User talk:GoodDay/Archive 6

NHL
Hi GoodDay,

Please excuse my ignorance as I am new to the nhl. Just wanted to pick your brains over nhl games. What is the decision in a match? I have noticed many game logs with a decision. Please help! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistoffate2k8 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted your comment and edited mine
I hope you don't mind that I deleted a comment of yours on Talk:Barack Obama. After further thought I decided that the pejorative I used could be too offensive to certain innocent people, and I figured it probably makes the world a better place to just not have that phrase on the talk page. You can restore it if you'd like, since after all I did violate WP:TALK when I deleted your comment. It's up to you. Sorry for being an ass. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the section added on my talk page.
Hey, GD, do you have an email I can use? This is about the information you asked me on my talk page. It's a little sensitive (I don't want to splash it about). Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay
I haven't really been less active than usual. Recently I wrote The Queen's Jewels and am now trying to get it to featured status. What are you up to? It was nice of you to ask! ;) Regards, --Cameron* 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Egmont
Gail Shea does has to be sworn in first before she's really the incumbent MP as such, but there are just too many individual ridings to watch out for, and too much work to do getting things updated after an election, to worry about whether somebody updates riding articles a bit early. If we were really strict about things, in fact, we'd be switching every riding in Canada to "vacant" the day an election writ is dropped. It's not ideal, perhaps, but our editing contingent just isn't big enough to constantly stay on top of 308 riding articles that hawkishly. In a nutshell, the working consensus of the Canadian Wikipedia contingent is that they officially shouldn't be changed early, but in practice, except for the higher positions like premiers and prime ministers it's just not worth our time and effort to worry about it if somebody goes ahead and does it anyway. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think they technically become the MPs upon return of the writ and become entitled to sit upon taking the oath. As to how to treat the articles, I abstain. -Rrius (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that the terms aren't fixed. It's my understanding that, going back to British law, MPs become MPs upon return of the writ. It may be overly pedantic to argue for waiting until the return date, especially because, as Bearcat said, we don't call the ridings vacant on dissolution. -Rrius (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape kit section of Sarah Palin article
I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the discussion about the inclusion of rape kit information on the Sarah Palin article. I could ask some people who I believe to be republican partisans to comment, but I think a more neutral or left leaning opinion would carry more weight, especially one so prominent in maintaining an article in a very similar situation. I believe the discussion is closely analagous to several we've had on the Obama discussion page, but, of course, I respect your opinion and would appreciate it even if you disagree with my position and point out where I'm mistaken.LedRush (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Buddy
Which buddy comment? I get the feeling I'm missing something! --Cameron* 18:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, you like Jimbo Wales even though he himself claimed to be like the Queen of the United Kingdom, a constitutional monarch. Closet monarchist! ;p --Cameron* 19:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * GoodDay and Jimbo, sittin' in a tree, E-D-I-T-I-N-G! ;) Prince of Canadat 03:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your defence of him actually. What's the difference between writing to Elizabeth and Jimbo? Elizabeth answers her mail! ;) --Cameron* 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * here, and actually he does retain authority over it. A whole Arbitration committee equals one Jimbo. ;) --Cameron* 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * False, he has a much executive authority as a constitutional monarch only he decides to use his power (unlike HM The Queen)! I liked succession joke, it made me snigger! ;) --Cameron* 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, are you looking for a promotion? :) You might even get a reply from him this time! Jack forbes (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If I were you I wouldn't talk to that Jimbo fella, you got no response from him again! Or as we say in Glasgow, he gave you a rubber ear. :( Jack forbes (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the interview he gave to Stephen Fry on the BBC? I think someone gave a link on his page. Jack forbes (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Walrus face? Jack forbes (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot that. I do remember his second in command was called darling. Probably the best series of the lot. Jack forbes (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't remember, it's been a long time since I saw it. It must have been pretty offputting for you watching this great big ear on the screen. :) Jack forbes (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I fell out with Baldrick, aka Tony Robinson. He, Robinson that is, had the cheek to call William Wallace a terrorist. Cheeky beggar! Jack forbes (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking a long wikibreak, see you next summer, take care Jack forbes (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your choice to comment, or not. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO
Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WQA
I agree ... there's more to it, I'm sure. But you know the old saying: " shit or get off the pot fish or cut bait". The more they dally around making veiled accusations, the dumber (or even dumberer) it looks :)  -t-  BMW  -c-  15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful, your constant harping on certain users to get accounts is starting to border on harassment ... :-)  -t  BMW  c-  14:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm cool. I've already removed certain articles from my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox images
I'm getting really close to ignoring it as I promised I would back when we initially objecting to adding pictures. That twinge of annoyance when I look at some change in the watchlist only to discover it is a pointless style change always gets me, though. -Rrius (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 12 *long* days! :)
If it weren't for the occasionally enjoyable mental exercise that SP provides to me, I'd have been long gone to return on the 5th of November! :) Fcreid (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah

 * GoodDay, How can we persuade Sarah to come off her strike? It's a drag without her. Anyroad, it's nice to have another female around when the lads start getting chauvinistic.--jeanne (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
I see you have been discussing "consensus" with HighKing. Unfortunately he is unaware of how Wikipedia actually works - see Polling is not a substitute for discussion, particularly the sentence: "Each of these processes is not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented." пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request
A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

IRC
G'day - this may sound stoopid but Giano seems to have issues with "IRC" and based on your message on his page it appears you are watching that place too! Could you give me a link so that I can peep at it myself - it appears to be where the in-crowd hang out!? Sarah777 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this page a private party or can anyone come? I wanna be in the in-crowd too baby, like the 1960s song goes. GoodDay, I'm here to suggest an alternative for Jefferson Davis Tippet. It was ELVIS that done it. Yesiree.--jeanne (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never participated or viewed the IRC. As for the JFK incident? I was gonna suggest, the butler did it. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh Rhett honey, now tell me you didn't really shoot that damn Yankee president now did you? GoodDay, you're getting the centuries mixed up--jeanne (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I want a link to the IRC!! I'm gonna start thamping my feet if I don't get it. Sarah777 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you have to be very clever or very stupid to know where the back door is. Giano (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarah, it obviously has bouncers to keep you out- real hard men, lads, gurriers, bruisers if ya catch my drift!--jeanne (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's starting to sound like a challenge! Sarah777 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This page tells you all the info you need to know to join IRC. You will not get access to the #wikipedia-en-admins though because you are not an admin, steward or buddies with the channel ops. Feel free to join any of the others though, and be bored stiff by the inane conversations of those with nothing better to do with their time than chat to strangers about other strangers. The list of channels is below.

Rockpock e  t  00:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland
Hi GD, did you agree with the move to the flag of ireland? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on G2bambino (talk)
Hi good day. Good to see you. Patient as ever I see. I've taken swell 6 month hiatus.

