User talk:GoodDay/Archive 27

Frequency
Only a small point GoodDay, but could you change one thing that you regularly do, which is exceptionally frustrating? I am talking about your tendancy to "quick-fire" another point into talk pages moments after you just made one. I can't be the only one who finds that, on replying to some point you make, you have blocked edits with an immediate follow-up to your own point. If you left, say, 10 mins between your comments, that would help! Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's going a bit far, IMHO. Where in WP does it say an editor has to wait 10 minutes between his or her comments on talk pages?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Were you being edit-conflicted? hehehe. Sorry, when excitable, my mind (and fingers) go into over-drive. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am hip, however to where James is coming from seeing as I just got an edit conflict (Oh happy days). Once I got an edit conflict on an article I'd been working on and I lost about an hour's worth of writing which was absolutely delightful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) (joking) It doesn't say anything about it in guidelines Jeanne and I didn't claim it did - I was politely asking GD to make himself a special case and recuse himself from following up his own remarks with another remark for a reasonable space of time. I know it's a lot but I'm ever an optimist. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just gonna point out to Jeanne, that some posts can avoid being lost in 'edi conflicts', like yours just now. Note the (ec), at the beginning. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really bad over at Ref Desk Humanities. I have encountered so many edit conflicts over there sometimes I wonder why I bother commenting seeing as so many of my replies have been forever consigned to the oblivion of fathomless cyberspace.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, alot of heavy traffic there. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do they have some magical way of controlling it at the main pages like ANI so that ec's only occur within a section? It seems that way. If so, shame it can't be spread wider. On the above though, I think GD's superhuman comment-production rates demands an unusual solution. Bit like that policeman in Hot Fuzz who has to be relegated to a rural zone because of his extreme productivity. 400% more efficient than his colleagues. (oh bugger - another ec) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just that I usually have short posts. Particularly when you compare them to Micky's posts. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A fair point. One of his typical ones is the equivalent of approximately 40 minutes of yours. I think he can probably type faster than you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My posts have dropped dramatically on article talkpages, however (my choice). GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who in 'ell is Micky? Do you mean this guy? Or perhaps this bloke?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, MickMacNee's the bloke. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I resent you making fun of my favorite Monkee!! Glad to see you in good spirits GD!! It fits you know!! Raul17 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Raul. I was feeling quite low & cornered yesterday, but Mies' pep talk, energies me. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! And let us keep it that way!! Raul17 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo....take the last train to Clarksville, I'll meet you at the station..... The 60s were such FUN!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, yeah. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Accompanied by teenage girls amplifying their erotic thoughts and desires through the medium of hysterical screaming.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * [ Watch this to get a glimpse of the female mindest, and note the comments I put on the page below the video clip.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "Video not available". GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Made a mistakey. Try again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The girls seemed mostly well behaved. Their screams were likely caused by the tamberin player's glasses. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comments? Those screams were caused by that horny-looking rythym guitarist. This clip lets you glimpse the way females view men. The group's two leaders didn't count for s..t against that hunk playing the axe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the 'glitches' comment? Which guy's the rythm guitariest? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my comments below the clip on YouTube. I have an account over there. The rythym guitarist is the dark-haired guy who attracts all the screaming whenever the camera focuses on him. Check it out again and you'll see who I mean.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The fellow at 0:52 - 0:56? He the one you said was "goog looking"? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Blasted, I've run into a troublesome editor at Ahmed Shafik article. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

GRRR, he's pushed me to the 3-Revert limit, on 3 articles 'no less'. His edit-summaries are quite rude. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes at number 0:52 and again at 1.49 and 1:50. I'll check the editor out later.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. PS: He's got a point about the Cuban Presidents though, so I reverted to his versions. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read that the goog-looking guitarist Jim Tucker quit the band after having been insulted by John Lennon while the Turtles were in England. Tucker who idolised the Beatles never got over the humiliation and disillusionment so left the band-and the music business! What a serpentine tongue Lennon must have had. I have heard he had a nasty streak. My old boyfriend back in 1974 was present during Lennon's infamous Kotex on the forehead scene at a West Hollywood club and told me Lennon acted the complete prick even reducing the female singer to tears as he heckled her from the audience while she sang.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, Lennon was capable of being an asshole. GoodDay (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he showed his cruel streak to those who regarded him and the group as god-like heroes. To handle someone like Lennon I would adopt a cool, indifferent attitude. My dad who through his job encountered celebs on a daily bais including Marilyn Monroe and Led Zeppelin. He treated them like anyone else and as a result they were very polite and friendly to him, especially John Bonham with whom my dad had a long chat about vintage cars!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a chance to see the McCartny concert in Nova Scotia, but turned it down. I enjoy the music, not the people behind it. PS: When ya get the chance, check out YouTube - Freddie Lennon has a couple of song there & you'll be amazed as how much he looks like & sounds like John. GoodDay (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki glitches
The 'pedia has been acting strange these last few hours (since the survers were down). Editing, posting & making edit-summaries, cause the pedia's edit pages to 'jump' & act jerky. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed some jumps in edit windows. I thought it was the touchpad on my laptop acting up. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, when making changes, the 'green circle' blinks at the point you make'em. Oddily enough, these strange happenings, don't seem to occur on one's own talkpage editing. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The editing process is still acting strange. Perhaps it's got to do with our 'new' Log in globally set-up. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think it's related to the US fighter planes which keep flying over my house. And you tell me over and over and over again that you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehehe, so you're experiencing these glitches too? GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, on YouTube as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird or What? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I've Got The Blues. My monitor screen has gone a deep midnight blue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope Wikimedia fixes the glitch soon. The jumpiness of the edit page, when one presses a button, tends to cause one headaches, after awhile. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems worse tonight. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Frustrating, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Good morning (or should that be Good Night?)
