and the body of evidence is growing. I've reached the end of my patience with this (as have other editors if the emails I received yesterday are an indication) having put up with it for several years now. So expect more notices on your talk page if you continue and a possible RfC or ANI report-- Snowded TALK  05:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've known AvD for over a year & have tried to help him put aside his quarreling ways (but to no avail) & happened to get along with him quite well on a User:talkpage to User:talkpage basis. AVD's days on Wikipedia are over (as far as I can tell). I checked up on the discussion at Kingdom of Great Britain & having seen his posts there, decided to say hello to him. I wasn't aware until now, that he was under a 6-month ban (placed November 15). I'm allowed to update him on my RL, even if he's barred from his own talkpage aswell. He's a human being, not a piece of sh-t. If I had posted to him something like "Gee AVD, betcha can't wait to get back & have your revenge on Snowded" then your 'current' rant would be justified, but I didn't say such a thing. Honestly, aren't you bordering on WP:HARASSMENT, right now? GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File your RFC or ANI report on me or cut out the threats, make a choice. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No GoodDay, I am pointing out an example and telling you that after two years of putting up with this I am now starting to keep a record of examples. I could just have done that but I thought it fairer to let you know.  My view is that you are exhibiting signs of long term low level disruption, but I'm not making a final call on that until I have assembled a body of evidence and have a chance to review it.  I'm hoping that I will find no more examples-- Snowded  TALK  05:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend you and/or others (including those on them e-mails) provide me a list of editors, whom I can no longer contact on the whole project. PS: I do not wish to know the identities of the e-mailers. E-mailing off Wikipedia is something I've never belived in or supported. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, forget that request. I've imposed a gag rule on myself, for your convenience. Other user-talkpages are off limits to me. GoodDay (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted my hospitality post at AVD's talkpage, per my Rule #9. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have always been a bit of a stirrer GoodDay. I've told you that myself on more than one occasion. You did back off for a while and I thought you had screwed the head. You have now taken it to a different level were you are actually trying to wind people up with almost every post you make. Realise one thing here. Snowded has defended you on numerous occasions when others have accused you of trolling, by saying you are not doing that, you just enjoy stirring things up a little. If Snowded is now taking it serious that should be a message to you, one you should take seriously. As I said, I've accused you of trolling in the past and yet I still have a certain affection for you. At this exact moment you are unlikely to be blocked but if you continue in the same vein it will surely come. Take my advice and calm it down a little, or even a lot. I know you would be gutted if you were blocked from this place. Don't allow yourself to be. Scot Jfore (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One edit just for this, GoodDay isn't even close to any kind of block, so move along with all the worthless empty threats. GoodDay, don't speak to these people, leave them alone in their nationalistic dream. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just tired of being brow-beated, Off2riorob. Many get sore at me 'cuz I bring commonsense to those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any threats you silly person. I'm giving him some good advice. Now, I'll wait for GoodDay to reply and hope you don't step in again with your silly statements. Scot Jfore (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Advice that would be good to take. I have also seen this tendency in him. He is forever bringing up old debates that have long since been settled, and often just to try and trigger them again because he then takes almost no part in them once they have started. Atleast that is how it often appears on hockey related matters. I don't take part in the British Isles topic area. I would listen to these users GoodDay, they have very valid points. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The newbie editor should stay away, as I suspect it's a block evading User. I've already placed a gag rule on myself, concerning other User's talkpages. As for Snowded's motives (which I still don't understand) at the UK infobox heading? I've no more comment. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The newbie editor is Jack forbes who has only popped in to give you a bit of advice. Scot Jfore (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain of that. It's best you use the Jf account, when next you post here. Also, many are sore at me 'cuz I won't bend to their devolutionist favoured descriptive countries for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be posting again. Take the advice or not. Your choice. Scot Jfore (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, you're an imposter of Jack forbes. I no longer post at other Users talkpages & I won't be bending to devolutionsist wishes. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Even now, at the United Kingdom article, concerning the infobox heading and literature section (which I've chosen to avoid), there's a continued & growing concern with the push of Welsh related topics. Snowded & Daicaregos made a mistake when they self-proclaimed themselves Welsh nationalist at their Userpages; Why? because now, there'll always be suspicion over their motives at UK related articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its basic honesty GoodDay, If you declare your position then you have to be very careful not to take a POV position as everyone knows what you believe. I don't see any growing concern with pushing welsh related topics, perhaps you would oblige us with a few diffs by way of evidence? Given that you are making the POV accusation against two named editors you need another set of diffs to substantiate the statement or should withdraw it-- Snowded  TALK  20:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Open your eyes Snowded & read carefully. I haven't accused both of you of NPoV violation, but rather that others might suspect it of both of you. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha hilarious, we know your pov but you need cites to mention mine. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Be careful Off2riorob, you might get influenced by me. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be my pleasure. Shut the conversation down and take them off your watchlist is my advice. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll keep the United Kingdom article on my watchlist for now. The efforts to have the Welsh version included in the infobox heading (though misguided, IMHO), is quite entertaining to observe. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had a quick look, hilarious, the welsh language is a tourist attraction with some children learning it as a second language for a few years. They do surveys and ask them, do you speak welsh and even if they only can say hello and goodbye they tick the yes box to inflate the figures, its a dying language. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been told aswell, that my home province has 2 official languages. I tell ya, it's very difficult to AGF, when such things are forced on articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, if you make statements expect to be asked for diffs to establish them. Consistent failure to do that is another pattern and record.  You have another editor on this page saying that you behave in a similar way on Hockey sites (raking up old problems) to your behaviour on UK sites.  Bill Reid told you very clearly you were just making assertions not producing arguments.  You can listen to those comments, or you can choose to be comforted by ignorance (Off2riorob  21:25, 3 January 2011).   Its your call but from my perspective you have have moved from being an occasionally irritating eccentric to being a low level disruptive editor.  That means if you make assertions about other editors etc.  then I will ask you for diffs to support those assertions and note either the response or the lack thereof.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer posting on other User-talkpages. Editing Wikipedia is a privillage, not a right & you're threatening to seek removal of my privillages. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm primarily seeking to get you to change your behaviour GoodDay. -- Snowded  TALK  05:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems you've succeeded, as far as user-talkpages are concerned. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, ya wanna go after a troublemaker, Snowded? Then track down Cashkid121 & demand why he hasn't answered for the edit he made (without consensus or accompanying source) to the United Kingdom article on November 17, 2010. The very edit which has caused a monthly long continuious discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? He made an edit in good faith as far as any of us know and no one challenged it for a month.  If someone had reverted it then he would have had to justify it but no one did.  The vast bulk of edits in wikipedia happen that way.  You on the other hand failed to abide by WP:BRD just when a consensus was emerging on the talk page -- Snowded  TALK  07:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean he made an edit that you agree with. I don't know if you'll be successful in getting the Welsh-version back into the UK infobox heading. But atleast that'll be up to the Wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No GoodDay, I meant that he did nothing wrong. If I had disagreed I would have reverted and he would still have done nothing wrong unless of course he had reverted the revert and failed to follow WP:BRD.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the subject of disruptive editing can I ask you GoodDay what brought you to the Belfast article and your first edit there? Bjmullan (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I forget how I came across that article. Anyways, my edit was merely to clarify the intro, it was proceduarally BRD & I haven't reverted since. PS: I admire your concerns, but AFAIK, I'm not barred from Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, how'd you know I was at the Belfast article? GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been on my watchlist for over a year. Bjmullan (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. Sorry Bj, I've become a tad paranoid these last few days. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Been watching the discussion at Tom Pryce & enjoying every minute of it. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Welsh race driver born in Ruthin, Wales"? that don't read right. Commented on it at the article, 'risky' though it is. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern
GoodDay, I have been following this section, noting that some other editors have expressed concern that you are using Wikipedia for sport (for want of a better word). As you know, I've interacted with you on Wikipedia for some time now, don't believe we have ever been in dispute, and have offered advice in the past. I hope you are also aware that I am not usually one for getting involved in discussions of editors' behaviour unless it is harming the project, in my opinion. That said, I noticed this series of edits and it concerns we, especially in the context of the other comments in this section. So I'm going to offer my thoughts, unsolicited.