I've taken this dispute over here, specifically here. --soulscanner (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Antropov & Moore
I removed the A's from them as they are not wearing that letter. The Leafs didn't name 5 alternate captains, you can only name 3 if there is no captain. What the Leafs did say was that they have 5 guys performing the duties, but only three are official alternate captains, which are Mayers, Kaberle and Kubina. Of course, it would help if the Leafs updated their website and have more than just Kaberle with the A beside his name. -- James  Duggan  00:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like they are going to alternate between alternate captains. Antropov, Moore and Kubina are now wearing the A for November, so I guess you are right in having all five have A's.  -- James   Duggan  23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Govenor General's role
The precedent is certainly that she must follow her PM's advice and that is wrapped up in Responsible government. However, technically, she still retains that power to ignore the PM's advice; though to do so would require an extraordinary circumstance. For example, if the PM were to turn the government into a despot state or refuse to leave power after losing an election, then presumably the GG would be standing up for democracy and the people and retaining Responsible Government by ignoring the PM's advice. Ignoring the PM's advice to call an election is a little trickier. In what way would not calling an election be standing up for democracy? There does not seem to be any way the GG could justify not dismissing Parliament when asked though she does retain the power, formally. Double Blue (Talk) 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify
Hiya... I'm not taking a WikiBreak; I will still be active in other areas of the project. I have just removed myself from any articles that G2 has anything to do with, because I just can't do it anymore. If he ever reforms his behaviour, or is blocked from the project for an extensive period of time, I'll likely return. Until then--if 'then' ever happens--I just can't handle the stress and insanity that arises from even asking a simple question.

I know you've been doing your best to keep the peace, and I commend you for it. Do keep in touch, but please don't ask me to comment or be involved with any articles that G2 touches (I asked DBD the same thing). Cheers. [ roux  ] [ x ] 20:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a break; it's permanent. [ roux  ] [ x ] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oswald
Thanks for the note. Like you, I used to believe that the SBT was the single thing that made the WC's conclusions completely implausible. From the time I started to be interested in the subject in the early 1970s, it was obvious to me that there was no way one bullet did what was claimed that day in terms of the non-fatal wounds to JFK and to Connally. But when I saw new analysis on the Zapruder film when the highly enhanced versions became available in the 1990s, and the sophisticated reconstructions of the exact positions of everyone, I started to waver in my beliefs. Finally, I had to admit that not only was the SBT correct, there was no other way Connally could have been injured without a bullet passing through Kennedy first. When you go back to how the WC came to this same conclusion, you realize that basing your conclusions on a single bit of evidence - the film itself - is dangerous. In large part, the WC did not rely on a close analysis of the Zapruder film. Which is the great mistake too many people here make, I feel. Because the SBT actually was far more plausible if you ignored the relatively poor copies of the film which then existed and examined the rest of the evidence. The WC based its conclusion on the nature of the wounds the two men received, on a reconstruction of the assassination with positioning calibrated by the numerous films/photographs of the day, and the fact that no trace was found of an additional bullet which would have been required for Connally to have been hit separately. The HSCA even while concluding that there was a probable conspiracy also concluded that the SBT was correct. What is amazing about all this is these essential conclusions were confirmed by the more recent highly enhanced versions of the Zapruder film and computer reconstructions of Deally Plaza. About 10 years ago I had to make the intellectually honest admission - I was wrong for decades on what I believed. Once that was done, the pieces rather rapidly fell together. Canada Jack (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good day, I just got your note. With respect, I think you should read up a bit more on the subject. The "single bullet" most certainly was not found in "mint" condition, it was deformed and flattened. And the bullet fragments found in Connally and JFK added to the weight of the bullet in question did not exceed the weight of a pristine bullet from the lot in question. As for all the amateurs who proclaim it should have been far more beat up, experts consistently testified that relatively undamaged bullets causing so much damage are not unusual at all. And in case that was not believed, tests on cadavers recreating the wounds in question produced bullets which were similarly undamaged. IOW, this objection has been raised, and shot down. Canada Jack (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are like most people then. Most people don't buy the Warren Commission report, and most people believe even if Oswald was involved, he didn't act alone. And for me, the bullet issue you raise is the precise reason I was for a quarter century among those disbelievers. But I had an epiphany. Not because I "wanted" to believe the Warren Commission (the opposite was true) but because I had to admit upon looking at the evidence (and not just the critics' characterization of the evidence) that the WC conclusion was in fact correct.

But, if you are not like most people, if you are not afraid to challenge your set views on a subject and hold them up to scrutiny, then I suggest you pick up that Bugliosi book called "Reclaiming History." It exhaustively examines the assassination from every angle and so utterly demolishes the notions of "conspiracy" that it would, if everyone was required to read it, find a majority of people concluding Oswald did it and did it alone. "Magic bullet" or not. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My point
Researching this (reading Forsey's constributions) and watching all these minority governments actually changed my personal opinion on this. I think the GG's intervention might be legit if, for example, a non-confidence motion were won the GG asked the opposition to form a government; however, if Parliament didn't back it up with some sort of motion it would lack democratic legitimacy. Just my personal opinion, whcih really doesn't matter here.

However, there are many significant POV's (MacKenzie King's, for example, and I'd dare say Stephen Harper at the moment) that would be more categorical about the GG being a sockpuppet of the PM. These POV's need to be given equal weighting to that of Forsey, no matter what one's personal opinion on the subject. --soulscanner (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. It's quite a precedent. I was actually rooting for the GG on that one. But I think 80-years of precedent is hard to overturn. It would have been fun to see how quickly Harper could fire a GG. However, this is a level of detail likely best left to a subpage. --soulscanner (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Favourite films
I notice Play Misty For Me is one of your favourite films. It's also one of mine. It's got some great lines. My fave is this one by Evelyn Draper yelled at to Dave Garver "What am I supposed to do sit here all dressed up in my little whore suit waiting for my lord and master!!!!!" or "What do you want Evelyn, what do you want? Why, do I have to want something or can't I just come over?" (spoken with New York accent).--jeanne (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Boxing champions
Hiya GoodDay, Just checking out your Boxing champions section. Pretty cool idea. Where's Joe though? Don't you recognise The Ring magazine champions? He beat Mikkel Kessler too. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * More curiosity than advice, GoodDay. But, being accepted onto your page could be one of Joe's finest achievements. So thanks, not for me, but for Joe. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, he's a hard man, alright. He can take a punch, but he can give one too. I'm looking forward to his next last fight - vs Junior - on Saturday. Hope he retires undefeated after that one. He's no spring chicken any more. Roy Jones Jr. - so is that the Welsh fighting each other again? Plus ca change. :) Daicaregos (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He's had a better career than thousands of others. Think he changed weights to find the best fighters. His age beat him in the end. My money's on Joe, of course. Short odds, but at least you get it back. JC currently 2/7, RJ2 5/2. Pretty conclusive, huh. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Bookies don't agree, GoodDay, and most of the money would be from the US, too. Joe's had 45 fights & hasn't lost yet, he's younger and I think he's the better fighter. RJ2's just after one last big payday, win or lose. He's still a classy boxer, though. Just not as good as Joe. Still, guess we'll find out pretty soon. Cheers Daicaregos (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey GoodDay, how'd you find out? And I thought I'd managed to hide it so well. Still, truth will out. Stroll on Saturday, can't come soon enough for me. Come on Joe! Cymru am byth. Daicaregos (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I'd love a coke

 * ""Dave, I'd love a coke."" ""Spoil what? There isn't a ...damned thing between us!"" Now let's switch films. ""Stay out of this Elias, this ain't your show"", or "Hey pig, piggy, pig" BANG!!!! ""Do em man do em" Ah Bunny is sooooooo sexy.--jeanne (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Madelyn Dunham
No problem. I have added a quote to the article, hopefully that helps. Khoikhoi 23:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Staff Sergeant Barnes or Animal Mother?