Hello. You're either up very early or staying up verrrrry late.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good mornin', Jeanne. I've been awake all night, thanks to the happenings at List of current heads of state and government article. GoodDay (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely that article isn't worth losing sleep over. Think of all the lovely erotic dreams you may have missed!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm dicovering there & at ANI, that the editor who's causing misery - has a history of disruption concerning the Australian HoS topic. GoodDay (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one have no intention of playing with that ball of confusion over on that article's talk page. What a coil!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mies will be wondering as to what the heck happened. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you've been up all night, an expresso sounds like a good idea. Shall I go make us a demitasse each?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nay. Skyring is heading towards another block. GoodDay (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat? You are refusing to drink my expresso?! Shame on you. I'm highly offended. I was gonna offer you a tasty apricot-filled pastry to accompany it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though you refused my offer that's so reason to deprive myself as I'm starving. I'll be back in about 10 minutes after I've slaked my hunger with the forementioned delectables.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take the expresso. GoodDay (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wise decision. It's always nicer to drink in company. Alas, I hear the distant moan of thunder. If the storm approaches, I'll have to unplug my PC.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did ya get a chance to listen to Freddie Lennon? GoodDay (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll go check it out now in case the storm arrives.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Never seen a blue tree, before. GoodDay (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I took the photo from my window. Freddie not only looks like John but sounds like him as well. Uncanny. Anyroad, I'm outta here. I just heard another clap of thunder and my lights flickered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "That's My Life". GoodDay (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The storm remained in the mountains, but better safe than a burnt-out PC!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

List of heads of state
GoodDay, I don't understand the rationale behind this edit. Why link to the lists, and why only three countries out of the 190+ on the page? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of them were already linked to their List articles, so I figured why not the rest of'em. I could undo it though & instead link'em all to their GG articles instead (since Tuvalu, Soloman islands & Papau New Guinea, don't have 'list articles'). GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right; most do link to the relevant list. Don't know how I missed that. Duhrrr.... -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I just moved them all to their respective Governor General articles. PS: Has your editing pages been acting funny lately? (see Wiki Glitches -above-). GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Skyring's pushing his preferences on that article & trying to suck me into a sequal of the arguments he & I had at Australian head of state dispute. I'm not gonna let that happen, as I've little patients with him & therefore find it difficult to collaborate with him. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a decent enough fellow. I think he's just unable, so far, to widen his field of vision; which we can all be guilty of, at times. Hopefully the RfC will bring about some resolution. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I reckon, I tend to get frustrated with Australian political articles in general. Also, British & Irish political articles, hmm.GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, will they be stopping by your place for lunch? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The cruelties of life, never cease to amaze me. If Billy & Kate do? I'm throwing potatoes at Billy, but Kate can visit (she too sexy to turn away) GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I plan on being her first extra-marital affair, thank you very much! -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * She's gorgeous. Unless a republican mood hits our country within the next few years & we get our way, she'll likely become Canada's Queen-consort. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for that reason alone you should support the Canadian monarchy! At least, until their kid becomes monarch. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lilibet's good health seems to be continuing. If Chuck takes after both his mom & dad's life-spans (85 & 90 this year), Billy will likely be atleast in his 50's 'before' he becomes William V of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, what's the story on Chuck? is he stuck at British Air Chief Marshal, General & Admiral until he ascends the throne? GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think his military days are over. So, yes. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've become rather concerned with Skyring/Pete, in these last few hours. I fear he's developing into a SPA, with an obssesion over preventing Elizabeth II from being shown directly/indirectly as Australia's Head of State. I hope my fears are misplaced. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your fears are misplaced. I wonder about what sort of monster you think I am, if you believe I have an obsession with something that had never even crossed my mind! This makes some of your comments understandable. GoodDay, I'm not your enemy. If you don't understand what I'm on about, why not ask me? I'm not going to lie or mislead you - I'm going to try to clear up misunderstandings.
 * Can I just point out that Wikipedia reflects the real world - it isn't reality. If you or I really care about something, the place to wrangle about it is out in the real world. Egyptian people didn't battle away over a few Wikipedia articles and accuse each other of pushing PsoV- they went out and made a difference in real life. And, as naturally as day follows night, the Wikipedia articles reflect the new reality.
 * That's what I'm on about - keeping Wikipedia honest. What I really detest is when PoV-warriors deliberately make Wikipedia articles into something that lauds their side and denigrates the other, and it really hurts me when you accuse me of doing something similar.
 * If you want to see what sort of person I really am, why not read my blogs? Skyring, Hello Its Me, One More Fare, Fly grub, and Hog Jowls. Wikipedia (or heads of state) are barely mentioned. --Pete (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologies. Having been awake 30+ hours straight (a few days ago) makes me a tad paranoid. After a good snooze, I was able to cool down & approach the discussion more calmly. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for making you unhappy and tired. I've got my own touch of paranoia, too, and it's gotten me into trouble in the past. Look, I'd much rather we were happy in our lives than some wording on a website was one way or another. Besides, you look away for a moment, and some other crew of editors comes through and a week's worth of nitpicking unhappiness gets thrown away without a second thought. --Pete (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We're more alike then you know. We are both capable of being stubborn, when consensus is against us. PS: I assume you're no longer interested in the discussion at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm interested! I'm waiting for some input on wording that is honest and addresses the matter. The NPOV problem won't go away. Mies' "solution" is like when I say I'm tired of the jazz music on the jukebox and could we have a little peace, he loads up a few loonies to select a bunch of blues tunes instead. But I don't want to squabble over that on your talk page. --Pete (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's too bad, that you continue to actively oppose, after intially complaining about only the font size. Anyways, I'm not backing down. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

When you're hot you're hot
I'm so peeved right now, with a certain stubborn editor at List of current heads of state and government, who's morphing into a dick. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't let him get to you, that's my advice. Why should you permit a total stranger, known only through the invisible, undefined medium of cyberspace, to ruin your day?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just because I've been awake for 28hrs straight (and counting), is no indication that he's gotten under my skin (giggle giggle). BTW, an agreement was reached & implimented at David I of Scotland. I believe everybody basically got what they wanted, without costing that article's FA status. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy smokers, only very wide women (per continous sex) could handle that Latin Lover. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer Jim Tucker (re:YouTube video above). A sexy mouth beats an oversized organ any day. (Never did care much for all that monotonously oppressive church music).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If a gal likes ya & is intimate with ya, a fella need only his wits to bring a gal to orgasim. He's gotta built the gal up to the climax (sexy talk, stimulation of the 'zones'). I prefer to play around with a gal, first. None of that 'wham bam thankyou mame, stuff'. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Without mental stimulation sex becomes tedious. That's why women cheat on their partners; once it's reduced to a purely physical routine it is like a household chore.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Oh darling, I won't so much to hold you in my arms". GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know this image was likely responsible for the verrrrry erotic dream I had last night about Jim Tucker. There's nothing like a sexy mouth. Most women check out a guy's eyes or rear end, whereas I look at the mouth, smile, and lips.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Weekends at Wikipedia
