User talk:GoodDay

Welcome!

Hello, GoodDay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

---

Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. Be assured I'll be as curtious as possible & hope to provide worthy answers to your questions (about wiki edits), I'm looking forward to meeting you. User:GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).

Round 2

A few articles have been nominated for merging by a mergoholic. Would you can to take part in the discussion again? The articles in question are "Most Excellent Majesty", "Britannic Majesty" and "Most Gracious Majesty". I suggest you comment soon if you wish to as the nominator has a history of merging without consensus. The discussion for all three articles is taking place here. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cromwell userbox

Like my new userbox? = )

This monarchist is fond of republican pass the parcel...so you'd better watch out!

PS:If you are not aquainted with Crommwells fate, read the article.

De jure

Up to you, of course. But I think we're doing rather well. --Gazzster (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert?

All those people who voted to keep and improve List of monarchs in the British Isles haven't done a thing to improve it. I have created a simple, straightforward disambiguation page. TharkunColl (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

De jure reigns

By what authority? --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course as a republican you may believe so. In fact (de facto) they can indeed, but de jure it would be illegal. I would not recognise it for one. Neither would her millions of loyal subjects. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it would be easier to abolish the monarchy in UK than Canada??--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008

Ok, I didn't know that! Thanks for letting me know! Willwal (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2008

Seplling

Mi spelinn not b gud. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up re: Wales. I gave my giving out. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Canadian PM infoboxes

I agree that we need some consistency here, so we can't really afford to let the issue drop. Unfortunately, we have a majority that just want to stick with steadfast republican or monarchist views. To close this, we need an influx of people to the discussion that have the interests of readers at heart rather than political opinions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Username

Hello GoodDay! I have spoken with you on the talk page for the U.S. election article, and maybe on other talk pages as well. I'm just dropping by to let you know how much I like your username. You have made it so your name is also your closing salutation. Wonderful!  :) JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Destiny

It was all but inevitable that you would return. Just avoid subjects that make you burn out. :) We definately could use you. -Djsasso (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Map at Scotland

I really wish you hadn't done that. I know where you're coming from, but that's the worst situation for our users. I was in the middle of asking Jack forbes to revert his edit, returning the article to the version I unprotected. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I understood you meant well. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

De jure monarchs round 2

You may be interested in this very interesting discussion here! See you there...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

thought you would like it = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He was a lovely person...and made a great monarch too (I dont expect you too agree with me, dont worry!). --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Even George said "I pray nothing comes between Albert and Elizabeth and the throne"...or something like that! --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The anon

He only vandalised me as I added warning templates to his page for his vandalism! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That remains to be seen : )...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes...as far as I've heard nothing final has been decided...--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Roster Template IR

Hey. Just wondering why you put Brind'Amour back on the IR. Though he is injured, he won't officially be off the IR until next season since the Canes didn't make the playoffs. I personally don't know any links that tell when players are healthy again in the offseason. I removed Brind'Amour from the IR to avoid confusion in the offseason and for the beginning of next season. If a player for a fact will be on the IR at the start of training camp, then I see that as grounds to place on the IR list.

I won't revert the edit until I hear back from you, but regardless, I will shortly be working a modified version of that template that eliminates the "IR" sub-heading and instead placing the symbol next to the player's name.

Thanks, Thricecube (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page, GoodDay, I'm not sure it really matters if players on teams who's seasons have ended are listed on the IR or not. Thricecube is correct in that there really is no IR for an inactive team, but at the same time, noting that a player is still injured is fine too - it is hard to source though. I'm not really worried about it either way. How's that for sitting on the fence? ;o) Resolute 21:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thats for all the help on Scotland. We may not agree 100%, but its nice to have someone else trying to help this article (at least one step at a time) have a more standard MoS aligning with every other subdivision found in Wikipedia. Lets hope that when this is all over everyone will like the outcome and appreciate all the hard work. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish anthem

Hi GD! As far as I'm aware it does! Has anyone stated otherwise? --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