 * Animal didn't scare me, Barnes did. He looked like a very dangerous person to mess with as Elias shortly discovered. However, I believe Barnes would have met his match in Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann, author of the Mary Jane Rottencrotch quote.--jeanne (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Sgt.Hartmann's drilling was to turn his recruits into killing machines and he certainly achieved his purpose with Pvt. Lawrence. "That name sounds like royalty. Are you royalty, Lawrence?"--jeanne (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know he was. He even gave Kubrick orders on the set! He was great.You could tell he was the real thing and not an actor. Sarah has been rather quiet of late. Now where is my mentor and spiritual advisor Dunlavin Green?--jeanne (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, seeing as you're a boxer fan, I'm sure you liked Cinderella Man and that film about Rubin Hurricane Carter. Both were excellent. BYW, are you an Acadian? I read the article on Germain Doucet. I, myself have a French-Canadian ancestral link from my French great-grandmother (one of her ancestors came from Montreal-in fact he was the great-grandson of one of the first white women to settle in Montreal).--jeanne (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland. This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama and Biden
I know you're right. I just feel that encyclopedia's should educate accurately. Maybe it's my lawyer background that causes me to be anal on these things (which I deem of general importance). I promise not to fight it too much or too vigorously.LedRush (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive gals

 * You said you liked an obsessive female, well check out this gal here--jeanne (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for smile
Nobody wants to hear about your fantasies. Double Blue (Talk) 18:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. I don't want to even begin to think of what the anon vandal was doing infront of his computer when he vandalized the talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As a kid, I looked up dirty words in the dictionary. Today they write them themselves on wikipedia. Plus ça change … Double Blue  (Talk) 18:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, the internet is here to stay. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I used to look up dirty words in the dictionary, as well as go to the local library and check out marriage manuals. Then I discovered the sex scene in The Godfather between Sonny and Lucy Mancini, so I switched to novels.--jeanne (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself GoodDay
I would like to hear about that editor's fantasies, thankyouverymuch!--jeanne (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another knee-slapper. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm serious. Do you know where he lives?--jeanne (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * His IP number is 12.217.133.102 GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I want his address man so I can go calling on him wearing an Evelyn Draper-style whore suit. I really would love a coke.--jeanne (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoever the vandal was, he needs spelling lessons. Giggle giggle, luv your sense of homour, Jeanne. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He appears to be in Moline, Illinois according to whois/12.217.133.102. Perhaps you can ask the IP Customer Care contact for details. :-P Double Blue  (Talk) 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem! What's a whore suit? I hasten to add I know what a whore is, but what kind of suits are they? Just curious you understand. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find out what a whore suit is by clicking here.--jeanne (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DB, ya gotta luv those suits. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, whore suits. :-P Double Blue  (Talk) 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Illinois is too far away, was hopin he'd be on my side of the Atlantic.--jeanne (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I told you whore suits are really called lounging pyjamas. Hot items in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Same with caftans. I prefer whore suit, however.--jeanne (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template: Ca-residence
Ah ha, my republican dream has come true. Elizabeth II has been kicked out of Rideau Hall (at least as an official resident). Next to go? the Governor General (I hope). GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: I am not sanctioned from this article. I am not sanctioned from any articles. I have removed myself from those articles because I do not have the energy to deal with G2's behaviour or the stress it causes. Please stop saying this. [ roux  ] [ x ] 00:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay, it's just frustrating to see a trustworthy person saying that, because anyone who knows you knows that you're pretty much always right. So anyone seeing you write that will make the wrong assumption, making it look like I'm being punished or something. [ roux  ] [ x ] 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Me? pretty much always right? If you only knew the blunders I've committed on Wikipedia over these 3 years. My apologies Roux, I'm getting senile in my Wiki old-age. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1 RR and civility violations G2bambino
Please see entry on administrator board.

He's definitely violated the restrictions a few times over on the Canada page. I suggested in the notice that G2 take the same 1 month hiatus that you recommended as a sign of good faith, so you're sort of involved. Taking a few months off did me a world of good. --soulscanner (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The dog named Elvis

 * Hey, another great film is Kalifornia with Brad Pitt. Don't you remember Elvis the dog? And who could forget Early Grace's wonderful line when eating Chinese food, smells like butt--jeanne (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!
Howdy GoodDay.

Thank you very much for your kind advice.

My new account is ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!

Take care, and best wishes,

Don

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

CA residence template
Lonewolf is back at the template again. You may want to pop in there, if you feel up to it. --G2bambino (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama is visually aging before our eyes

 * GoodDay, haven't you noticed how Obama appears to have aged at least five years since winning the election? It was the same with Clinton. Yet, Republican presidents never change. Bush has not changed one bit since he was elected. Neither did Nixon or Reagan. In 1968, Richard Nixon looked exactly like he did when debating on national tv against Kennedy. Even Watergate didn't age him. Can you give me some insight into the matter?--jeanne (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