I hope this weekend at Wikipedia offers more action than the last one did. Where have all the editors gone? I notice Sarah has not edited for a while.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarah777's interest in Wikipedia seems to have ended (I hope she's not ill). IMHO, she likely couldn't deal with the constraints of the 'pedia, as she edited & participated in discussion with her Irish nationalist pride. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other departed editors include Jack Forbes, Jack1755, Henry V, BigDunc, Cameron. The second anniversary of Titch Tucker's death is approaching. I really do miss him; he was such a kind, gentle human being.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I miss'em too. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I often wonder what causes an editor to quit the project after donating so many hours of his or her free time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Possible factors: Fatigue, RL changes, frustrations with the Wiki-community. For example, I've drastically cut down my participation around British/Irish political articles (which is no prob for me); however other editors can't handle the kinds of frustrations I endure. Thus they quit on the entire project, which I find a bit 'too drastic'. A sorta "I'm not playing anymore, I'm going home" thing. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It could be not having as much free time due to work, or else PC/Internet problems. IMO, it's the deletionists and their arbitrary nominations of pages for AfD. Soemtimes editors have spent years adding to an article only for another to come along and AfD it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When ya create something & put it into the public domain, it's no longer yours (which is how it should be). I've only created about 4-articles (in my 5+ years), so AfDs won't push me into retirement. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree it no longer belongs to the creator, yet it's frustrating when one's afforts are wiped out. BTW, I have stopped creating new articles, preferring instead to improve those I already have up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to create articles, is to start them out as stubs. That way, if they're deleted, then it's less frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A fine encyclopedia Wikipedia would be if everybody adopted this suggestion! A sea of stubs floating about cyberspace like algae, and pieces of flotsam and jetsam.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This weekend is already turning out to be even duller than the last. Where is the action? Hardly any of the pages I have on my watchlist appeared this morning.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of'em must be gone to church. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I see though, you've taken part in the fun at the Gerry Adams article. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

PPS: At that G.Adams discussion, I discovered one thing. O Fenian's a female. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How so? (I haven't bothered to read the text). A sock as well perchance? LemonMonday    Talk   17:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * O Fenian's been referred to as she at that discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but some nutters use that style just to make a pathetic feminist point. I'm reading a text book at the moment where the author alternates 'he' with 'she' when referring to a generalised person. It's most irritating and unnecesary; the universal 'he' is more than adequate. Anyway, I wouldn't read too much into that about Fenian - where's the offending sentence - approximately? LemonMonday    Talk   17:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the place, where "she" is mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. Interesting. It is fascinating sometimes trying to deduce gender. We all have our own ideas on the gender of users, mostly formed very quickly, but maybe we get it wrong a lot of the time. I know you are M, as I am, and so is Snowded, but most others who I assume to be M, well, who knows. LemonMonday    Talk   17:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a female/male world. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a girl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your self-portraits, leave no doubts. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Montreal Canadiens
Though I am sympathetic to the view that unnecessary use of foreign words ought to be dropped, you aren't doing any of your causes a favour by deleting the accent from the French name for the Canadiens. If you want to revisit the issue of removing the French name, then you should do so, and not misspell it, which can be construed as a passive-aggressive way to stir up a debate again. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an North American & NHL based article, thus my reason for removing the diacritics, per the agreement at WP:HOCKEY. If I'm wrong, then revert my changes. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you are aware from your previous contributions to the topic on the talk page, the infobox is displaying the literal French name for the team and so is outside the scope of the diacritics compromise, which is about the English version for foreign names. I have agreed with you on the talk page that the French name is not required, but others do not. You can raise it again but I doubt the outcome will be any different. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be less dramatic, if another raised that topic again. If I were to do so? attempts would be made to silence me (via sanctions, for example). GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be more straight-forward, though, rather than misspelling the French name. This type of edit is what other editors have complained about: an indirect attempt to get a controversial issue discussed again. isaacl (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not an attempt to get a controversial issue discussed again. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you nuts?
I've just been reading some of the talk above. Have you really been ignoring a beautiful young woman to wrangle with me on a website? Sheesh! Look, you only get one shot at life. Enjoy it as much as you can. You never know what's ahead, so take pleasure in the moment. If you are worried that I'm going to something unexpected on Wikipedia, arguing over some arcane piece of trivia - font sizes, for the love of god! - just tell me that you are going to be tied up for a day, a couple of days, a week. I don't want to be lumbered with the guilt of making you unhappy and turning your life into a misery. You know what I live for? Smiles. I've been known to fly around the world for a smile and a hug. Jeanne - you reading this? Help me make this sad b-stard smile! --Pete (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not unbalanced or sad & my parents married 2-yrs after my birth -thus legitimizeing me (whatever that means)-. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Half the people I know, their parents never married at all! That's Australia for you. Now, a mug of latte, with you, Sir! I go into Artoven on Franklin Street in Manuka, and I don't even have to ask for a "huge family-sized slender latte" any more. They just fire up the espresso machine as soon as they see me, and one appears with a smile. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm atheist & a republican. The fact that in the 21st century, monarchies still exist & people still believe in an invisible man living in the sky -- baffles me. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend Plato's Cave to you. We cannot know the true nature of everything. Yeah, I too find some of the religious stuff more like a fairy story than something to base one's life around, but lots of people do, and I'm not going to spend my life arguing with them over whether Mohammed rode up to heaven on a flying horse or Noah found some loophole in genetics that got around inbreeding. Maybe they are right and when I die I'll be reborn as a hobbit. Who knows? As for monarchies, if that's how nations want to organise themselves, that's a matter for the people of those nations. Anyway, I take life as it comes, don't dwell in the past or the future too much, and enjoy the moment. --Pete (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too, am a contented person. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment, Pete, alas, that photo was taken on 29 June 1974. GoodDay, monarchies are a living link to a nation's past, and as for believing in an invisible man in the sky, would it make you happier if I told you I believed in a hot, highly-visible hunk of a man dwelling far below in the fiery bowels of the earth?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no red-colored fellow, living underground either. The Oil companies have been drilling for years & haven't found that firery place. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be the Hell Oil Company. Jeanne, I don't distinguish on the grounds of age when I say that a woman is young. I take the position that inside every grandmother is still the schoolgirl, the young bride, the glowing mother, the radiant beauty. And when she smiles and her eyes twinkle, she is as beautiful as ever. True beauty is not in the skin, but in the heart. If ever you find GoodDay again tied up in some silly wikidispute with me, just twinkle at me and say you need him, and we'll pause for a break. --Pete (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When you give up this silly PoV crusade at the List article-in-question, things will move on. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There has got to be a way forward