IM rather upset for being called a POV-pusher or British nationalist. I would hope not to be a POV-pusher and I am definitely not a BN! I honestly thought the formula was more informative. And it is used at the England page, thats the only reason I thought it would be a good idea. --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A Canadian British Unionist? I suppose UKPhoenix is an easy target with a name like that. The opposite ought to be true of my name = ) (Names dont come more Scottish than Cameron!). Being labelled a troll is really mean! What had you said? --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I have decided to avoid contact with certain wikipedians for good. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose UKPhoenix is an easy target with a name like that. Hay I resemble that remark! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re

GSTQ is a de facto anthem of England, that's why it is there. It is not for Scotland, and that reality can't be changed to obtain encyclopedic conformity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ONIH

In answer to your question - Mairéad Farrell. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So he's retired I see. If I recall correctly, didn't he invoke his right to vanish months ago, then retire, only to come back again. Probably worth noting at ANI, where he was served days ago. Grsz11 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to yours, I think that's best and reflects well on you. See also: WP:DIVA. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A's

Hey, about Malone as a captain: He's been wearning the A recently (Game 4 here) because of no Roberts. He's worn it now for 4 months (Jan-present), where Roberts was Oct-Dec. I'm not too sure what to do about it. Grsz11 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I understand. Certainly no problem with Sydor, as he hasn't played a game yet. Grsz11 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mean, Sydor can certainly be categorized as an interim. My only thing with Malone is he's had it more than Roberts. I guess we can certainly wait and see how the next week or two turns out. For what it's worth, the team's roster lists all 4 of them. Grsz11 17:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, I didn't add it. I'm fine waiting to see what happens. Grsz^talk 19:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandal

I assume you mean the "Och Aye" vandal? It was User:Magicsails and yes he has been successfully convicted of sockpuppetry (see his user page)...Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was meant to be more racist than amusing, if you ask me. Och aye the noo is often used in parody nowadays. Even though it is a wonderful expression. --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As did I...

He now seems to have come back (as I knew he would) to pursue an agenda of finding sockpuppets which don't exist. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

You're using them! I'm impressed = )! You can 'steal' any of mine here. These are the ones I think you will particularly like:

This user knows Elizabeth and Philip were made for each other.

This user is one of His Majesty's subjects.

= ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What a shame! = )Re:Philip...all speculation...our article doesmt mention anything as there arent sources (credible ones at least). Loads of people speculate about how 'horrid' Philip is supposed to be...while he is actually a very charming man. = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion at the 3RR noticeboard

About your suggestion at the 3RR noticeboard: that might not be an altogether bad idea, in itself, but it's a bit out of place on the noticeboard. The issue there is G2's 3RR breach, in particular, and his continual edit-warring and 3RR breaches, in general. Latterly, it is also G2's mendacioius comments to the effect that his breach somehow was not a breach, and that my reports, rather than his 3RR breaches, are the real problem. Our both backing off from the "Order of Canada" article would do nothing towards righting those wrongs, and your suggestion of it only tends to distract from them at the noticeboard, making it seem as though this is merely a disagreement between only two editors at a particular article. It is not that. It is an aspect of a broader and deeper problem arising from G2's aggressive and tendentious editing, which causes many problems with many different editors, mostly over the same constellation of issues.
So, with all respect for your wish act as peacemaker, your remark would have been better put on our respective personal talkpages.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie

(Transferred from my talkpage -- LW)
I recommend that you & G2bambino, depart that article. Agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't mean that you should post it on my talkpage now. I've already read it! <grin> I was going to suggest deleting it from the noticeboard. Leaving it there in struck form does not really accomplish anything. But I leave that to you.
(By the way, as you can probably guess, I prefer to keep user-talkpage discussions on the one where they begin. If you've no great objection to that, let us do things that way.)
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian passport