President-elect & Vice President elect
The most dogged investigators on the matter uncovered the fact that the term "President-elect" is used by the government, and by laws on the matter, to be understood to mean that the electoral college may not yet have made it "official". So adding "presumptive" makes it a redundancy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It won't actually be moot until January 6th when the joint session officially counts the ballots submitted by the electors. But legally he is already considered the President-elect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure Cheney will feel honored. That moment will coincide with his two-weeks notice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Biden will come in handy when it comes time to deal with the next war. The choice of Biden was not exactly random. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In 2012 we can look forward to more change. For example, President Sarah Palin. Since nothing she says makes any sense, it will baffle our enemies and give us an advantage. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I find Ms. Palin to be far more articulate than most MALE politicians. Germany has a female leader, Britain had a female leader, France almost had a female leader. Throughout history, a nation's most glorious era usually took place under a female monarch such as Elizabeth I, Catherine II, Isabella I of Castile, etc. Women make up the majority in most countries. It's about time they assumed the reins of power in the US.GoodDay, do you think Evelyn Draper would make a good president?--jeanne (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. While Palin may be more articulate than some male politicians, it is only a small percentage of them. Trying to follow one of her thoughts through her odd locutions is like a trip through a fun house. The point about "most glorious eras" is entirely debatable. Isabella did not exactly rule alone, and England/Britain and Russia had other eras with claim to being as good or better. See, e.g., Edward I of England, Edward III of England, any of the first four Georges of United Kingdom, and Peter I of Russia. Also, Mary I of England and Mary I of Scotland are not exactly accounted great leaders or to have presided over golden ages. I'm all for women leaders and generally been happier working for female bosses, but the notion that women are somehow better suited to lead and that the world would be better if only women were in charge is ridiculous. Women who rise to power are as ego maniacal as men who do. The sorts of personalities that reach the heights of power and make the best leaders are the same regardless of sex. -Rrius (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You would consider the first four Georges better rulers than Elizabeth I? As for Peter I and Edward III, those two, I would agree with you as being good examples of male rulers. Same with Louis XIV, HRE Charles V, and Napoleon. Isabella may have ruled jointly with Ferdinand, but it was she who made all of the important decisions and financed Columbus. Admittedly, Mary of Scotland and Mary I were not good rulers. Many female regents are good  examples of the wisdom of having  females assume high office. I am referring to Anne of France and Catherine de Medici. There was also Bianca Maria Visconti, Jeanne III of Navarre, Yolande of Aragon, I could go on forever listing women of power who ruled better than men-though obviously not all men are bad rulers. I consider a woman to be more practical than a man- though, again, not all women are practical. I also agree that women are as ego maniacal as men. They can be as cruel and ruthless, such as Elizabeth Bathory. Power corrupts all people. The Catholic church also had many excellent female leaders, such as Catherine of Siena and Theresa of Avila, whom because of their sex could not become priests, bishops, cardinals or pope.--jeanne (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying they are better or worse. You said that women are associated with the "most glorious era"; I took issue with that. I will never understand this chip-on-the-shoulder need to say that female rulers are better than male rulers. There have been good ones and bad ones, just as there have been good male rulers and bad ones. There have been warlike women and consensus building men. I am highly skeptical of the notion that women are somehow better constructed to rule. I am even more skeptical that the sort of woman to reach that position is. -Rrius (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of something that Will Cuppy wrote about Isabella: "She boasted that she had had only two baths in her life - one when she was baptized, and once when she married. They gave her a third when she died." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Was Will Cuppy an historian or mayhap time- traveller?--jeanne (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A little of both. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good leaders, bad leaders doesn't depend on their gender. I still say the American media gave Palin a tough time (mainly because Palin stories, boosted their ratings). GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's easy to give a woman a hard time, simply because men still prefer a woman to be either on her back or at the stove cooking their dinner. Women are not taught how to fight back hen they are small. Instead, they are taught to be nice, which is a grave error. It doesn't pay for a woman to be too nice. All women need to adopt the Streisand manner when dealing with a chauvinistic man. Unless a man wants to beat me up, I am a difficult woman to give a hard time, quite simply because I happen to possess a foul tongue that would make an Irish soldier blush- though it probably wouldn't faze Hartmann. Palin should have given those journalists the Thatcher glare.--jeanne (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or the pit bull / soccer mom glare. Unfortunately, she lived down to expectations. She was a "trophy" candidate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Male or Female, choosing a first-term Governor who's never been in national politics, was too fast, too soon. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is McCain's fault, not hers. It was intended to draw attention, but it mostly drew the wrong kind of attention, and reflected poorly on McCain's judgment - just another nail in his election coffin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When Carville brought out the Wasilla Town Hall photo & Begala was smiling ear-to-ear; ya knew it was gonna be rough for her. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, Paul Begala, one of the two "partisan hacks" that Jon Stewart skewered on Crossfire. That was one of the great moments in TV history, when Stewart single-handedly destroyed that long-running and extremely annoying TV show. Anyway, very little of this Palin fiasco was her fault. She is what she is, and the GOP chose her, so they paid for it. And not just in Nieman-Marcus receipts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Should've been McCain-Pawlenty. Then in 2012? perhaps Pawlenty-Palin (nice ring to it). GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And if he gets elected, America will become The Land of Pawlenty. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Still here
Hi! Yeah, I'm still ere. Been busy, and waiting for a good discussion. Things have been pretty bitchy in the English royalty pages and I get bored of the silly fighting. Cheers!
 * Sure, I'm glad to stay in touch. Btw, I saw on G2's talk page the suggestion that Nixeagle wanted to block you? Good God, can that be true? I can't imagine you doing anuything meriting that most august sanction!--Gazzster (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Me 2. G2 is blocked, did I get that right?--Gazzster (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see.--Gazzster (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalifornia dreamin

 * GoodDay, you must see Kalifornia, not only for the great lines, smells like butt, I want me some chili, but to see the dog named Elvis. I advise you to see it. You won't regret it.--jeanne (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Kalifornia, there is a prisoner in California about whom nothing is ever mentioned. I am, of course referring to Sirhan Sirhan.--jeanne (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consolation
Re:. Consolation? I'm surprised that you haven't lost your head for treason! Double Blue (Talk) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * CCCR has an alliance with Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state in the UK, see this. I was trying to go onto their website (CCCR) after seeing this thread, but it crashed my browser every time, so it doesn't look good. Republic get some publicity in the UK - in newspapers, TV news - usually after some royal has ripped off the tax paying public again (e.g. free helicopter rides to attend stag parties, or to see their girlfriends) or when they try to pretend what great value they are by only costing us £150m a year. If they're not active in Canada, it's probably best to merge the article, as suggested. Or, you could start campaigning yourself. :) Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lack of any real headway in Canada could be down to moral apathy due by the fact that they don't have to actually pay for the parasites. Just wait 'till they have a constitutional crisis and Canadians find out who actually holds the power. 'Twill be too late to do anything about it then. It would be so much easier to make changes now, at leisure - when everyone can be pleasant about it and they have the time to get all the wording right - rather than do nothing until it has to be done in a hurry, and all the legislation will have to be rewritten to change all the anomalies that weren't noticed when they were first drafted in haste. And that's if they are allowed to make the changes, by 'she who must be obeyed' - HRQEII. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, the British Empire is alive and well. As ever, the key to freedom is education. Just like the overwhelming majority of your countrymen, I have no idea of all the Canadian institutions that the English 'Royal' purport to represent, but in the UK the English 'Royal Family' had managed to insinuate itself into our daily lives in aquite extraordinary number of ways, take a look at this list of 'Royal' institutions:

Her Majesty's Government

Her Majesty's Armed Forces

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Her Majesty's Treasury

Her Majesty's Land Registry

Her Majesty's Prison Service

Her Majesty's Court Service

Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Her Majesty's Minister of ...

Her Majesty's Coastguard

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Court Services

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire and Rescue Services

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation

Her Majesty's Paymaster General

Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate

Her Majesty's Forces Mail

HMS ...

Her Majesty's Prison ...

Her Majesty's Ambassador to ...

HM Coroner of ...