I may be missing something, but it very much appears you reverted good faith edits from despite not actually believing his edits were adversely affecting the quality of the article. If my understanding is correct, that means you have either gravely misinterpreted WP:Consensus, or you are indeed trying to stoke up conflict for the sake of it. I hope it is the former. Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, GoodDay. It is not your job to revert edits out of an adherence to perceived process that requires consensus before any edit can be made. If you don't have a problem with the content of an edit, then leave it alone. If everyone leaves it alone, then a de facto consensus will have been established. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia where everyone can discuss, then edit.

I remember, perhaps last year, suggesting you should always think what you are contributing before hitting the save page button. Clearly that hasn't had much impact. In those edits today you contributed zero of value to the project. But the effect was to rile another editor, waste time that could be spent on article content by kick-starting a discussion that was not strictly needed (and then, for bonus points, contribute some more pointless comments to said discussion). I'm not sure what the answer is here, but more examples like today will begin to look very much like subtle, sophisticated pot-stirring. If that is not your intention, then its an inadvertent consequence of (some of) your edits and needs to stop. Rockpock e  t  18:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Others have complained or reverted Brocach in the past, on the basis he was making changes to said articles without gaining a consensus first. Anyways, I've already notified Brocach, that I won't be reverting him anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Were those particular changes that you reverted, previously objected to by others? Rockpock  e  t  18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Daicaregos defended me on one of'em, explaining BRD to Brocach. But that might be 'before' he relized I wasn't disputing Brocach's changes. The Terminology of the British Isles & British Isles articles, have habitually faced reversions when changes were implimented without consensus. As for the former, it's been disputed across Wikipedia from sometime, as to wheter Republic of Ireland is the official name of the republic 'or' just a discriptive. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't be disingenuous GD. You know very well the official name of the state is not in dispute. RashersTierney (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes it is. It was the cause of those past disputes over RMs at the RoI article. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you might be missing the point. It doesn't matter how many times someone has been reverted before. If the specific changes they make are not objected to by you (and there is not already a consensus against those specific changes), why on earth would you revert them? I expect the habitual reversions have been by editors who object to the edits they are reverting. Rockpock  e  t  18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reckon, I'd save Brocach from the possible emotional responses to his changes. Other editors can get quite sensative around Irish related articles. My intentions were meant well, but they've backfired. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've noticed editors are sensitive to these sorts of things. Which is why provoking further disputes by reverting by proxy is really lacking clue. Here is a simple suggestion to minimize drama (since that is your aim): in future don't involve yourself in things that don't concern you. Rockpock  e  t  18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It did concern me, thus my recent blunder. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try my best. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly it didn't concern you, because you then stated "I'm content with either version." Both can't be true. All we can do is try our best. But once you are aware of it, this is a difficult thing to repeat by accident. So try hard. Rockpock  e  t  19:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear it. Ok, well I'll climb off my high horse now, and leave you to your editing (a lot of which is a plus to the project, and is very much appreciated). Rockpock  e  t  19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rock. I wish everyone felt the same way you do (about my contributions to the project). Regrettably, they're some who'd wish me gone. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah dry yer eye, ya big softie! RashersTierney (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your genuine concern is appreciated, Rashers. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. It's well meant. RashersTierney (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon
Hi.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Howdy Jeanne. Wouldcha believe I'm still steamed about the UK article? I see a certain change was made at Tom Pryce. It seems for some, British is a dirty word. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want my honest opinion, I would leave the UK-related articles if I were you. Why get yourself all worked-up? I personally prefer to use English, Welsh, Scottish, etc. rather than British unless it's regarding governmental institutions; however, it's not worth upsetting oneself. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as Wales, Northern Ireland, England & Scotland are within the United Kingdom - its people are British. I've no intentions of disputing the change at the Pryce article, since 1) I don't bother with race driving & 2) Snowded will appear here again. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But if people choose to self-identify as Welsh, Scottish or English rather than British? It's not like an American calling herself a Californian or a Canadian calling himself a Manitoban. The countries that form the sovereign state of the United Kingdom have established geographic boundaries, separate histories, languages (albeit English is spoken by the vast majority today), cultures, food, music, and identities. Even the Welsh national costume is unique.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-indentification is irrelevant, IMHO. Thankfully, they don't self-identify as Martians, Klingons, etc. Until such area's regain indepedance, those people are British (whether they like it or not). PS- Cute little British doll. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just my point GoodDay! You would never, ever see or hear this doll described as a British doll. Anywhere. It's a Welsh costume doll, which I bought in Wales in 1981. In fact, it would sound ludicrous to call it British as there is no British national costume.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd accept it being called a Welsh doll, in the same way I'd accept a doll made in Alberta being called an Albertan doll. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Alberta have its own national costume? Or language, separate history, culture, historical boundaries, internationally-recognised ethno-national identity?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not. But like Wales, Alberta isn't independent. PS: If Kittybrewster valued my advice, I'd recommend he not dispute Daicaregos' change at the Tom Pryce article. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I happen to fully support Daicaregos position on the Tom Pryce page and have commented on its talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose Dai's position. But there's no-way I'm going around there. I'd also recommend Brocach drop what he's attempting concerning Northern Ireland, as he'll never get country replaced, while there's a majority of editors in favour of it. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to leave the computer for a while as I still haven't washed the dishes! Be back later. PS. You are most welcome to post on my talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be leaving in about an hour to visit my sister. I fear I can't contact anybody on their talkpages, while I've got an Rfc/U or ANI dangling over my head. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm back, but only briefly as I have to prepare for my evening shot. Yuck!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Evening shot? GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I 'm having rather serious problems with vericose veins which requires treatment, and two shots a day for 2 weeks is part of it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC) I'll drink to that!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm restricted from posting on other userpages. But for Jeanne, I'll make the exception on this 1 occassion. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. Just for that I'm going to introduce you to my latest Wee hard man. BTW, you may call him British. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor of California
Hi, I'm dropping a note for a couple reasons:


 * I noticed I made a typo in the summary of my reversion of your edit: "goof faith." Let me assure you, that was an honest typo; the 'F' is right next to the 'D'.
 * I added the missing 47th Lt. Governor to List of lieutenant governors of California: Mona Pasquil, who was Acting between shortly after Garamendi's resignation and Maldonado's confirmation. This explains why Newsom's own website calls him the 49th: .  However, I am very poor at wikitables, at least once things like   start getting used.  I see you active in that article; if you're any good at that, can you please confirm I didn't muck anything up in the formatting?

Thanks. TJRC (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs & thanks for the clarification. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a unilateral move of a controversial title. The thread is PMAnderson_-_another_controversial.2Fdisruptive_page_move:_Juan_Carlos_I.The discussion is about the topic Juan Carlos I of Spain. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm curious about the fact that you supported the August proposal to move Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I, and yet yesterday tried to move it back to Juan Carlos I of Spain not once, but twice. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant that I supported a move to Juan Carls I, back in August 2010. The article was moved then with no consensus (5-3 is quite weak) & even worst, ruled as having a consensus by a non-administrator. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

British nationality
Please let me know when you decide to bring the suggestion (that only interested Wikiprojects' members can work on articles) to the Village pump. Though I have some comments you may wish to consider first: 1. Only those opposed to the concept of the 'free encyclopedia that anyone can edit' are likely to support your proposal. 2. What would stop editors joining interested projects. 3. That article is within Wikiproject Wales anyway. Classic.