I'm puzzled by your actions at "Canadian passport" and, although I am sure they were well meant, I even see them as somewhat troublesome, I am sorry to say: Overall, you seemed to wish to mediate. Yet you began by taking a side, at least implicitly, by re-adding the contentious material. I'm not sure why you did that, but it was a problematic action no matter what its cause and motive were:
If it reflected an opinion of yours that the material should be included then that opinion was fair enough, but the change should not have been made to the article again without having gained the consensus it needed. You should just comment on the talkpage under such circumstances.
If you had no particular opinion, but were just trying to mediate, you really blew the impartiality a mediator must have to be effective.
Possibly you were misled by G2's remarks, and by the the broken-in-two discussion, into thinking that I was not taking part in discussion, and you meant to "force me onto the talkpage" by reverting. (A new talkpage section had been begun, carrying on but separated from earlier but still fresh discussion of issue, in which I had said plenty. Perhaps you overlooked that.) That is not a good technique in any case; it only feeds an edit-war and fosters a confrontational atmosphere. However, whereas I had already, and very recently said plenty on the matter, I was already "on the talkpage". (Moreover, no one should be faulted if they won't keep going round and round with a discussion where it is at an impasse and nothing new is being said. Consensus is rightly a matter of everyone agreeing to abide by an outcome (without necessarily agreeing with that outcome, not a matter of who keeps arguing longer.)
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I departed that article 'yesterday'.

(Transferred from my talkpage -- LW)
I've left that article 'yesterday'; what exactly are you upset about? GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset about anything. I just see some problems with what you did there, and wanted to raise them with you in the hope you won't do likewise in the future. I mean it in a cordial way. Please take it under consideration.
Cheers, Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(Transferred from my talkpage -- LW)
OK, I see now. Yes, I shouldn't have made an edit; I should've stuck to the discussion, my apologies. It's not even my place to mediate on Wikipedia; that's a duty best left with Administrators & Mediation Cmte. Lately, I feel that perhaps I'm being more of an intrusionist, then a peacemaker. Please note, I'm no longer involved with the 'Canadian passport' article.

Hey, no worries. I'm glad that you see what I mean. And I wouldn't say that you necessarily should not try to mediate. You just have to be really careful how you go about it. It's a tricky business -- not for everyone. Sorry about the conversational overlap of our talkpages, by the way. I hope your fine with consolidating this here.
Cheers, again, Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll let you & G2bambino work things out. PS- I'm cool with the conversation being here.

Westmidlands

Yes old friend, I do believe that that IP is in fact the user Westmidlands — the edits are consistent between them... I gave him a welcoming message, but the response has not been what I'd've hoped. Well, there's been no verbal response at all. Think we ought to take the issue further? ^† DBD 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

King Kong

Its a pretty bad movie, imo, except for the amazing monster sequences (stampede of the brontosaurs, the t-rex attack, etc). I really think the 1933 version can't be beat. Even now, its spectacular.--Gazzster (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

English (of the place) vs English (of the language)

Sadly many things that are English (eg. the title Lord) are being classed as English (the language) and not English (the place). For instance: Most other language wikipedias class the title Lord as English (as in from the land of England). However as this is the English language wikipedia and not the English place wikipedia many people are classing English things as English laguage things. Naturally the anglosphere share many things but many things are also purely English. I dont mean to come accross nationalistic (I do hate nationalism) but it does seem sad that our wikipedia has less correct statements about English (place) things than foreign language wikipedias! Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:British Isles

Yes, saw it. There was nothing wrong with you removing it yourself, rather than responding to it. I have archived it now. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomislav II

Though you say your sticking considering your voting based on your humble opinion surely it's appropriate to consider the opinion of published sources which call him Tomislav II and King of Croatia and not as a pretender etc. which is not supported by a single source. Surely it's not appropriate to try and rewrite history and change what published sources refer to him as ie a king and not pretender. - dwc lr (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I don't think Titular is needed as that descriptor is used for monarchs when their deposed and their heirs. William II, German Emperor William, German Crown Prince etc. - dwc lr (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Using an image on personal page