Her Majesty's Government Communications Centre

Her Majesty's Stationery Office

The Queen's Award to Industry

Royal Mail

Royal Mint

Royal Academy

Royal Academy of Dramatic Art

Royal Ballet

Royal Opera House

Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

Royal Irish Constabulary

Henley Royal Regatta

Royal Observatory

Royal Yachting Association

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Royal Courts of Justice

Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association

Royal Yacht Squadron

Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

Royal Navy

Royal Air Force

All the 'Royal' army regiments, e.g.: Royal Artillery, Royal Marines, Royal Welsh, etc. All the 'Royal' hospitals, e.g.: Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Llantrisant, Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, etc. All the 'Royal' colleges, e.g.: Royal College of Art, Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Music, etc. All the 'Royal' societies, e.g.: Royal Geographical Society, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Royal Horticultural Society, etc. All the 'Royal' museums, e.g.: Royal Armouries, Royal Pump Rooms, Leamington Spa, Royal Pavilion, Brighton, etc. All the 'Royal' Institutes, e.g.: Royal Institute of British Architects, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Royal Town Planning Institute, etc. All the 'Royal' Institutions, e.g.: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Royal Institution of Cornwall, etc. All the 'Royal' Shows, e.g.: Royal Show, Royal Agricultural Show. Royal Welsh Show, etc. All the 'Royal' areas, e.g.: Royal Berkshire, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, Royal Tunbridge Wells, etc. All the 'Royal' theatres, e.g.: Royal Court Theatre, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, Theatre Royal, Bath, etc. All the 'Royal' sports clubs, e.g.: Royal Caledonian Curling Club, Royal Porthcawl Golf Club, Royal Lymington Yacht Club, etc. All the 'Royal' cultural festivals, e.g.: Am Mod Naiseanta Rioghail (Royal National Mod), Eisteddfod Genedlaethol Frenhinol (Royal National Eisteddfod), Royal Cornwall Show, etc, All the 'Royal' schools, e.g.: Colchester Royal Grammar School, Lancaster Royal Grammar School, Royal Grammar School, Guildford, etc. All the 'Royal' commissions All coins, banknotes and postage stamps (i.e. all legal tender) feature an image of the queen. Any prospective member of the government (including Welsh AMs), armed forces or police force must pledge allegiance to the queen. Etc., etc., etc. Ad nauseum.

Shocking isn't it. What would we do without them? Sorry to use up your talk page space. Feel free to either delete or archive whenever you wish. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you remember when we only had the two tv channels they played the national anthem every night when going off air? Also, years before that, they played it at the picture halls at the conclusion of the films. Whether people like it or not, society is slowly (very slowly) moving away from everything Royal. One day we'll just have the mint etc without the Royal, just don't ask me when. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We can but dream ...

Do you remember: " 'One day...' 'Aye, and one day a man will land on the moon!' " ? Daicaregos (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, they never really replaced that one did they? I'm sure some people said, Aye, and one day a black man will be President. We live in a world were anything is possible, even a world without Royalty. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That one made me chuckle. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on to hope gentlemen. Canada will become a republic. The 21st century is on our side. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice one, GoodDay. Actually, I share your optimism. Daicaregos (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Me too! The three optimists, all for one....... Hopefully not the three stooges! Titch Tucker (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Always remember the mantra. Repeat to oneself: Rideau Hall, official residence of the President of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

thumb|400px|right|"Official" Three Stooges logo since 1994. L to R: [[Moe Howard, Curly Howard and Larry Fine.]]
 * Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How could you! Where d'ya find my photo. This is all supposed to be anonymous. Delete that picture at once! :-D Daicaregos (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly fellas, I actually look like Groucho Marx (minus the painted mustache). GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm... 11 more elections for 11 more politicians in high positions. Sounds great. --G2bambino (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Abolishment of the Senate; the Governor General & all the little Lieutenant Governors. Best of all, abolishing the position of the old guy who carries the big funny golden object on his shoulder, when Parliament is about to be opened. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well dictatorship does remove the need for elections, I guess. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Federal & provincial elections will certainly continue. I'm still peeved about Harper, breaching the fixed terms Act. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But you see, Harper breached nothing; the Governor General was always well within her right to call an election on the advice of her prime minister. Remove the Governor General (and I assume the Queen, as well), however, and who's to stop the PM-now-president from ignoring even the four year maximum on a parliament's life? Or perhaps igoring the need to summon parliament again after he prorogued it? And I haven't even gotten into how provincial-federal co-sovereignty would work in such a scenario; eleven little dictators all squabbling with each other. Ugh. --G2bambino (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A figured-head President, can be exactly like the Governor General (execpt he/she will be elected by the people). The PM may request a dissolution of Parliament, with the President acting on that request. De jure wise, the Prime Minister would still be the boss. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As an elected president would have a political mandate, such a person would be nothing like the Governor General. Buoyed by what he perceives as "popular support", he could challenge his Prime Minister on political matters, thereby causing crises in governance. It happens more often than you might think. --G2bambino (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, you assume that the President of Canada would live in Rideau Hall but remember that the Governor General has no "head of state" status. If Canada were to have a President, he/she would never live in Rideau Hall, because the President is the head of state and would require accomodations befitting a head of state, like the White House or Elysee Palace. Rideau Hall would probably become a museum. Laval (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of a figurehead President (a 5-year term). Changing to the American model is too expensive. A 2-year presidential campaign, isn't my cup of tea. A Canadian President can make do with RH. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A Canadian republic would probably be based more on a European model than the American one, because of the parliamentary system and cultural issues. I would think even a figurehead president has to have a "presidential palace". Imagine if the Queen decided one day to abandon Buckingham Palace and move to Canada permanently (and getting rid of the GG). Would she actually live in such a small place as Rideau Hall? I doubt it. Rideau Hall was designed for a representative, not a head of state. This is another problem with a group like CCR. They offer no actual vision of what a Canadian republic would be like. They have not even bothered to commission a academic study which attempt to find the best republican model for Canada. A serious group would do that. Laval (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could always follow the Mary McAleese model. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from other matters, Ireland isn't a federation, however. Nor does it have a strongly nationalistic minority within its borders. The Fathers of Confederation chose to go with constitutional monarchy for more reasons that just loyalty to the crown; they had the example of a federal republic that had just gone through a civil war very close at hand, and they knew that wasn't the path to follow. Smart men, they were. --G2bambino (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Queen moving to Canada?. Laval, are you trying to give me nightmares? GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much to worry about. She hasn't chopped off anyone's head for a long time now. Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew helped her out on that. --G2bambino (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still feeling ill, over Laval's hypothetical suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize that another royal tour is probably forthcoming at some point in the very near future? Laval (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Canadian Prime Minister will bow to her & the media will compliment her on every move she makes; blah, blah, blah... GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what still serving the public every day at the age of 82 gets you, I guess. --G2bambino (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nay! I'm not convinced. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey fellas, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but (whisper),I'm a monarchist. Honestly guys, don't you think the word royal adds a touch of class? The USA could do with some, perhaps they shouldn't have been so quick to replace King George with Ronald McDonald. I can get away wwith saying this as i'm an American-check out me user page.--jeanne (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Abolishment of monarchies, are inevitable. Autocrat monarchies are overthrown for their dictatorial ways & Constitutional monarchies for the uselessness. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Constitutional monarchies for their "uselessness"!? Most of the world's constitutional monarchies were lost through communist and fascist revolutions, some have been restored. It's no more inevitable that monarchies will be abolished than republics. Humans only have a limited variety of forms of governance. --G2bambino (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. A figured head President will not interfer with the PM (remember a country can set things up anyway they wish). All monarchies must go; nobody should have a birth-right to Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In any Westminster system, the head of state can interfere with his prime minister's wishes; that's the point of the head of state. But, any elected president can interpret their election win as a mandate from the majority of the populace to promote his views, which then may conflict with the prime minister's views; this becomes especially possible when the two individuals come from different political parties. Some examples illustrate what can happen: the Congo in 1960 and East Timor in 2006. As inheritance will never go, nor will monarchy; it's been around since the beginning of our civilisation, and I highly doubt it will disappear, especially as so many republics in the world are proving to be failures in terms of constitutional stability. --G2bambino (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. You'll just have to accept the fact; I can't be converted. But, I'll give you an A+ for effort. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Typical republican. :D --G2bambino (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UK and IE
I'm not so sure. According to the Belfast Agreement the British Government will respect Northern Ireland's wishes should they ever wish to become part of the Republic. Personally I can't see it happening because so many Northern Irish are fiercly loyal to their country (the United Kingdom). The majority of the Northern Irish people want to be part of the UK. Personally I'm not too sure of the Irish ruling party Sinn Féin. They have clear terrorist links (see here) which I find extremely troubling. But then again most governments are up to no good in some form or another...--Cameron* 19:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well well well