GoodDay, I hope you take this advice with the good will in which it's being delivered. Seeing as you admit that it's difficult for you to collaborate on British/Irish/UK related articles, why not take a month long break from those articles and their talk pages? Concentrate on other areas of Wikipedia that won't lead to acrimonious edit-warring. I am sad to see three fellow editors, whom I happen to like, embroiled in this matter. I hope you don't feel offended by my counsel, but I would like to see this dispute resolved peacefully. You are not a needle on a compass automatically pointed in the direction of British/Irish/UK articles. Remember I am your friend who wishes you well. It is just past the second anniversary of Titch Tucker's passing; he would have hated to see all this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Intially, Snowded's attempts to modify me, were accepted. But in these last few weeks, he's begun to insult me on those article talkpages-in-question, via his posts & edit summaries. The impression has been created, that he's trying to hound me off of British articles. As for Daicaregos, he seems to appear often at these British political articles (mostly the Welsh articles) with 'revert' in hand & sometimes empty edit-summaries. I haven't forgotten the desgracefull way he behaved at that farce ANI-report on me (including calling for my talkpage to be restricted). I wish both of them to note, that there were a few editors at that farce ANI-report, who agreed that -certatin editors- were merely trying to bully me off the British/Irish political articles 'cuz of my NPoV pushing. I came quite close, to collecting diffs on Snowded, in preperation of an ANI-report on him. But chose not to go the dramatic route & instead, requested he stay away from my talkpage. Snowded & Daicaregos, were antagonizing me on public articles (via their posts & edit-summaries), so before it might've been too late, I barred them from here. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't make the problem disappear, GoodDay. If you'd like (and Snowded and Dai agree) the three of you may use my talk page to discuss your differences. There has to be a solution to this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My solution is for them to stop harrassing me with their public talkpage/edit summary attacks. Their solution is to bar me from British & Irish political articles & curtail my NPOV approach. PS: Are you certain, you want us 3 locking horns at your User talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to boot my PC as the page kept limbo dancing all over the place. GD, don't worry I can handle the three of you. LOL. When I lived in Ireland, I had a Protestant boyfriend from Northern Ireland and a Catholic boyfriend from Northern Ireland, so if I could handle that situation without tripping over any live wires three Wikipedians would surely be a lazy day at the beach in comparison!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's currently quiet between the 3 of us. If either of'em show up at your talkpage complaining about me again, let me know & I'll drop in. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, you need to lighten up, man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With Snowded & Daicaregos not posting here anymore? lightening up will be easier. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

MedCab
GD - Regarding the pending MedCab case we're both currently involved in: I'd recommend neither of us clutter up the discussion with needless commentary/opinions/reactions/rebuttals (not that either of us have made any, so far; this is just for future). You can see from the, what? 20+ thousand words at Talk:List of current heads of state and government that excess verbosity (whether on purpose or by lack of control) can choke a discussion, slowing down its progress and keeping it from reaching a conclusion. I believe we should be consise and sparing in our comments; we needn't react to everything Pete/Skyring says; there isn't much left to say to him that hasn't already been said, anyway. Instead, let the mediator (should one show up) listen to each of us and make up his/her own mind on matters. I'm going to find my inner zen... No, that's my spleen. Dammit! -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement, we don't want a repeat of the discussions at List of current heads of state and government. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Let's keep it clear and simple and straightforward. --Pete (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Libyan crisis
The Libyan situation is very perturbing. I'm very close to Libya, just across the Med. All of North Africa is a timebomb waitig to detonate and the fall-out cannot even be imagined.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Qaddafi won't give in, as long as he's got military & mercenary support. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's turning into a bloodbath ready to engulf the Arab world.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The events were inevitable. Democracy can't be prevented forever. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not going to see democracy in those parts any time soon (besides maybe Jordan and maybe Morocco, which are already borderline constitutional monarchies and seem to be (slowly) moving more towards the Western model). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not gonna be easy in some areas. As you say, Jordan & Morocco are on the road to constitutional monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Qaddafi is beginning to sound like Evelyn Draper: "Anyone who doesn't love me, I shall send to hell".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing him on TV these last few days, helped ease my curiosity. I had begun to believe he'd changed into a wax figure of himself. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Maybe he did just step out of Madame Tussaud's.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinions
Hi, GoodDay! I've been puzzling over this comment you made:
 * User:Mkativerata has provided reliable/authritative sources & posts, which seem to support Mies' compromise - yet Skyring/Pete seems to prush them off as just opinons. This seems to me to be a fundamental mistake on your part. The identity of the Australian head of state isn't a fact we can check, like the length of a river or the date of a battle. It's not in any law or regulation. MK linked to a statement by a constitutional scholar, but that was still just the scholar's opinion, respected though it maybe. Do you have some definitive source on the matter that isn't an opinion in some way? --Pete (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Our statements at the MedCab will be reviewed by the Mediator (whoever that will be). He'll either accept our observations or reject them. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's as may be. I can't work out how it could possibly be anything other than a matter of opinion. If you have a direct line to some absolute fact, please share it! --Pete (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mediator would have to go throught the entire Rfc & related discussions, to get a understanding of my observation. I also endorse Mies' observation. GoodDay (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for Informal Mediation
Your request for Informal Mediation (MedCab) has been accepted by User:Ronk01. Please give an opening statement in the indicated section on the case page. (Located here) Ronk01   talk  14:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Statement has been given. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Blue Sunday
Well it's another boring Sunday-at Wikipedia and elsewhere. It appears that everybody, including you, is out having more fun than I am.....or maybe people are just being forced to eat Sunday dinner at their in-laws hahahahahahahahaha!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where were you all Saturday? GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuck at home as it rained hard all day and well past midnight. My kids occupied both computers! I'm home alone at the moment. My daughter went out with her dad and my stupid son drove up to Mt Etna to see the snow, with the road icy and extremely dangerous.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Boyz will be boyz. Snowded's been quiet for quite sometime, too. Should I be worried? GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My son just returned. He said he had fun in the snow! Yesterday it was so cold where I live I thought it would snow.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had over 5-feet of snow, at my front door. It was funny to open the door & see its imprint on the snowbank (which was solid enough, not to cave in). GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you build a snowman? Oh, did you ever see this episode of Twilight Zone: Night Call? That was my favourite episode. Isn't it creepy that they had planned to broadcast it on 22 November 1963! Ooooooooooooooo scareeeeeeeee....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I stayed home & yep I seen that episode (though not last night). The timing was spooky, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another chilling episode was The Hitch-Hiker (The Twilight Zone).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a better state of death, then the real thing, mind ya. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know never having conciously experienced it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope to keep the inevitable at bay, as long as possible. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Blue Sunday!!! MacStep (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An Arsenal fan, I presume. PS: I'm tempted to change those England, Scotland & Northern Ireland flags to Union Jacks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * DO NOT EVEN JOKE ABOUT IT!!!! I hope you were joking. But all the same, you should just avoid those British articles for awhile. Think you should start editing hockey club articles instead. Another trophyless for the Gunners!! Raul17 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I won't correct them. I considered fixing the flags at 2006 British Touring Car Championship season & the other BTCC seasons articles, but changed my mind. I didn't wanna give Bjmullan fits. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw Blue Sunday and thought you were celebrating - The Blues is a nickname for Birmingham City F.C.. MacStep (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think GD is a soccer fan. But it is a sad, sad day today! Raul17 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys have the correct discriptive for that sport. It's strange how 'football' got replaced with 'soccer' in our hemisphere. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GD, I am surprised!! I thought you of all people would know that American word is actually British!! Raul17 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * British? that's a word met with hostility around the British & Irish political articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if I use English, would not someone else get upset?! Raul17 (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if it pertains 'only' to England, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, guess it does. It funny because I still use British for things from Great Britain and Irish for the Irelands. I remember an ex-girlfriend talking about the English girls in Hong Kong (something about shoes) and she had me thinking if the British nationals born on Hong Kong also Chinese? Raul17 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of you are even close to the significance of Blue Sunday. I got it in fact from the title of a Doors song!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Arsenal still lost so that is a blue Sunday for me! Raul17 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do the refs still get roughed up? or is that in another league. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well...we do have the Sian Massey Sexism controversy MacStep (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, she was turning on the men & thus causing a destraction. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it (shakes head). How does someone go about "turning on men"?. Is it like flipping on the light switch or the PC? The world is full of so many mysteries....(shakes head again and sighs....very deeply).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, according to GD, the fans go to see the refs roughed up. But since that did not happened, they just leered at her! Raul17 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For some women, just being present is a turn-on. BTW, I don't know what she looks like. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like Pamela Anderson, Megan Fox, Cindy Crawford, the Barbie twins, Marilyn Monroe. I suppose all they have to do is enter a room and the place lights up like a neon sign. (Sigh......).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Checked-up on photos of her refeering & found the distractions. 1) Pretty face, 2) Wearing shorts = nice legs. 3) Nice rear-end & 4) Running = bouncing boobs. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * She sounds like 90% of the girls I went to high school with.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya still attract the guys, eh? Again, luv the cleavage image. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which cleavage image?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Where you're sitting next to the Richards look-alike. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhh.....Last summer....Seems like a lifetime away..We had a fierce thunderstorm last night. Typical mad March weather.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still getting snow in my area. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
Thank you for your Statement. I have read each of them, and encourage you to give rebuttals where you feel it to be necessary. I would now ask that you propose a solution on the talk page for review by all participants in hopes of developing consensus on a compromise. This message has been delivered to all participants Ronk01   talk  15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
I don't want to complicate your ongoing mediation by adding a fourth party to the discussion; however, you may want to point out the undue weight section of the neutral point of view policy. If the conventional view regards the Queen as the head of state, then other views may not warrant equal coverage, as this would give them undue weight. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The more participants, the better. I'll use those guides, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I kept my almanac! It listed the head of states for each country/nation. See, just when printed matter was a thing of the past!! Raul17 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it would've changed or softened Skyring/Pete's stance, however. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand Skyring/Pete's position: in his summary of the situation in the "Self-mediation" section, he said, "I must admit that it is the conventional view, and a literal reading of even the Australian Constitution would support this." Now he is saying "I suggest that conventional views have changed." Also, in his statement of the dispute, in the section describing what he would like to change, he said "Both Queen and Governor-General should be shown in equal size fonts for the Australian entry, and a link to the article above provided, along with a short but appropriate note." But in the section on the talk page listing the various options, he expresses the opposite views. isaacl (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you present those contradictions to the MedCab? GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the right protocol is: I'm not a named party, and to be frank, I don't wish to be one, so I'm not sure if comments from outsiders are par for the course in this process—by nature, mediation is usually just between the parties with the dispute. If the point-counterpoint had stayed on the main project page, then the talk page might have felt like an apt place to comment, but with the discussion moving to the talk page, I don't want to make any unwanted intrusions. In theory the mediator is intended to help everyone clarify their positions (hence the summary of options), so additional comments from the peanut gallery may not be the best path forward. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. I don't know why Skyring/Pete is hell-bend on promoting the Aussie HoS dispute on Wikipedia. I suppose he can't figure out why others don't agree with him. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: I also have noticed, he hasn't given a rebuttal to either my or Mies' opening statements. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little unusual: after requesting mediation, rather than follow the instructions of the mediator to rebut without discussion (again, a good technique to help everyone clarify their positions, so commonalities can be determined and used as a starting point to agreement), he jumped to the talk page to discuss. After all of the previous discussion had come to naught, I would have thought a change of pace would be welcome, prior to more direct engagement. But as long as the discussion moves forward, clarifying and looking for areas of agreement, progress can be made, regardless of the exact process. isaacl (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can tell by his explanation of his contradictory statements, the MedCab is going to be open for quite some time. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in here: Issacl, Pete/Skyring's stance looks consistent, if not based on any real evidence. He acknowledges what the constitution of Australia says about the Queen and the governor-general (hence, he admits "a literal reading of even the Australian Constitution would support [the view that the Queen is head of state]"), but, in his opinion, the constitution "is out of step with reality,... not a logically complete document", and using it as a source "is problematic" (hence, he feels "conventional views have changed"; "Times change. The British Empire is not what it was in 1900 when the Australian Constitution became law. The Queen is not the superstar she was in the middle of the last century. Crowds no longer line the streets waving flags when she visits. With every passing year the monarchy becomes more remote and less relevant. Wikipedia reflect reality, and the reality is that Australians increasingly see the Governor-General as the head of state..."). In essence, I think this statement of his sums up the root of the dispute: "Our job is to reflect the facts, and the fact is that the Governor-General's prime role is NOT representing the Queen, however described". From there, it follows that he can't be satisfied with seeing anything other than the governor-general shown on at least an equal footing with the Queen. The "who is called head of state" question may just be a cover; though, it may also only be a separate issue that's become entangled in with his push to represent the governor-general as the highest figure in the Australian government. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder what he meant by the Elizabeth Windsor thing. I'm a self-proclaimed republican & I didn't describe her as that. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * His explanation of how he interprets "conventional" clears things up. Combined with his statement that it was a view held by distinguished constitutional scholars, I thought he meant it was the generally accepted opinion among experts. However, his subsequent post clarifies that he did not intend to convey that meaning. (I'm still puzzled by his responses to the listed options, though.) isaacl (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He wishs to promote the Aussie HoS dispute on that article & others. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if I go by his agreement with you on options 1 and 2, there is no dispute, and the current article is fine. isaacl (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this whole argument over the List of current heads of state and government began with Skyring/Pete, pushing for the Queen & Governor-General to be the same font-size & nothing else (no pushing for notes). Back then, he wanted both on equal footing. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * His desire to have them the same size again supports my belief that this is all about making Wikipedia reflect his belief that the govenrnor-general is at least the Queen's equal. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume it's just a typo (perhaps cloning your response and forgetting to change the opinion?); I thought he would have caught it upon further review, but I guess not so far. isaacl (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He hasn't even declared his 'support/oppose' for Option #3. The very option, he continues to oppose, in the discussions. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, though, that proposal one says "distinguish between Head of State and Representative" [emphasis mine]. He may well consider that the suggestion doesn't apply to Australia's entry in the list. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult when an editor 'in effect' argues he didn't say White but rather Anti-Black. Which is how I read Skyring/Pete. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, Skyring/Pete has chosen to 'report' (via links) the goings-on at this talkpage, to the mediator at the MedCab. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was an intent to report the conversation. I assumed from the start that all of the involved parties (including the mediator) has this page watchlisted, as they've all engaged you in conversation recently. isaacl (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I reckon he'd be a tad paranoid, as the lone editor who's preventing a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GD, I think you have been doing great. No one can accuse you of any wrong here! Raul17 (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Raul17. Things have been great overall, since the Rfc/U threats (British & Irish political articles) have ended. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Queen appoints the Governor General. Therefore she must be HoS even if all the actions are done by the GG. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That explanation wouldn't be accepted by Pete, though. He preffers to promote the Australian head of state dispute where possible. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kittybrewster. The Queen is obviously the Head of State.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya aint gonna be able to persuade Pete. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And how does that change what's factual and what isn't?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He doesn't accept that the Queen of Australia is that country's undisputed Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? I don't accept that Oswald on his own shot Kennedy. ''Obla-di obla-da life goes on bra.......la la la....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If any of you guys/gals can reason with Pete? It would help immensily. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No can do. In a few minutes I must go and prepare one of my famously crappy meals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Beware, any attempts to reason with Pete on that Aussie HoS dispute topic, will lead to frustration. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to issue any warnings as I've absolutely no interest in exerting my powers of persuasion over on that talk page. Honestly, I was just making a passing comment in response to Kittybrewster's comment which I happen to agree with.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland infoboxes
My hopes of a consensus for my proposals at those articles, are being dashed. Oh well, ya win some & ya loose some. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, stay away from the headaches! You will just be astroturfed like before! There is too many headstrong opinions there and there will be no right way!! Raul17 (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just adjust my approach to those articles. I can't let a few Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish nationlist intimidate me. So far, English nationalist haven't given me a rough time. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The English dominates the other provinces I take offense to Northern Irish; either you are irish or you are not!! There are no West Germans or East Germans nor are there North Koreans or South Koreans. So why are there Northern Irish and Southern Irish?! Raul17 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said Raul17 but then GoodDay is well known for stirring the pot... Bjmullan (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, I was actually kidding, so there was no pot stirring. But I am kind of annoyed with the nationalities based on political set-ups: Germany, the Koreas, Vietnam, etc. Raul17 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was out for a few hours. Anyways, why are your (plural) posts scratched out? GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Gd, you was a victim of astroturfing again. Raul17 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bjmullan seems to be determind to taunt me, lately. He's just too emotional. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So who's the bouncer?
I see the discussion on Australia's head of state is deemed a private party? If that's the case, who's the bouncer?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're aloud to comment there, but I think you're restricted from voting in the straw polls. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * allowed... Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Spelling isn't one of my strengths. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Taunting GoodDay
BTW, Snowded continues to refuse my request at Talk:Elizabeth II, to 'scratch out' his attack on me. Apparently, he's chosen to stirr the pot. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is very poor form to ask somebody not to contribute to your talk page and then to comment on them on this page. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowded is free to comment here. I've ended my restrictions on him & Daicaregos (days ago). GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Change your behaviour and I'll stop commenting on it. Basic fact is you made a statement on the page which one simple check would have told you was wrong.  You post without thinking and without doing basic research and checking.  its highly disruptive and needs to stop. -- Snowded  TALK  19:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's allright for you to respond to my public talkpage posts, with a rebuttal of my statements, acompanied by a reliable source (to back your rebuttal). It's not allright for you to prejudice me, by labeling me in the manner you did. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your making unconsidered statements is a continuing problem and more than worthy of comment. In this case you made a statement which was plainly false and had to correct in minutes when someone else did the research/checking for you.  Lazy at best, disruptive and perverse at worst.  Neither are you being taunted (misleading edit summary there).  Your disruptive behaviour is being pointed out when it is evidenced, and that will continue.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is commenting on the contributor. You wouldn't be pleased, if I were going around on the public talkpages saying "Snowded's rejection of the pretext 'constitutent', is do to his self-proclaimed Welsh nationalist pride, as he sees the pretext as demeaning Wales' status". GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In your case the contributor has become the problem. As to your example above, if you want to exhibit a level of foolishness beyond your current achievement feel free.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, when I'm requested to not 'comment on a contributor' on those public talkpages, I delete/scratch such comments. Your attempts to bait me won't work. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The 'edit summary' blunder at the MedCab, was a riot. GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, no matter how frustrated you get with me (at times), it doesn't even compare to how frustrated I am with Pete. No, not even close in comparison. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not my objective. It makes me extremely uncomfortable to read this. If I can make your life easier and calmer in any way, let me know. Discussion between editors should not be so painful. We can co-operate effectively and productively if our hearts are directed to that end. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cooperation is impossible, as long as you continue with your agenda. Remember, in the past, you were blocked for a whole year, concerning the Australian HoS topic. Stop being so obtust, so we can all move on. PS: Cut the Holier then thou baloney, please? GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see co-operation as very important. You don't know the facts of the block, but it basically involved dealing with another editor who was unable to admit any error, and I behaved extremely poorly towards him - and he to me - before I realised the problem. He was an extremely valuable editor, devoted to his contributions, and he chose to leave the project. I don't want to see this, or anything like it happen again. I don't see myself as being obtuse. Obstinate, maybe, but I have spent years studying Australia's constitutional situation. George Winterton, Greg Craven and many others are not internet references to me - they are clear in my memory. I wish you could have heard them speak. Much of their work is available on the web, however. To me, you come across as poorly informed and dogmatic over trivia. The comments you make are at odds with the books on the Australian constitution which I own and cherish. Crisp, Garran, Lumb and so on. Even Turnbull has something worthwhile to say. I am sorry if I come across too strong on the nature of wikipolicies, but I should be even more fervent in my support. They work. They keep Wikipedia not just afloat but surging forward. --Pete (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ernie Coombs (alias: Mr. Dressup), spoke to Casey & Finnegan (two puppets). The fact that he spoke to the puppets, doesn't make Casey & Finnegan alive. Repeating: I'm not giving-in to your agenda at the List of current heads of state and government article. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Atleast you've partially admitted to being obstinate (dictionary meaning- "Stubbornly adhering to an opinon, purpose, or course, usually with implied unreasonableness; persistent". Which tends to define a SPA, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So who's the bouncer? cont'd
I'm not sure who the villain here is (I certainly hope it is not me) Outside voting in straw polls is allowed, but those votes will not be counted in any official sense. they do give us a good idea of what the community thinks though, which is a good thing. Ronk01  talk  19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My instincts tell me, Skyring/Pete won't like it. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * E dopo??? (And afterwards?) Comes across better in Italian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Skyring/Pete is a WP:SPA, who was banned from the 'pedia years ago (for 1-year), concerning the same topic: Australia's Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Numbering Mayors and Deputy Mayors
Please raise this question on one of the pages and agree a convention. Personally I think its unecessary -- Snowded TALK  21:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let your reverts stand, as it's not a topic I choose to delve into. I don't see it as a major issue. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And then you do the same thing on the regional assembly leaders. If you want to do mass changes like this you should first raise it at the appropriate forum (maybe that for the information boxes in use) and get agreement first. -- Snowded  TALK  18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you denying the number of people who've held those offices? If there's no consensus to number the First Ministers/Deputy First Ministers of Wales & Northern Ireland, then place (within the edit page) a reminder 'not to add'. I rarely peek at edit histories of articles, so can't always remember if I edited something there before & it was deleted. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its an information box standards/guideline thing. What is the problem with raising the question of whether numbers should be included at one central place before you go on a mass editing spree?  As it is you are breaking consistency etc. etc.  It is a community GoodDay, work with it. -- Snowded  TALK  18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time 'yet'. I'm busy with the MedCab, but I'll look into the 'numbers racket' later. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, I suggest you don't spend time on any more article changes until you can do it. I'm open either way, just want consistency -- Snowded  TALK  19:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see the problem, as there's only 2 or 3 individuals per group of First Ministers & their Deputies. I'll try to remember to stay away from numbering those Welsh & Northern Irish official, until then. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have time to change other articles, then you have time to raise it properly. Its not just Welsh and Nothern Ireland - I just happen to have those under watch.  Its all the articles you are changing.   I'm tempted to go and revert those as well until you get a policy change agreed.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not hinting on the Canadian & American infoboxes, 'cuz you'll likely get reverted by others. Also, a mass reverting of the same editor, would (rightly/wrongly) be viewed as 'pointy' reverts. Meanwhile, let be get to the 'numbers racket' after the MedCab is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your practice of mass insertion of numbers has been challenged, it behoves you from that point at least (I would argue from when you first thought of it) to raise the issue properly before carrying on the practice. Consider this as a WP:BRD example, but on a common practice over multiple articles -- Snowded  TALK  21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll consider it. But keep in mind, numbering isn't a big deal, in most places. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm scrapping my plans for having the Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish leaders numbered. The Welsh numbering isn't certain & per consistancy, I prefer having all those bios infoboxes in sync. Besides, I can't find any sources for the numberings. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Changeling film
Did you ever see this? I saw it for the first time last night. What a disturbing film. You know the part about Christine Collins' detainment inside the mental hospital makes me wonder about the mother of Marilyn Monroe who was in an asylum during the same time period...Hmmmm. What's your input on this?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya mean the movie starring George C. Scott? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Changeling (film). This one starring Angelina Jolie.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never seen it before. Did the mother find her real son? GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, and if you read this you'll know why she never did find him: Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The a few of the Northcott family, weren't somebody you'd want at a party. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor would you want them as neighbours.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's for sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO the LA police knew what was going on out at the ranch. I believe Northcott's mother was part of a pedophile ring.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's was/is alot of weird people. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Back then everything such as incest, pedophilia, child abuse was kept hidden. I wonder how many missing kids over the decades ended up in the hands of people like the Northcotts?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's like the pedophile clergymen stuff, which for centuries was covered-up by the Catholic Church. It's more difficult for such criminals to hide, in today's 24/7 news. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My mother was told a really creepy story by her grandmother. In Oklahoma around 1900, in the town where my great-grandmother lived, there was a widower and his teenaged daughter. Well, the daughter had a baby, but she had never been seen out walking with any man, so people wondered who the father was. Well the girl would bring her infant into town to shop, etc. but suddenly the baby was never seen again, although the girl and her dad hadn't gone anywhere. Finally, they discovered that the girl's dad had raped his own daughter, got her pregnant and later killed the baby. He buried the infant on his own land and when the grave was discovered, the truth came out. According to my great-grandmother the man was lynched by the town's citizens.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In Canada 'today', he likely would've been found 'not guilty' by reason of insanity. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember Oklahoma in 1900 wasn't yet a US state, it was Indian Territory. My mother's mother would often come upon the bodies of lynched cattle thieves, etc. on her way to school. It was the norm back then, also all the men packed pistols.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A rough neighourhood, back then. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