If the image is freely licensed, yes. If it's under fair use or on another website, no. You can use any free image uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons on your userpage, or anywhere else. You may want to read through WP:DYKI for more info. If you want to know about a specific image, please state the exact image you want to use. Thanks. MECU≈talk 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Try not to give people fire for a change where it is not justified or even supported universally. AB does not appear to be an expert on royalty. The change at the Greek template is disputed at best. If Constantine is not the King of Greece in any capacity (reigning or non-reigning), what is he? The attempted change at the Greek template tries to force the view that there are former kings who are not kings... "Former" only being an adjective to describe a king. Charles 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Constantine IS a king, albeit a deposed one. Once a king, always a king, unless abdication occurs (and even then, some stay kings, like Leopold III in Belgium). Charles 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Greek Royal Family

hiya, i do think they should be changed too, so they all match. I'm glad you see what i've been trying to say. I also agree with you that if one former royal family titles are changed then all former royal families should be changed too, it makes sense to me. AliaBuhler (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cup Playoffs: Player Names

While I don't agree with your philosophy on the accent marks, it seems to me that this is important to you, so I'll just let it go. But I do know that if my name included one, I wouldn't appreciate it if someone removed it just because they think things like more neat when Americanized. Mr. Vitale (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me, but I just don't understand why why wouldn't put the proper accentuation on their names. Just because they play in the US or Canada doesn't mean that their name should be subjected to English language rules. This is just the same as when American baseball players in Japan had their names altered to suit the language. But whatever, I don't really care. Mr. Vitale (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page

It seems somebody already beat me to it. But you know you can contact me any time if you've a problem ; )! Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Hello GoodDay. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterBar (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I made a prefectly reasonable edit, not a reversion, and someone immediately undid it, including some minor good edits within it. That same editor accused me of vandalism if there's any more. I came to Wiki yesterday after seeing a wholly inappropriate edit on the Quaker Tapesty article by that same editor. All I can say is that I'm very disappointed with my experience here. The British Isles article is generally of poor quality and seems to have been hijacked by those with a political agenda. I had never come across any controversy about the name of the British Isles until I read the article. It seems to me that the controversy is for the most part at Wikipedia and there's little of it elsewhere. Anyway, no worries about me making any more edits, I'm away from Wikipedia. Do you know of any similar online encyclopedias? Google searches just bring up Wikipedia articles all the time. Thanks.

Vanishing

GoodDay, I will soon be vanishing for personal reasons. Thanks for your acquaintance over the past few months. Take care. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Quebec

Check archive 7 for the details. I wasn't around for the change. It looks like they discussed it extensively, particularly Ramdrake and ArcticGnome. I hadn't noticed actually. It looks more like they divided the lead paragraph into two. I like the change, personally --soulscanner (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW

WOW, did you know you were 745^th on Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits?? Congrats!--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would let me nominate you! You would use the tools well! You could protect pages without needing to wait for an admin! You'd pass with 100 per cent!--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Workload?It's like being a teacher = ), you help out when and where you have time. Looking at your edits...you wouldnt need to spend more time on wikipedia than you already do! Plus you have loads of supporters! As I said you would get 100 % support on the !vote!--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are too kind. I'm going to take part in User:Malinaccier/The four phase system. You ought to read it! It is amazing! You could take part too! There seems to be a queue but I could recommend you!I'm sure Malinaccier would be more than willing! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Hello GoodDay, do you not honestly think compromising on keeping Gordon Brown in the infobox is a good choice considering the examples I gave on the talk page? Believe it or not, I understand your reasoning for consistancy, but don't you agree on this occasion there can be no consistancy due to the different circumstances? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One can but try. I feel we will never agree on this and maybe the discussion will continue on the talk page. Nevertheless, no hard feelings! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Afd of the two articles

I must say, I would seriously consider such an action. I will consult the commonwealth secreteriat website first though...--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

An internal seach shows no hits for either c. kingdom or c. republic! No wonder the sources section of both articles are empty!--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Republics could be renamed...but kingdoms really does need deleting!--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And it has been. Right...here! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think 'List of republics withing the commonwealth' would be better. Or something like that anyway...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country, out