 * Last night on tv I saw a brilliant film The Departed with Jack Nicholson. Wow! It was excellent so was the soundtrack- Gimme Shelter, Well Well Well. I advise you to see this along with Kalifornia, if you haven't done so already. Great plot and acting along with the music.--jeanne (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you are indeed imbroiled over a future event 2013. Only at wikipedia would people argue over a future event that might never occur. Remember as R.E.M say, It is the end of the world as we know it. Tis raining here so I'm in a rather apocalyptic mood today.--jeanne (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See ya's in 'bout 24hrs
My 3-yr old niece is visiting, staying overnight. As a result, I'll be signed-out for awhile; see ya's then. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll bet you anything Uncle Groucho is your niece's favourite uncle! Hurry back now, y'hear!!!!--jeanne (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've returned for now. May be sporadic until this evening, as it depends on when niece wants back the computer (for watching cartoons). Yeah, I'm her fav Uncle. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

They'll be back ?
When you've edited Wiki, it's in the blood! Can't get rid of it. I hope they'll be back. Roux (I only realised yesterday he was Princeof Canada) is getting loads of support on his page. And I dare say G2 will get some more messages on his page. I must say though, admin has been as tough as they ought to be but too late. Its like letting kids get off with a little smack on the wrist. When the parents finally punish the kids as they need to be, they don't understand why.--Gazzster (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noticed your two Canadian friends have retired from wiki after a bit of a spat. Shame, it appears they are both very good editors who should have taken a step back. There must have been enough articles they had in common to avoid each other, for a time anyway. It may have been against some rules or other, but an agreement between them to split these articles in two and one edits half the articles and the other edits the remaining articles. It wouldn't have gone on forever, but at least it would have given them a break from each other. It's certainly better than both of them leaving, do you think they would go for that? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry GD, I didn't spot that. What was their answer to your recommendation? It seems quite sensible to me, and if they took it seriously it might work. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah well. It sure would have been better than the position their in now. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He's Baaaaaaaack

 * You were right, our friend has finally revved his engines and has prepared another carefully-targeted attack on my user page. He's even mentioned you as well. Check it out. Don't forget to bring a hankie, as his attack was especially devastating. I'm still suffering from shell-shock.--jeanne (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Leaving wikipedians

 * Sometimes a break can be for the best. You haven't failed, ultimately there is nothing we can do if they can't get along together. Avoiding each other isn't really an option when they edit all the same articles. Don't let it get you down. You were definitely right in saying "don't take wikipedia too seriously"...Best, --Cameron* 17:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cymru vs Canada
Hey GoodDay, talking of sport (as we do), Did you notice that representatives of your country are playing representatives of my country, at rugby? Just kicked off. Game on. Enjoy!! Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay
Welcome back. We all missed you.--jeanne (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you help me?
Hi GoodDay, as you've got vastly more experience editing on Wikipedia than I do, I was hoping you could give me a few tips on editing templates? As for example: Template:Flags of Europe, clicking on edit brings up random strings for me with tht text shown in the template not there. Could you be so kind to help me and tell me how to get around this issue? Cheers.Yman88 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of flags by country
GoodDay, I have no problem having two sections in the article if it will solve the problem. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope so, fingers crossed. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't work and they are removed then the article name will have to change. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, I put my hands up, I missread the criteria. I'll delete my incorrect post and if you have no objection I'll delete yours as it would seem out of place. PS: I don't agree with the criteria. ;} Titch Tucker (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I shall leave my vote to keep, but for the moment I think I'll take a step back from this article. I obviously don't know the full history of the Eng/Sco/Wal and N.Ireland country issues. Titch Tucker (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up GoodDay. It's only one editor really disagreeing. I think your suggestion is really good and is really the solution to a lot of problems on that article.Yman88 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments I might need that luck! :) Valenciano (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama the new Diana?

 * GD, don't you get the feeling that Obama has become the new Princess Diana? Ever since her death in 1997, the media has been searching for an icon with which to replace her. Well, I believe they have found it in Barack Obama. Comments?--jeanne (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the Manual of Style?
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force and in particular the subsection Compromise Proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

heat
This article could easily get hot now a pretty obvious sock has entered it. Please don't use words like 'subordination', they never help, and you have not used it in a logical argument today. I did catch the spirit you started this whole recent Country-based argument in, as it happens, and I wasn't 100% impressed! If you go looking for things, sometimes you find them. It would help if you try and moderate the language of your interjections. I've invested time in this now, and (despite all the alarm bells, and my better judgement) I'm not prepared to just walk away from it right now. Which are words I hope I won't rue.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to your question
I have viewed wikipedia for years, i registered once before perhaps 2 years ago, but the username and password are long forgotten and i only used it a couple of times when making small edits. I have occasionaly made small corrections or added things to the talk pages recently but decided to register tonight after seeing certain debates. If you think i am "Nimbley6/Bennet556" as someone suggested earlier when i failed to sign, then rest assured i am not and do not intend to violate wiki rules or offend people (intentionally) I feel strongly about the issues being discussed, just as those with the opposite view do aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a fairly random name which i only used on a couple of occasions which is why i can not remember what it was. It was around the time of live8, so atleast 3 years ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's Cate?
Giano is. Since nobody else seemed interested in telling you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it was me, at least 2 arbs and 3 checkusers have openly known for moths, there was no secret at all, so no excuse to check user, it was a fishing trip to to try to find private information, nothng more nothing less, and what did this "person" Gerard want it for? Giano (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe he ever explicitly linked the accounts (I stand open to correction on that point), since doing so would have ruined the joke, but he certainly deliberately conveyed the link to anybody who was watching (i.e. he went beyond doing nothing to hide it). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Plenty of editors have undisclosed alternate accounts; it's not prohibited at all, as long as you're not using them abusively as defined by WP:SOCK. Giano clearly wasn't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Eng,Sco,Wal,N.I.
Hey GoodDay, don't be so hard on yourself. In real life if I had to count my mistakes, or what I thought of as mistakes, I wouldn't stop counting for a week. I don't think you were trying to cause mischief, you just have an opinion like everyone else. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, chin up! A small hangover then you'll be back to normal. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dual monarchy
Put a delete tag there. Wanna check it out?--Gazzster (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Still snowing in PEI?
You're rather quiet today or is there another Power outage?--jeanne (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
Thanks GoodDay for the advice, but i care alot about the wording of the article / articles so i will look forward to an offical decision or vote on such issues. I do not seek to get into the debate on is Scotland a country or not, i have my opinions others clearly have theirs and i respect that. I just want to ensure that they are not included on international lists of "countries". and that it is very clear that Scotland, like the others is part of the United Kingdom.