GoodDay, please stop (slow) editwarring at the infoboxes of the First Ministers of Wales. For example, I reverted your first attempt at Carwyn Jones to add a number to the infobox in March 2010, and left a note on the Talkpage, to which you didn't bother to respond. Your next attempt (10th February 2011) misleadingly labeled him “2nd First Minister for Wales”. This was reverted - he is actually the third leader of the Welsh Assembly Government. Your next attempt, on 20th February 2011, was a series of five edits in which you displayed your wealth of knowledge on the subject in the one edit summary you left (“Numbering un-certain - per changing of title“). Another attempt was made by you today, which has once again been reverted. I wrote this at Talk:Carwyn Jones one year ago today. It is time you read it: "The office of the leader of the National Assembly for Wales is currently known as the First Minister for Wales (Welsh: Prif Weinidog Cymru). This was not always so. It was known previously as First Secretary for Wales (Prif Ysgrifennydd Cymru). Consequently, although it may be technically correct to asign a number to the office, it is misleading (and unnecessary), as the 2nd person to be named First Minister for Wales is actually the 3rd person to be the leader of the National Assembly for Wales. Further, American politics is different to the Welsh model. An American president is elected for a fixed term for that role. The fixed term of the Wales Assemby Government is for the members of the Assembly, not the First Minister who is elected by the AMs. In theory, there could be dozens of First Ministers during the fixed, four year term, (coalition governments come & go all the time). Bearing this in mind, adding ordinals to the office serves no useful purpose. I have removed the ordinal from the infobox to reflect this." Please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See above section Numbering Mayors and Deputy Mayors. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? It is edit warring. Just stop. Daicaregos (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I rarely look at talkpages & less so at page histories, therefore I tend to forget if I've made the same reverted edit before. A little note in the edit page version, in the infobox, would be a huge help. The accusation of edit-warring is a breach of AGF - please stop that. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with your memory, you have to deal with it (perhaps you could make a note somewhere away from mainspace). You shouldn't be editing information on articles that you don't understand anyway. And you shouldn't be making this specific change for the reasons I highlighted above (have you actually read it yet - you've made no comment). This is not a breach of AGF. You have been edit warring. If it happens again we will be discussing it at WP:AN3, which is what I was hoping to avoid by bringing this here instead of reporting you now. Daicaregos (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put a little note in the 'edit page' version of those bios infoboxes, so I won't repeat the mistake again. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't. As I say, if you have a problem with your memory, you have to deal with it. The note option is not there as an aide memoire for individual editors to 'remember' not to make ridiculous edits. If you don't understand a subject (and you clearly don't understand this concept) you shouldn't be editing the article. At least, not until you do understand. Daicaregos (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Already have added the required notes & as you can see, it doesn't effect the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You said "I rarely look at talkpages & less so at page histories," this is something of an admission of a failure on your part. Please stop this practice as i makes it difficult for other editors to work with you -- Snowded TALK  21:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added 'reminders' to the Welsh First Ministers & Deputy First Ministers bio infoboxes. That the numbering would be uncertain there, is understandable - do to the First Secretary/First Minister thing. Also, not numbering the bio infoboxes of the Prime Ministers of Ireland & Deputy Prime Ministers of Ireland, are understandable per similiar reasons (I remembered them, 'cuz of my disagreement with the article's current title). GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest leaving personal reminders is a slightly dubious practice. However that is not the point.  You must look at talk pages and page histories when editing, especially if you have been reverted.  Its your responsibility to be aware of your own past actions and other editors responses.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember that. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The name change is not the only, or most significant reason not to use numbers. American politics is different to the Welsh model. An American president is elected for a fixed term for that role. The fixed term of the Wales Assemby Government is for the members of the Assembly, not the First Minister who is elected by the AMs. In theory, there could be dozens of First Ministers during the fixed, four year term, (coalition governments come & go all the time). Bearing this in mind, adding ordinals to the office serves no useful purpose. Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's done for the Canadian Prime Ministers & the provincial/territorial premiers. It's also done for the Australian Prime Ministers & the state premiers. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For what purpose? Daicaregos (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have shown them as numbered. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have seen this one lumbering over the horizon, but: Which sources do you have showing the First Ministers' numbers? And how notable are they? And where did you discuss its inclusion on the article? Daicaregos (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I numbered them 'cuz there were only 3 individuals. I haven't provided any sources, nor bothered to discuss. As mentioned before, numbering isn't that big a deal. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that big a deal, yet you've made four attempts to number them over the course of more than a year. Rather staining AGF to believe that. In my view, it adds no value to the article whatsoever. If you disagree, please discuss it at the article talkpage, rather than edit war. Daicaregos (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm considering (in future) to open a 'numbering discussion' for the FMs & dFMs of Northern Ireland bio infoboxes. I'll leave the Welsh FMs & DFMs bio infoboxes alone (due to the First Secretary/First Minister uncertainty). PS - I've found a source for Deputy First Minister of Wales. PPS: I no longer number the bio infoboxes of the Prime Ministers of Ireland (I remember them, 'cuz of the non-English title that office is under). GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nay, scrap that plan. Having the Northern Irish & Scottish political leaders bio infobox numbered & not the Welsh, would disrupt my consistancy on those articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Your" consistency, GoodDay? More important than consistency is whether each article benefits from the change or not. Your numeric additions to each of these articles have been reverted many times. If you think your change benefits an article you should make your case on its Talkpage. If you've done so, I haven't noticed. The only justification for your changes seems to be that it is done on some other articles. Your actions have been very disruptive. Please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't added the numbering back to those bios infoboxes-in-question. What's with the 'please stop'? GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was with reference to your persistent disruption. You often make changes to articles for no apparent (or noted ) reason. It may, or may not, be to do with your perception of article consistency. Whatever the reason, your actions are disruptive. Please stop. I also doubt that you actually read posts, as you do not seem to have actually responded to any of those above (other than the final two words). It is extremely irritating. Anyway, I've spent far more time on this than I would want, when I could be doing useful stuff elsewhere. Daicaregos (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for wasting your time. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Senators caps
The Senators rosters for the past few games have shown the same three alts: Gonchar, Spezza and Phillips. I'd like the Sens roster template to show that. I put a note at the bottom of list to indicate that. Why are -you- reverting? Is there a policy I'm not following? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Senators official website has yet to announced who the new alternate(s) is, since Fisher's departure. With Captain Alfredsson on the side-lines, it's even more uncertatin as to who'll be the permanent 2nd A. We should avoid placing the A's on injury replacements. If we didn't avoid it, the Template:Montreal Canadiens roster would be changing almost daily. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think now that my note was not showing up outside of the template page. I've fixed that. I'm happy to have you follow this instead of me, but I think a note on the Canadiens roster page might help in that case. I find the team's roster pages are often out-of-date or in error. &#x0298;  alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those team official website people are sluggish. IMHO, Spezza is the likely permanent A. As for the Habs? I don't understand Jack Martin's thinking behind rotating Markov's A. Right now - I've my fingers crossed, that the Devils & Sabres won't be adoping 'rotating captains' next season. Lemaire's statement of 'everybody's a leader in the dressing room', ticks me off. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there will be any new captain for the Devils. Three alternates will be named Elais, Parise & Kovalchuk. After Parise's injury, only Elias & Kovalchuk wore the As. Those two were the only players with letters after Langenbrunner was traded. Unless they sign or trade for a veteran player, I do not see a captain for the Devils next season. Raul17 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lemaire says they won't be naming one, for the rest of this season. PS: It'll likely be Parise, as they wouldn've given it to Elias by now. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I only hope, it won't be a rotating captaincy. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Parise would be a good choice. I am surprised that Colin White is not an Alternate. In previous years, he was an acting Alternate. I thought Elias gave up the captaincy, but I see that he was taken from him. Raul17 (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, Brent Sutter took the captaincy from Elias (in 2007) & I'm not sure why. White may have turned down the letters since. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)