To answer your question: my first edit on the article was in 2008. Not so 'sudden', then. And it's hardly surprising I should take an interest in the sportsmen and women who represent my country – I read about them in the paper every day. Furthermore, I've created nearly 50 sports-related articles and I also work on articles to which they are linked. Now I've answered your question, perhaps you will return the courtesy. Daicaregos (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a problem with British, which I find worisome. As for the Pryce & Davies articles? do as you wish. Clearly, we're never going to agree on such topics. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, this is not meant to be an aggressive, balls-out-stance question, but why do you care that someone from Wales prefers not to describe himself nor identify as British? If you met somone from Barcelona who said he was Catalan would you insist on calling him a Spaniard? I honestly do not understand where you're coming from on this issue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wales & Catalonia aren't independent. Also, I'm not fully confident about Dai being the editor wanting to change British to Welsh, considering he's a self-described Welsh nationalist & a devolutionist. GoodDay (talk)
 * You're confusing citizenship with nationality. The person in question is Welsh by nationality (he is a member of the Welsh nation) but British by citizenship (he is a citizen of the United Kingdom). Also, just because an editor is a nationalist/devolutionist doesn't mean you can deem his arguments to be null. Someone could say "I'm not confident with GoodDay being the editor because he's a British nationalist and unionist". Focus on the edits, not the editor. ~Asarlaí 14:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wales is within the United Kingdom. Pryce & Davies (for example) are British as they were born in the United Kingdom (and independant country). Until Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland achieve independance, my stance won't change. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay as Asarlai says, you are confusing nationality with citizenship. The place of birth doesn't in itself determine a person's nationality nor does the passport he or she holds. I would accept that a unionist from Northern Ireland is British (although I personally prefer the term Northern Irish); however, Tom Pryce, Sean Connery, and Kate Middleton are Welsh, Scottish, and English, respectively, despite all three obviously holding British passports.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the British nationality law, they've got British nationality & citzenship. When Wales, England, Northern Ireland & Scotland gain independance, then I'll change my stance. GoodDay (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are a night owl, GD. It must be just before dawn where you are. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, but you cannot impose it on the Wikipedia community. Wales, England, and Scotland are classified as nations, despite being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom is a nation. I fear that Dai might be imposing his preferences on bio articles. Yep, it's 3:34 AM 'now'. GoodDay (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian Head of State
Good day, GoodDay. Can I give you some friendly feedback. You keep on adopting an extraordinarily high-handed and pompous tone on this subject. The "despite what others may think, my opinion is the only right one" sort of language is just not helpful. Not at all. It is an assertion of what you believe to be the truth. That does not make it the truth. Please acknowledge that this is your opinion, and that others have differing opinions. Because, despite what you may think of them, their opinions are equally valid. Now, I happen to agree with you that the Queen is our Head of State, but I would never adopt an exclusionary approach to the opinions of others, the way you have been doing lately. Even Australians who do this get their quick comeuppance, let alone those from other countries. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed my stance on this topic. But, I have backed-out of those discussions, due to the fact I was beginning to get tempermental. An example of my patiences running thin was at the Elizabeth II discussion, where I grouched that you & Sky were appearing as stubborn. The fact that I can't get "...of the United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms" into either that articles intro or infobox or that I can't get it RMd to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has also burned me. I apologies for suggesting you're both stubborn. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted.
 * Are you aware that the article was called "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" till relatively recently? There's little chance of having it moved back in the forseeable future, imo.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shamefully, I was one of those who supported the move. There's too much Anglophobia & Canadian monarchism involved for it ever to be changed back. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anglophobia and Canadian monarchism got the page moved? Surely you're joking. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Errr, not joking. Also, after many months, nobody is willing to take up my 1-of-3 idea. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd, because I recall that in the move debates there were a number of people arguing in favour of Elizabeth II purely on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, as well as other editors who are British and Australian, whom I'd be shocked to learn are Anglophobic (especially the former) or Canadian monarchists. Perhaps people just want articles to adhere to the golden rule of WP:NPOV, and do so consistently. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree & you haven't responded to my 1-of-3 proposal. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, take a peek over at the discussion at Governor General of Australia. I'm still rubbing my eyes. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * PS, I'm still perplexed by your stance on the Australian HoS topic. Rightly or wrongly that stance is blocking progress. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Curiosity
Hello! Out of curiosity, if you're a republican, is there any special reason for your interest on monarchs' articles? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's extremely good practice for holding back my political PoV. The fact that others have asked me this, confirms my NPoV approach. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Respecting RM conventions
GoodDay, can I ask that the article William the Lion be moved back to its location. I will do this myself, but it is better that you do it. It was stable at that location (3 months is a conservative view, this is nearly 4 months). If you choose not to respect a 4 month name as stable it may work for your own POV in this particular case, but you'll find that the precedent undermines later positions you take AND instability in Wikipedia in general. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, I corrected it & you reverted it. I haven't reverted your revert. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You moved it to William the Lion 3 months ago (October 2010), contrary to the RMs result & ruling, Why?. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's around 4 months now. Anyway, usually a month is good enough. This is short-sighted. It may work suit your POV in this case, but you are transgressing established Wikipedia etiquette to force an advantage in a ideological dispute you are engaged in. Your choice, but don't complain when someone does the same the other way later. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pat reversed your revert, not me. He's the bloke, you should be contacing. PS- You moved it to William the Lion on October 12, 2010; that's 3 months ago. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who started it. I've never agreed with your views on naming, but I've always had respect for you for being fair and respecting the rules. What's changed? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you've an interest in Scottish monarch bio articles. But, right now, I'm concerned with monarchial article titles being moved with little support in their respective RMs. A good example is Juan Carlos I of Spain, which as you can now see, was too hasty in its being moved to Juan Carlos I. The ruling & moving of the RM-in-question was far too hasty & questionable. If I'd had known of it in October 2010, I'd have reverted then. However, one can't have all monarchial articles on one's watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I've been accused in the past of having little backbone & switching sides often. Well, no more of that. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen lots of moves I didn't like too late, but accepted it. C'est la vie. Before becoming belligerent on RM issues, you might wanna think about others who've behaved like that and whether or not they have obtained more success for their RM POVs. Your view of page naming has been losing support for years. Of course you understandably are frustrated, but would acting like this really reverse it, or just alienate people and make them as belligerent, canceling your own belligerence out? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept my limits on RMs. If you or another 'reverts' PatG's page move, I won't revert it back. Note that I haven't reverted any Page moves that had consensus to be moved. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wanna drag me off to ANI & have me barred from monarchial article RMs, then that would be your choice. The beating that Name # of country has been getting lately, got me so discouraged, I wouldn't fight such a restriction. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Monarchies & Republics
Never heard of him, looks like a redirect to Lion - I love to learn at wikipedia - one thing I have noticed is that there is no such thing as a stable consensus version and there should not be, users that claim that actually mean - my favorite version or the version that reflects my POV ..articles should be - thrown to the free wind of broad contributions supported by wikipedia policy and guidelines but without Wiki lawyering from involved contributors, this is especially an issue with experienced contributors that edit a single topic field and from their contributions a clear POV can be seen, such experienced opinionated editors are easily visible through their editing contributions and are often actually the problem and restrictive of article improvement through their ownership problems. Users that exhibit obvious Nationalistic obsessions and edit areas negatively that they clearly have a dislike of should be topic banned as soon as their bigotry and bias is apparent. Off2riorob (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya mean me? GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, these comments don't have you in mind GoodDay, not at all. Off2riorob (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the photo-image, the old guy in a hat, looks like he's gotta use the 'bathroom'. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, he's like nearly asleep, the drivers passenger, haha. If you drive the Queenie around once or twice it must be a bit exciting but after that - yawn - where to then Queenie - Looking at the Bentley looks like the one that was attacked in Regent Street with Charles and Camilla so it is likely in repair - shame, lovely car. Off2riorob (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It make a good British presidential limo. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were going to have a President in the UK and all those affiliated territories - I would vote for President Elizabeth. better the devil you know than the devil you don't - and I love the hats. Off2riorob (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For the UK? vote Tony Robinson, as he's got a cunning plan. For Canada? Don Cherry, I gotta tell ya. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Baldrick, I am neurtal, but that Cherry, good all rounder, willing to trust with the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * His court scene was hilarious (Blackadder 4), after Captain Backadder advised him to deny everything. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Man, those days are history, my long term memory is fluid and variegated, these days Celebrity Juice: Verne Troyer vs keith Lemon in Raw Egg Roulette gets me amused. - Off2riorob (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mini-me & eggs. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, Is Verne Troyer Bigger than...a traffic cone check this one out. Off2riorob (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wowsers, what a tumble. If I were Vern, I'd of dove for those gals' boobs. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also had a good laugh at the snake charmer blooper on that British game show Catchphrase. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was gonna mention that lady was real attractive, stunning feminine attributes ...Off2riorob (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * She'd of been a handful. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictures from 1868 - Soda Creek, British Columbia - Off2riorob (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 143 yrs past. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem that long - original uploader User:CindyBo from Prince George - transfered to commons by User:Off2riorob
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As always, a pleasure to chat, GoodDay, have a nice day, best regards - Off2riorob (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

About the RfC at Unite Against Fascism
Hello GoodDay. This is in reply to your comment at WP:AN3. Any uninvolved person could close the RfC, and it does not have to be an admin, but the close may be more widely accepted if it's done by an experienced editor who has dealt successfully with other quarrels. If that description fits you, then go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The last criteria likely will disqualify me. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