Hello again, thought I'd let you know there is a discussion on that about to begin at Wales. I think we should have consistancy with England and Scotland. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland? Ah, well, I'm still waiting for the discussion to begin on the FM and PM issue. One thing at a time, don't want to overreach myself, I'm new to wikipedia. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your actually making me laugh, no joking, I could'nt help myself. Bravo!!! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving you credit for your little messages saying RIP constituency country. A nice way to open the debate again, nothing wrong with that, but it did make me laugh. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, if Wales decides to go for country will you join me at the N Ireland page and try to persuade them to change for consistancys sake :>. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I already noticed that but did'nt want to mention it. I actually disagree with you, I think N Ireland will be the last place to change. I thought that from the beginning but thought I had to try. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, see ya round the pages. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know I've given up on the Wales page. Guess I've got a low threshold for childishness!(not you). --Jack forbes (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that England is a surprise, I was'nt involved in that discussion, but I'm honestly not surprised that N Ireland has'nt taken it up. Maybe a little surprised no one has commented on it --Jack forbes (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ireland name

Hi,

I'll setup a new talk discussion on the ROI talk tomorrow. It coming up to 1am over here so it'll have to wait until then. I won't post in the UK talk page about the name until thats sorted.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm ready to setup a mediation. I've never done one before. Where should I place the argument for the name Ireland to be brought into place?(it is quite lengthy); on the mediation request page or the ROI talk page? Thanks for your help.WikipÉire ^♣ 12:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I know you are new to this yourself, but which names should I include in your opinion? The people from the last name debate on the ROI talk page, the names from the UK talk page or every name that's been involved in every discussion on this matter? Sorry for all the questions I just want to make sure I don't mess it up.WikipÉire ^♣ 13:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's up and ready to go. A few changes have to be made still.WikipÉire ^♣ 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Still ere

I've been away. Holiday from the PC. Missed out on any cool discussions? --Gazzster (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why

Hello GooDay, I've got to ask you a question. You probably know by now that you and I don't agree on certain things, but I reckon we argue for what we believe in. My question is , why do you back up a proven sockputtet like Wikipeire. In my opinion he argues for arguments sake. In my humble opinion he is the worst kind of editor there is. I say this to you because I believe you do things because you believe in it , whether I disagree with you or not! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. he was using User:Melvo as a sockpuppet. He was using it to get round the 3RR and goodness knows what else. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

King Justin

Dont you know king justin? = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Delegate count template

Hello. Please see the source that is used for the template's numbers. The numbers are derived form the New York Times count for the Actual Delegates and the CNN count for all other delegate counts. DemConWatch, if that is where you are getting your numbers, is not as reliable a source as CNN. If you disagree, please bring it up on the discussion page. johnpseudo 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why 2025 as opposed to 2024? I don't know- they seem to have some inconsistencies in the web content. johnpseudo 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just wishful thinking on the part of the Clinton campaign unless the Democratic party changes its mind about whether Michigan and Florida are counted. johnpseudo 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I think the pages Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore are appropriate in this instance. This user is clearly a troll. I've given them at least one chance to make a gesture of change. I'd revert any of his obscene remarks that are not conductive to the good of the project. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Cameron (t|p|c) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Looks suspiciously like some kind of chain-mail rubbish! Couldn't resist though, = )! PS: I've just been granted WP:Rollback. I know you dont want to become an admin or anything, but you ought to apply...you spend a fair amount of time reverting vandalism and the tool would come in handy. All you need to do is ask an admin...And looking at your edit history NOONE would refuse! Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you deliberately avoid my question? You really ought to consider applying! --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are! You are starting to sound like my grandfather! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you got me!

Yea, you sneaked up on me, almost jumped out of my skin!! :). I did try and whisper but you must have me bugged. I also said I was going to leave it alone so it's a discussion for another day perhaps. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. My reply was meant to be humourous, I'll have to try harder! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS:I'm watching too! :) --Jack forbes (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, get well soon. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie list

This list is quite good but I think it could be expanded. I added a few a while ago but I'm sure you could contribute more! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This may also interest you. It is about the capitalisation of 'The Queen'. I have the feeling it is going to be a long discussion! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Get Well Soon Being sick has a mental part, So use your head to cure you. Thinking good thoughts is the way to start, And smiling works, I assure you. Keep up your spirits to cheer yourself; Don’t let the gloomies win. A happy soul will get well fast, And right now is the time to begin. Best wishes, Cameron