That is why i made the suggestion that it is worded "Scotland is a " linking to the countries of the UK page. That seems like a reasonable solution and version, it maintains that Scotland is a country but also clearly states its part of the United Kingdom and does not misleadingly direct people to the "country" page. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be an agreement forming on what to do about lists of countries, which is a positive step. It might be a good time to get back involved. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no article more important to me on wikipedia than my country, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have been doing some other things as well but currently i have a big problem with the UK pages, which cant go away until some reasonable correction are made. Commonsense will prevail with time. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lmao, you must be a more tolerant person than myself then if you can live with such a conflict for so long :). If the countries of the UK page can be sorted then the other UK pages shouldnt be to impossible to have some form of change on as something has to be done about the Subdiv links anyway. I still have my doubts about the term country but i respect theres no better word to use and that would be an unwinnable battle. Once subdiv is merged into Countries of the UK, then there can be little argument against opening those other pages with.. "England is a Country of the United Kingdom that keeps the term country which will make some people happy, but its relationship with the UK is still made quite clear. which is my objection to the current versions. It still looks like there is growing consensus on what to do about the list of countries pages, which was my other main cocern about using "countries of the uk". BritishWatcher (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I said to him he could do the check:user request when he mentioned it previously, i said he could do it if he wanted but i seriously doubt even if that proved i wasnt him that he would change his opinion and attitude. Theres always the possibility i am simply using a new internet connection and computer, so hed never be happy.BritishWatcher (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please dont lose faith GoodDay, i can understand that you dont want to get involved in the debate again which uv been having for many many many months, but i hope you will be willing just to enter ur vote on those issues, if things do get put to another vote in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree theres certainly a independence edge towards this issue, especially on the Scotland page in my opinion, but thats all the more reason not to let such flaws remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Done
Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

the return of El J
yeh, good humour and balanced retorts are the best approach. cheers Mike MichaelW (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:MIA
I believe that would be Michael Sanders. The guy just disappeared ... not that I was bothered by this of course. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not as grounded in all this as some others, and it takes a long time to summarize, but it has a lot to do with the events surrounding two arbcom hearings, Requests_for_arbitration/Durova and Requests for arbitration/IRC. Before in and after all this, the politically active part of the community polarized over the issues, partially on ideological grounds (content contributors versus social networkers) and partially because of the personal grievances that resulted from the various disputes. The blocking and unblocking of Giano happens because of this and because of the civility restrictions (the authorized admin free-for-all) placed on Giano, a controversial decision thought even by many of the arbs to have been a bad decision.Giano's page on the matter gives more info from his perspective. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano
I'm not totally sure to be honest, and it isn't appropriate for me to share all my thoughts on it at this time.--22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi GoodDay! I am also trying to figure out what is behind this Giano drama. Maybe we can help each other. My theory at the moment is that some people believe there is a secret abusive cabal that rules Wikipedia, and they gather around Giano to form a counter-cabal. Personally, I think that's little more than a conspiracy theory. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with your country?
Almost 18% of your Senate seats are vacant, and more than 21% will be vacant by June 30. I get that Harper wants them to be elected, but what gives? It seems that most Canadians want them to be elected, so why not do an amendment without getting bogged down in the other Senate reform issues? You guys should hurry up, because you'll be up to almost 29% vacant by the end of next year! I can't imagine the US Senate with twenty vacancies. -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do the Liberals oppose election? Is it just because they have majority? Do they favour abolition? I'm assuming the NDP would vote against election when the bill is in the House because they want to abolish rather than strengthen the Senate, but what would the Bloc do? -Rrius (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh, one of my pet topics, can't … stop … replying on another's talk page. Having elections for the Senate would give a heightened degree of legitimacy that undermines the very beauty of the constitutional monarchy. The MPs with the least power have the greatest legitimacy because they are elected to represent the people, the Senate makes suggestions for improvements but generally approves bills that the lower house passes unless they feel that they have a strong enough case that the people will not be appalled at their upholding a bill that the elected house has approved. The Governor General is required by constitutional convention to follow the advice of Parliament but in the highly unlikely event that Parliament passed something appallingly offensive that the people would not immediately remove her, she could decline to sign a law.
 * Giving the Senate the legitimacy of being elected by the people sets up a radical change in the power structure of the system.  D ouble B lue  (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Senate has bogged down (I believe) 2 reform bills, passed by the House of Commons. I theorize that Harper's waiting until the Senate in 100% vacant, so he no longer has to be concerned with reforms or abolishment (at least during his PM tenure). GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Classic smiley.svg|20px]]You may be right. He is definitely in a pickle: To appoint would hurt his core support of Reformers; to try and reform the Senate would be political suicide, particularly in a minority position, and legitimise the picture the left-wing paints of him as a radical.  D ouble B lue  (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish the Senate were abolished. It's a hypocracy to democracy. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that view but feel it's a good brake on the excesses of populism and governing by polls to appeal to the electorate. The home of "sober second thought" and experience also does do a lot of unappreciated work improving bills and serving on committees. Cheers!  D ouble B lue  (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The republican in me is too pronounced. Abolish the Senate, the Governor General, the monarchy & that fellow who carries that huge golden thingy on his shoulders during Opening of Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think you aren't a republican; rather, you are an iconoclast. The US has a strong, elected Senate and a sergeant at arms who carries the mace of the House of Representatives. Granted, our sergeant at arms dresses in normal clothes and the mace is fasces of ebony and silver rather than a somewhat garish cudgel of gold, but the elements are there. -Rrius (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(oudent) Our fellow is a joke. Dressed-up in 18th centry garb, I wish somebody would sneak up & kick'em in the shin (ha ha). GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Black Rod. Silly name. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought Black Rod carried, well, a black rod at the State Opening, and the Sergeant at Arms carried the Commons mace to the Senate chamber. Either way, they look a bit silly. -Rrius (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They sure do. At least, they've stop wearing those white wigs. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Canada (again)
Just kidding about the iconoclast thing in the last thread. Anyway, I remember your expressing some preference for a US-style presidential system rather than a figurehead and PM. I wonder if the absurdity of the current US presidential transition affects your thinking. In a Westminster system, Obama would either already be president or a week or two from it. Then again, Lincoln, Kennedy, and Obama would probably never have become head of government in the Westminster system. -Rrius (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your system of government. The prez campaigns could be shortened a bit, though. By the way, could somebody explain to CNN, that the Democrats won't be taking over the 3 Branches of governmen? I'm guess they're mistaking the Senate & House as seperate Branches. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some times I think CNN are proud to be idiots. I agree with shortening the election season, but it would take a constitutional amendment. The 11-week wait between election day and inauguration day is what annoys me about the US system. In a Westminster country, the top political appointees are elected, so they don't need to be vetted. The old government acts as a caretaker, so there aren't all these last-minute regulations and pardons. The US system has a lot of advantages, but it is hard to see any in relation to how power is transferred. -Rrius (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look on the bright side, what if the Lame Duck Amendment had never been ratified. The Obama inauguration wouldn't occur until March 4 (2009). Indeed, a poor economy had something to do with the passage of that amendment. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True. -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really swap the Westminster system for anything else (except dump Betty Windsor - who isn't a bad ol' thing really- just out of date). I do think it could stand up to some changes though. I do admire how in the USA a senator or congressperson (is that what they're called now?} can cross the floor against the President of his or her own Party. The one drawback of having the leader of the Party controlling the Lower House and being the executuve, as in our system, is that you effectively have a dictatorship until the next general election, especially if the PM also controls the Upper House.--Gazzster (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Betty Windsor's gotta go. I believe Andy "have ya ever noticed?" Rooney put it best, when he called the (British) monarchy, a doll house game. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I always preferred "Liddy". Also, the drawback of the American system is that it is very hard to accomplish anything. -Rrius (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, ya know it's funny. My country's Liberal Party, would've been better off if the Conservatives had won a Majority Government. That way, they could've 'voted against' the Harper bills & thus built up their image as the opposition. With a Minority Government (again), they can't do that (without forcing another Election). But yeah, gridlock is more common in your Government system. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the Grits are broke, too, so they'll be the very loyal opposition for a while. -Rrius (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh)
Yes, those 'de jure' reigns shit me off too. --Gazzster (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada
Huh, how'd I do that without encountering an edit conflict. We did nearly the same thing, though!  D ouble B lue (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I beat ya by 4 mins. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I often encounter edit conflicts because I edit slowly and preview the changes before saving. This time, I had no warning, though. Maybe because I was using a different version.  D ouble B lue  (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Previewing my edits, is something I don't do enough of. I should learn to do this more, as my spelling can be awful. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be pretty frustrating to craft a beautiful sentence or paragraph, however, and then learn there's an edit conflict and just discard your whole work as a waste of time.  D ouble B lue  (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Monarchies in Europe