William the Lion
GoodDay, from being an amiable kind of a chap, I feel your becoming a bit problematic. Your recent name change at William the Lion was really daft. Are you really saying that William the Conqueror or Mary, Queen of Scots should also be renamed? You really must apply the same logic for renaming monarch articles. If William the Lion (without regnal numbers) is the way that he is referred to almost everywhere, then you shouldn't let your lack of knowledge on the subject cause you to dogmatically demand your version of what you feel it should be. Just apply common sense. Thanks, -Bill Reid | (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am applying common-sense. PS: Those articles should be titles William I of England & Mary I of Scotland, more educational fro readers & accurate. As for problematic? If anybody wants to seek my restriction from talkpages or RM after they're closed (erroneously or not), go for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was consensus on Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots to use the better-known Mary, Queen of Scots rather than the tradional name-ordinal-country.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why I haven't protested or reverted its move. Though, I disagree with the change. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, there are a lot of things here I disagree with; alas we just have to go with the flow when there's consensus. For example, I think a terrorist needs to be described as a terrorist, and murder should be called murder, instead of the vague, nebulous word, killing, but.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but there was no consensus for the page moves to William the Lion, Ivan the Terrible, Juan Carlos I, Robert the Bruce (for examples). There was either little participation at the RMs or 'no consensus' ruled as consensus. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from Juan Carlos, I would support all those names as the individuals are better known by them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I just wish there'd been consensus for those page moves, before they were moved. Deacon should be starting an RM at William I of Scotland & this time allow for more input, rule it correctly then follow that ruling. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Deacon didn't take my advice. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are clearly two sides to this story, but I have moved this page back to the "stable" (i.e. from your point of view the "wrong") version. WP:MOVE makes it clear that controversial moves should follow due process. Regards, Ben   Mac  Dui  10:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be at the title which the RM ruled against, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Grrrrrrrrowl......" How are you GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still in the thick of things. We've got a bloke who wants to hide Queen regnant at the Elizabeth II article. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me check it out. There's a debate I'm involved in at Talk:Anne Boleyn.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Queen herself step in and add her input to the debate?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe she has been, but can't reveal her identity, per CoI. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Royalty and nobility articles have replaced British/Irish pages as the most polemic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe, even if Elizabeth II appeared at her article, indentified herself & argued it should be Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom & similar changes made to the intro & infobox; Mies (who got the ball rolling on the -16 are equal- stuff), would dispute her on that & wouldn't hesitate to get her blocked if they engaged in an edit-war over it. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's so frustrating, showing Queen regnant in the Elizabeth II article's intro continues to be opposed per WP:IDONTLIKEIT by some editors. You don't see reigning king in the current male monarch articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is there's an article on Queen regnant which can be linked to from all relevent articles. I support its inclusion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * DrK's being un-reasonable IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was slightly moved towards this 16 bla di blas recently when I heard it mentioned on the BBC news in relation to the line of assesion thingy, being the male heir apparent bias and Queenie and her advisors starting to mention a change to whoever is in line be they male or female - and the reporter said, that nothing could be done without the agreement of thew 16 commonwealth realms. So, perhaps on a wider level it is correct to detail the countries and territories, I am also sure that the queenie, love each and every one of her subjects no matter which country they are in. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Commonwealth realms are a silly setup. What's even more hilarious, the Canadian monarchy is more difficult to abolish then the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous, you couldn't make a story up like t-hat Queen of Canada - You know my position, I am pretty relaxed about them, they don't bother me and I don't bother them. But saying that, I wouldn't wish them on other people, or other countries as the case actually is. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My country is stuck with a monarchy, due to lack of knowledge and interest. Ask a person in my area what a monarch is & they couldn't tell ya. It's the republican cause which is threatened by lack of interest & knowledge. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure it will come one day soon enough GoodDay, at least they didn't make you speak french like in Quebec ..I think I will go read up on my Canadian History. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, the linguistic minorities in Quebec don't get much respect there. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you buried?


I have been reading about the various storms besetting your part of the country, and understand you are in the middle of another 15 -30 cm fall today. I hope you are safe and that you are still "connected". Bielle (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hope everything is ok with you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in a virtual white-out. If only I'd a woman to snuggle up with. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing quite as soothing as spending a "snow day" cuddled up in bed with a willing partner. Who cares if the power goes out then? (Absent that, you can always get a start on the shovelling. If you are in a whiteout, don't forget to tie yourself to a door to the house on a long rope before you step away.) Bielle (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one dude who ain't going out. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not even to build a cute little snowman?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm staying put. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mock AN/I Report
This is to let you know that I have filed a report against you at An/I for your failure to go outside and build a snowman. Your refusal shows a distinct lack of regard towards the right of life to snowmen in general, and you have thus been brought before the administrators to give an account of yourself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For a moment, I thought it was Snowded coming through on his threats. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't digress from the subject. Are you planning to go outside and give life to a snowman or not?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My neighbours already built one (six weeks earlier). I've no intentions of doing so. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a threat, a promise if you continue to act is a disruptive fashion, I see you are stirring things up again today. Maybe building snowmen would give you something to do, it appears as if Wikipedia conflict stirring is your only occupation or interest -- Snowded  TALK  17:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You do tend to over-react/over-exagerate. Derry's current title is a bad joke -as long as Londonderry is the city's official name-. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, please, I implore you don't and I mean don't suggest that Londonderry is the correct name for Derry. A view like that will only serve to irritate the vast majority of Irish editors. Surely you can see how Londonderry is offensive to Irish people?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No GoodDay I've put up with your nonsense for years and I've run out of patience. You litter pages with your opinions, make little or no contribution to content and revile in stirring up conflict.  You are skirting the limits of acceptable behaviour and sooner or later you will either go too far, or the cumulative evidence will be collected and documented.  We had an extended discussion in which we established that the most could be said that was Londonderry was the legal name, not the official one.  That discussion was only a short while ago, and here you are stirring things up again; worse you are trying to provoke other editors to do it for you.  Its pathetic, you need another hobby urgently -- Snowded  TALK  17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Others can choose for themselves (concerning having an RM or not). The city's name is Londonderry, that's a fact. Sensativities of Irish & non-Irish editors over that factual name, is irrelevant to me. That article's current title is a bad joke -unless the city has announced a name change-. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Irish city of Derry (Doire) existed long before the prefix London was added to it in 1613. If you were to go to Ireland you would find nobody (including the Irish Government itself) who would refer to the city as Londonderry, excepting die-hard loyalists in East Belfast, the Shankill Road, and Portadown. Honestly, GoodDay, you will not get consensus to move the article's name to Londonderry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, a consensus would be impossible to achieve, even though it's a British city (within the UK). That there's a possibilty, some editors would make a consensus impossible to reach, merely cause they don't like Londonderry, is pathetic, as it would be a breach of NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He's not interested in consensus Jeanne, he just gets bored if there is no conflict on British/Irish issues -- Snowded TALK  07:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bored, annoyed with political PoV at the expense of accuracy. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As regards the name Derry, the Irish government, Irish media, and Irish academia all call the city Derry, never Londonderry. How is this political POV? I daresay the agencies I have cited can be relied upon for accuracy or is Ireland of such no account that it needs other nations to determine the correct names for its cities and towns?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are just the Irish PoVs. The city-in-question, dwells within the United Kingdom & its legal name is Londonderry. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All Irish cities and counties predate partition. While Derry might be in the UK it is still on the island of Ireland, and what's more people in Derry-and the rest of Northern Ireland are legally entitled to hold Irish passports.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a British city 'now' & more importantly, its legal name is Londonderry. If/when the city changes its name to Derry, I'll support the latter. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether you support it or not, there will never be consensus at Wikipedia for it to be moved to Londonderry. The Common name for the city is Derry, same as the Common name for Mary Stuart/Mary I of Scotland is Mary, Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, there'll never be a consensus to change the city to its correct title. The Scottish Mary article will always be Mary I of Scotland, to me. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a Bee Gees song from Saturday Night Fever.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. We've got a page move glitch at Baudouin I of Belgium, the talkpage wouldn't move with the page. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted it as an uncontroversial move request at WP:RM. -Rrius (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Be careful of the stones you throw
I've done some peek-a-booing on some editors talkpages & discovered that they wish me ill. From now on, I'm restricting my activity on article talkpages to Afds, RMs, straw-polls, basically just things that require my posts -BRD for example-. PS: Even my jokes are getting bad reviews. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The time will come, when these editors-in-question, will get themselves in trouble via their respective arrogance. Let them be assured, I won't be there to help them out or vouch for their character. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I certainly don't wish you ill.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. I wasn't speaking of you. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, I don't like to discuss other editors in a negative manner on my talk page (apart from trolls, vandals, and the like) as it creates a bad atmosphere at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Yesterday, on a user's talkpage I discovered nasty comments. On another user's talkpage, a few editors were joining together to push for an RfC on myself. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Scotland
You know the rules. You have lost the Talk page point comprehensively. Stop your edit warring immediately. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't breached 3RR & there's still no consensus for the unilaterale change you made. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Unilateral"?!? Ha ha. I am very, very, very far from being alone in resisting your childish campaign, as witnessed on the article Talk pages. We know your horrendous record of disruption on British/Irish topics. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A NPoV approach to those articles, would indeed be viewed as horrendous & disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the terms NPOV and GoodDay in the same sentence would likely be oxymoronic, and disrupt the balance of the cosmos. You know the score. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your PoV, which I don't share. Also, there's still no consensus for your deletion. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, you shouldn't be labeling another editor as childish. Your behaviour at the Scotland article, is quite impulsive. GoodDay (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to behave responsibly for a change then you should back up your statements that there is no consensus for the change with a summary of the debate. I suppose you have the capability to count editors for and against, summarise that and then comment.  Just repeating a point without argument is childish.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already stated my case there. If Mais' bold edit isn't reverted by others, then it's a consensus. I'm not gonna push hard to get the UK PM restored to the infobox, anymore then I'd try and get the Canadian PM placed into the Prince Edward Island infobox. GoodDay (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you have made a statement (there is no consensus) without backing that statement up with evidence, Its either irresponsible or lazy.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarification sake, I've asked for a straw poll at that discussion. For example, your & Ghmy's posts seem un-clear. GoodDay (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You should strike your discriptive of me at the 'straw poll'. Also, would you 'atleast' consider asking Mais to tone it down with the ranting insults? That he's from Scotland & has been frustrated that the UK PM was in the infobox for quite a long time, doesn't mean he has to be a dick. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why strike an accurate comment? Also while I think Mais might have approached a boundary I don't think he want across it.  Maybe you should pay attention to the simple fact that a growing body of editors are getting fed up with your petty disruptions? -- Snowded  TALK  15:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, my recommendation for clarifiction wasn't trivial or disruptive. Mais and John L, should atleast tone it down a bit 'in future'. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't do the work to summarise the position or set up the poll - I had to do that for you. Nearly every comment you made before that was trivial and/or disruptive.  I doubt they will tone things down, not should they, until you modify your behaviour.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing that you did set it up. If I had? disruption charges would've rained down on my head. PS- Can ya'll help us at the England article? GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, ya'll should come over to the discussion at England, as there's a bit of a logjam there. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, now that the consistency of those 4 article infoboxes has been broken, I can now side with deletion of the UK PM at England, Wales and Nothern Ireland infoboxes without any conditions attached. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Snowded, you do realize, by us deleting the UK PM from Scotland's infobox & then hiding II in the Queen's name, what will happen? Editors with Scottish pride, will seek changing the intro & map of the article, so that it excludes the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop opining and deal with the evidence and the argument. Put some work into researching something before you make a statement.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy smokers, I you blind or obtuse? If you went to the Elizabeth II article & demanded it be moved to Elizabeth I or just Elizabeth, because of Scotland? they'd laugh you off the article. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You either haven't read the point I made or you lack the willingness or ability to understand the point made. If you had read it and understood it you would know that there is no question of suggesting any change other than in the context of Scotland.  Read-think-respond not skim-react should be your watchword.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said enough at that discussion, it's up to others to decide if I'm a quack or not. You're (plural) opening up a dam at that article (and possibily England, Wales, Northern Ireland) & it will be difficult to re-seal it. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay the issue does not arise in the cases of England, Wales and Northern Ireland as they were all reigned over by the first Elizabeth in pre-UK times. Scotland was not, and is unique in the UK in that regard. (But hardly unique in the Commonwealth. Canada was never reigned over by Elizabeth I, for example!) Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Scotland isn't independant, it's a part of the UK. The monarch of the UK's regnal number is II, that's how it reads in her Accession proclamation, coronation oath. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Accession proclamation was controversial in Scotland, which is why the EiiR cipher is not used there. Scotland is part of the UK, but it is also a country with its own Wikipedia article, appropriate content of which is under discussion. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already stated my positions at that discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the point I would make is that your concern about "opening floodgates" or whatever is misplaced, as this is an issue unique to Scotland in the U.K. And in any case, if you're looking for logic or symmetry in the U.K.'s constitutional arrangements, you'll be looking for a long time! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I only hope you're correct, about the floodgates. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: I blame it on William IV of the United Kingdom. If he had correctly named himself William I of the United Kingdom? his successors would've likely followed his lead. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, don't dwell too much on the straw poll as an example of a consensus (concerning Mick). We all agreed there, that it wasn't binding (per Wikipedia not being a democracy). Best to point to the discussion itself. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Speaker vacancy
Please don't read this as harsh in light of the Giffords shooting, but the Speaker's office is not considered vacant except by death, removal from office, or resignation, since the position is in the presidential line of succession; had Pelosi been needed, she would have acted as President until officially handed over to Boehner. 75.202.151.210 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that, since Pelosi, like all other representatives, is technically a "Member-Elect" from noon on Jan. 3 (expiration of the previous term) until actually sworn in, which happened this year on Jan. 5. And if the Speakership were a continuing position, there would be no need to re-elect an incumbent on the first day of each new Congress. JTRH (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If such a need had arose in that 2-day period, Senator Daniel Inouye (as the US Senate president pro tempore) wouldn' would'vet been Acting President. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "would've" instead of "wouldn't"? In any case, if necessary between Jan. 3 and 5, the House could have convened immediately, taken their oaths, and elected Boehner as Speaker immediately. A lot of this discussion seems to be speculative; I'm going to see if the Clerk of the House can give us a definitive opinion. JTRH (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TBH, I'm no longer certain. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Two things I don't understand about the presidential succession act (1947). Apparently, it says only the VP can become President in such scenerios & thus lower officers can only assume presidential powers & duties (thus Acting President) for the rest of a 4-year term -I find this difficult to believe-.
 * That's what it says. It's really just a semantic distinction, because the "powers and duties" are the same, whether the title is President or Acting President. Strangely enough, the 25th Amendment doesn't deal with succession beyond the Vice President, only providing for temporary presidential disability and the nomination/confirmation of a new VP in the event of a VP vacancy. JTRH (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, apparently, the person (who aint VP) must resign his/her position to assume the presidential powers & duties.
 * Right. JTRH (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if they resign their positions 'first', aren't they automatically removing themselves from the presidential line of succession & thus unable to assume the prez powers & duties? GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not under the terms of this law, no. JTRH (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be easier to just let'em become President. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why it's done the way it's done. JTRH (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad, look at my country. We're stuck with a Head of State, who nobody chose & who's successors are already selected (all by birth). GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the reason the law provides these headscratchers is because it is poorly written.