 * We'll see if they can provide sources. :) Best, --Cameron* 16:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) I'm sure as a republican you really appreciate it! ;p Best, --Cameron* 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

3-yr old Niece, staying for a night or 2
I shall have to sign-out for the night & may not return 'til Wednesday or Thursday. May make sporadic appearances, in between. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess that means you'll be making lots of popcorn over the next coupla days, eh? Your niece is lucky to have such a funny uncle. What does she call you Uncle Adrian?See ya when ya get back. You will pop in every once and a while here just to check out the action. The last time you were away, there was a party on my talk page.--jeanne (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it was just 1 night. So, I'm back. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Adrian
GOOD MORNING PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND!!!!!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lost Barnstar
Hey GD, do you remember when you received your Barnstar? If you have a vague idea you can check back and find it, even if its been deleted. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind, but I dug out a couple of your Barnstars and put them on your user page. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Big Jim
How do you know? Meaningless chatter? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You said Your oversight concerns are being 'reviewed'. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

March 3 or 4
I will never fight that battle. There is a line at some point where they went from the third to cheating a bit to into the fourth to anytime in the morning was okay until they finally officially said noon on the fourth was end/beginning of a term. -Rrius (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"...considered creating an account?"
Yes. Have you ever considered taking WP seriously and to stop asking people this question? This is not a social club. We do not need to be on a first-name basis, "GoodDay" - or who ever you are. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeepers, ya try to be social to (what ya thought, was a) newbie & ya get misery. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the tone, GD. VERY stressful few days. I know you're a good guy, and you didn't deserve that. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From Sock puppetry: "A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." You suggest that if I create an account, it will prevent other from suspecting I am a sock puppet??? It is impossible for me to be a sock puppet - I don't have an account to have an alternative one of :-D !!

Contributing "anonymously" is a certain way to prevent sock-puppetry. When a suspected sock puppet is submitted to Check User what happens is that their IP address is checked against other contributions. For signed-up users, their IP address is hidden from public view - hence they can engage in sock puppetry and can only be sniffed out by a Check User. Since mine is visible for all to see, it is next to impossible for me to engage in sock puppetry - I'd be spotted straight away!!

Logically, your advice should have been: if I want to engage in sock puppetry then I should sign up for an account :-D

p.s. I am preparing an essay/policy proposal to clarify common misconceptions about IP-based users. For spam reasons, only signed-in users can create a page. I'd be grateful if you could create one for me at: Why not to create an account. Thanks. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a proponent of mandatory registration. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob :-) You may have guessed that I'm not :-D --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not saying you wrong IP user, as I don't care if people edit as an IP or not, but one common way to sockpuppet is to use IPs to edit in areas that have high conflict so as to not sully the reputation of their main account. It's called a good-hand bad-hand sockpuppet situation. Its one of the reasons people don't respect IP editors in contentious issues because you can't tack their opinions onto one single person because the IP can change frequently making it hard to trace a persons comments through history. Whether you sock with a username or a plain IP its just as easy for a checkuser to find out if you are doing it. Just thought I would clarify that. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So long the areas where the two accounts edit never overlap, the situation you describe sounds like an example of a legitimate uses of an alternative account. Having a "bad hand" account, however, is wrong - but a "bad hand" doesn't mean contributing to a controversial area, it means having a separate account to kept to deliberately stir up trouble ... and stirring up trouble alone is 'against the rules'.
 * "Its one of the reasons people don't respect IP editors in contentious..." No, the sole reason is bad faith. If you can point to what I did before the accusation of sock-puppetry to suggest that I was operating a sock (or any kind), I would be grateful. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you are sockpuppeting. I am just saying that using an IP in areas that are contentious is usually suspicious, especially if they have an opinion that is different from the norm. There are alot of people who don't like to take stands one way or the other in such debates because it can affect their ability to become an admin in the future, so in such situations there is a huge proportion of people that use IPs when they enter such debates to avoid scrutiny of their opinions when they go up for things like adminship which is considered a bad hand situation. I see both sides of the arguement to be frank, I agree you shouldn't have to have an account if you don't want one, but I also don't see a reason why you wouldn't create an equally anonymous nickname other than to avoid having your opinions tracked because each time you come into the debate with a new IP you are going to be considered a new user because we can't click on your contributions and see your past comments. -Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Done. Thanks. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)