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


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


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


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


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


 * On the presidential succession, I read the law to require the Speaker and PPT to resign and assume the Acting Presidency in the event that it's necessary. (The operative word is "shall.") And, as with the above matter, I'm sure there are answers (whether or not they're publicly known) dealing with each of these. It's not just a matter of the text of the law, it's a matter of legislative history and legal precedent. I really don't see a situation where you have Acting President Hillary Clinton, the newly-confirmed Vice President of her choice, and the Speaker of the House playing Rock, Paper, Scissors to figure out which one now has the authority to launch a nuclear strike against some aggressor who has just wiped out all three of their predecessors. The fact that the scenarios and contingency plans are not publicly accessible, so we don't know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, I assume that there are detailed contingencies which are deliberately not made available to the public for national security reasons. JTRH (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Succession Act should be revised to allow full succession to the Presidency (not just the powers & duties), for all those officials (except those not born American ciitizens). GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked it up in the U.S. Code. The President pro tempore becomes acting President "if there is no Speaker," which I assume would have been the case between Jan. 3 and 5. Also, it specifies that an individual below the VP who becomes Acting President automatically resigns their current position (Speaker, PPT, Cabinet officer) by taking the Presidential oath. The oath-taking is necessary under the Constitution before Presidential powers can be exercised by anyone. So it's pretty specific at least as to that part of the succession issue. There's bound to be more about it that we don't know. JTRH (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Act doesn't exactly say the presidential oath of office. It's likey the oath to be taken, is the same oath taken by all officils in the federal government (except the President). GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone assuming the powers of the presidency must take the presidential oath first. That's in the Constitution. JTRH (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, as VPs Bush & Cheney didn't in 1985, 2002 & 2007 (though that's under the 25th amendment). I'd argue that the prez oath is restricted to only becoming President. Again though, we shall never know until the Succession Act is implamented. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The VP would have had to take the Presidential oath before he could actually do anything as President/Acting President, even if only temporarily. JTRH (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Once the Speaker & Prez pro temp are given written notices, the VP immediately becomes Acting President. No oath is required to discharge those duties. In 2009 (thanks to Roberts' mess up), Obama didn't correctly take the prez oath 'until' the Jan 21. In the time between Jan 20-21, his discharging of his powers & duties weren't ruled by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Roberts said all the words but put them in the wrong order. The fact that Obama repeated it almost the way Roberts said it didn't invalidate his oath, but it was repeated at the White House the next day out of an abundance of caution. JTRH (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In between those events, Obama performed his presidential powers & duties. Which he was able to do at the stroke of Noon EST, January 20, 2009 -oath or no oath-. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Where do you find authority for the Clerk to convene the House? The mere fact of being a continuing officer certainly doesn't provide that authority.
 * Standing Rules of the House, Rule II, Section 2(c): At the commencement of the first session of each Congress, the Clerk shall call the Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioner to order and proceed to record their presence by States in alphabetical order, either by call of the roll or by use of the electronic voting system. Pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore, the Clerk shall preserve order and decorum and decide all questions of order, subject to appeal by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. When the Speakership is vacant, the Clerk has the authority to convene the House, establish a quorum, and preside over the election of the Speaker. JTRH (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First, nothing in that says he can convene the House when it is not in session; rather, it says he can "call [the membership] to order". Second, and more importantly, the opening phrase severely limits that power to "at the commencement of the first session of each Congress"—in this case, January 5. -Rrius (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) If the president and vice president die and no one has yet assumed the acting presidency, there is no one able to use the president's power to convene Congress. That is fairly simple. So in the situation where there is no speaker and no one has yet assumed the acting presidency, someone lower on the list would have to become acting president before anyone could convene the House. Keep in mind, the date of January 5 was set by a statute as the day when the first day of the first session begins, so it is not entirely clear that anyone but the president could call them to sit early.
 * I'm going to research this more thoroughly, but I'm almost certain that there is a procedure for convening in an emergency. JTRH (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The publicly available rules and precedents that I've found with a relatively cursory search are vague. Based on what I've found so far, let's say the Acting succession passes to a Cabinet officer because the Speakership and Presidency pro tempore are vacant, the Cabinet officer takes the Presidential oath and orders Congress to reconvene. Alternatively, let's say that for some reason the 112th Congress had to convene on Jan. 3, even though the adjournment resolution passed by the 111th Congress designated Jan. 5. The Members-elect of the House convene on Jan. 3, elect a Speaker, take their oaths, and the two Houses pass a resolution amending the 111th's adjournment resolution changing the date to Jan. 3. The Senate is a continuing body, since ordinarily two-thirds of the Senators don't leave office at the end of a Congress, so the Senate can simply show up. They have a quorum even without swearing in the new or newly re-elected Senators. They're not going to sit there twiddling their thumbs for two days during a national emergency because the previous Congress said they can't meet until the 5th. JTRH (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done the research: Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution says in pertinent part, the president "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them". In the event that the offices of President and Vice President are vacant, no one can exercise that authority until someone has entered into the office of Acting President. It would be irrational and an affront to the structure of the succession act to assume that the speaker or speaker in waiting could, as a member of the legislative branch, use a power of the presidency before switching branches. House Rule 1, Section 12, doesn't actually allow the Speaker to convene the House when the House is adjourned sine die, but subsection (d) could probably be stretched beyond what it actually allows. When Congress adjourns or recesses for more more than three days, they do so by adopting a resolution, and the resolution provides authority for the Speaker to recall the House (and the Majority Leader to recall the Senate). The concurrent resolution providing for sine die adjournment provides that the Speaker and Majority Leader can recall their respective chambers to "reassemble". The strong implication is that the authority only lasts until noon on January 3 because convening the respective Houses would be "assembling", not "reassembling". I don't think the Speaker of the preceding Congress has the power to convene the House after noon on January 3 to elect a new speaker, but even if she did, as I've said, it takes time to get a quorum together; time in which the president pro tempore could simply take the acting presidency.


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


 * In your last part, you talk about a hypothetical where the Congress for some reason has to show up on January 3 despite the law saying they are to convene on January 5, but there is no power or authority for such a thing to happen, so I don't know why you brought it up. I think you may be confused about the authority by which the Congress meets for the first session. Section 2 of the 20th Amendment says Congress is to meet on January 3 of every year unless they, by law, provided a different day. When, as with the beginning of this Congress, it is desirable to begin on a different day, they pass a joint resolution, which has to be signed by the president, and is a statute as much as any provision of the United States Code. If Congress tried to simply show up early and change "January 5" to "January 3", it wouldn't work for two reasons: first, once again, there is no president to sign the joint resolution, and second, their actions in reconvening would have been illegal, so the action would be void. -Rrius (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) There is no reason to believe the officers have to, despite the use of the word "shall". Officers in the order of succession are just as able as people elected to the offices to deliver a letter to the secretary of state refusing to accept the office.
 * I doubt that. Sure, the Speaker/President pro tem/Secretary of Agriculture can resign altogether as a Representative/Senator/Cabinet officer and thereby take him/herself out of the line of succession, but I don't read the law to say that s/he can say, "Let this cup pass by me" and keep their current position while the Acting Presidency passes to someone later in the line of succession. What do you think the word "shall" means if not "is required to"? JTRH (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't believe it because you are ignoring the section that comes right after section 19 and the general rule that you can't force someone to take an office. As for the word "shall", it is not always mandatory in law; it depends on context, which in this case makes it directory, not mandatory. -Rrius (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Of course there would never be such "rock, paper, scissors" because the acting president wouldn't risk it. You keep talking about "contingency plans", but the law is the law, and informal arrangements don't trump that. As the statute is written, it would suggest that a cabinet secretary who takes the acting presidency would be supplanted by a vice president appointed by her. The executive and legislative branches can informally discuss whatever they want to, but the law is the law. It is frankly bizarre to think that shitty writing is acceptable because surely the executive branch has secret plans to ignore it when it produces bizarre results. You also seem to be mistaking what I'm talking about for what happens when half the government die at once. What I'm talking about is the president and vice president dying together or the president dying when the vice presidency is vacant. The vice presidency has been vacant for a large percentage of our history and presidents and vice presidents are often together, so it is not exactly far-fetched. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about an "informal arrangement," I'm talking about volumes of legally binding classified national security memoranda. There are lawyers in the Justice Department who worked on nothing else after 9/11. You seem to be arguing that the federal law is bad because three Wikipedia editors can't figure out by reading it what the answer to the question is. It's not that there isn't an answer, it's that we don't know what it is, and no one else without a security clearance does, either. JTRH (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * House Rules, Rule I, Section 8: The Speaker may prepare a list of members, in a specific order, to act as Speaker pro tempore when the Speaker is absent during the Congress. If the Speaker dies, the first person on the list serves as Speaker pro tempore for the purpose of convening the House to elect a new Speaker. There's also something in the rules called a "catastrophic quorum failure," which deals with a situation in which a majority of members are either incapacitated or prevented from attending due to an emergency. It seems that the quorum requirements may be relaxed in such circumstances, so that those who are present how the power to act. That seems to include electing a Speaker who would fill that place in the presidential succession. JTRH (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can call them mandatory all you want, but any such provisions do not and cannot trump the provisions of a statute. It is a simple as that. The catastrophic quorum features are not applicable as the question is not whether there is a quorum but whether there is a speaker and whether anyone can convene the House before the date appointed for the first session. You say that I'm arguing that the law is badly written because we can't figure it out. That's just wrong. I'm saying it because I know how to read a statute and this one sucks, and because scholars how have studied it say it leaves unanswered questions. What you seem to be arguing is that we should assume that, despite its terms, the law is actually okay because the executive branch has sat down written secret memorandums. That's foolish because it presupposes that they have the power to cure the problems of the act and that their solutions are any better. The first is simply wrong and ignores the way our government works, and the second is naive. -Rrius (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wondering: Are you an attorney or a political scientist, and have you worked in either the legislative or executive branches? I'm just wondering what the source of your expertise is. JTRH (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A lawyer and political science major; the first time I read the succession act, I was a junior in high school; I'm sure that makes it obvious I wasn't exactly popular. -Rrius (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I reckon, the only way we'll ever be certain about how the Succession Act will be implimented, will be when it's implimented. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Succession Act
Would both of you check my edit at Presidential Succession Act? O'Neil, Hastert & Pelosi didn't belong in that article, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think that the three-year, 11-month vacancy in the Vice Presidency after the death of William Henry Harrison falls into a comparable category with Tip O'Neill being next in line for eight hours while G.H.W. Bush served as Acting President during Reagan's surgery. The latter has more to do with the 25th Amendment than with the original legislation. So I agree with you that they shouldn't go in the same chart. I think the contemporary instances where O'Neill, Hastert and Pelosi were next in line for brief periods might be worthy of a footnote to the article, though. And during the time I was typing this, someone reverted your edit. JTRH (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've been reverted per BRD. I could accept O'Neil, Hastert & Pelosi being included if they're given a seperate place or (as you say) a footnote. It's tricky, they were next-in-line to the presidential powers & duties, but not to the presidency. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)