RIP Padraig

I was shocked & saddened to learn of Padraig's passing, today. To those who are not yet aware of this tragedy, I hope (upon reading this posting) you'll visit & leave a message of condolenses at Pad's home page. I first came in contact with Padraig over the issue of Northern Ireland's national flag (or lack there of). Again, I'm shocked by this occurance. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

It says quite a lot that a conversation supposedly about Zenit St Petersburg, a Russian football club, was brought around to British imperialist guilt and the constructed memory of collective suffering of yet another imagined community. You see, GoodDay, being on wikipedia solely to push a strong ideological agenda rather than create good content is to me what reverting warring is to you. Something I dislike immensely and want to get rid of. Ah, my innocence! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately that is correct. Strong ideology, here and elsewhere, is the root of so many problems. God gave us a brain, then Satan gave us that to balance it! ;) Well, that's one way to look at it anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

IIHF

Noticed you commented further down the page. Up above we are trying to get an idea on actual numbers of for and against. Might want to make a note there about with way you feel on the subject. Note this is not a canvass as you have already commented on the page. We are just trying to sort out the mess. -Djsasso (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gathering support eh? You want to take this to mediation then? Or do you want me to go around asking people to vote?--Lenev (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. It's not going to matter anyways.--Lenev (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Feeling better

Good to hear you are feeling better! If that was you cutting down, I'll be interested to see how much you do now!!! Jack forbes (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've actually met anyone normal here (including me). This daft thing called wiki seems to be drawing me in and driving me mad. I'll have to go cold turkey one day to save my sanity! :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, shocking!! Don't feel bad, you just see the good in everyone. :) Jack forbes (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Shocking" or "socking"? Sorry, couldn't help myself. I am pleased that his disruption has been put to rest though. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

difficult editor

Your efforts to find a potentially dignified way out for this just now are appreciated. DGG (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

GB&I

I'm not sure there is any point in inflaming an already confused and edgy discussion. I prefer to reference the part of the MOS that gives my reasons. Crispness (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And you thought my edits might start an edit war. ROFL. Crispness (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Flags

It is definately out of sync you are right, personally I would wait until we know the editor is done his POV pushing and then put them back. If you put them back now, as soon as his block is over he will just war with us again about it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh too late now...guess we will have a war on our hands again.... -Djsasso (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad luck for old Gyanendra!

Looks like you were right! --Cameron (T|C) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm rather like The Queen in this matter; I don't voice my political views. Although I find it a shame to end traditions and living history. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez

I am aiming to nominate this article for GA and to be a FA on 21 June. If you can suggest any improvements to the article please let me know.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Republicanism & Monarchy

Hi.. I find it deeply interesting that you are a staunch Republican (in the non-USA sense), and yet have such interest in monarchy. I would love to have a discussion about this. Not to change minds, just to understand how/why you feel this way. If you're not interested, cool--I'm sure you have real life (I've heard of the concept) stuff. In any case, your contributions are stellar. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh.. that makes all sorts of sense, and is quite admirable! PrinceOfCanada (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

reprimand

Did I see you getting a telling off on the BI page GoodDay? You've been here far longer than I have, but I would just laugh to myself and carry on. :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I had to laugh when Matt mentioned on his page he does'nt know where your coming from. I reckoned I figured that one out fairly quickly, but I'll keep it close to my chest. Oh, and it does'nt matter to me where your coming from, it's good to have debates. :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a canny game, Jack Forbes. Being fairly new, maybe you will learn about the seriousness of Wikipedia in time, and learn to keep your politics from your edits too. Wikipedia is not strictly about "having debates" either - it does happen of course, but guidelines and policy are what are supposed to sail the ship - not the winning debates. Debate often develops when policy (esp POV) is abused or ignored.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did I mention that it is a canny game? Maybe you will learn that you take yourself too seriously. There you go with your accusations of POV again, please give it a rest, its getting rather boring. I know what wikipedia is all about, and its not about throwing tantrums when you don't get your own way, its not about trying to bully people into going along with your opinion, and its not about using curse words in your replys. I actually popped into football in Ireland and a couple of editors went against you not because they did'nt agree with you, but because of your attitude, get the picture? I have always tried to be civil to you but I must say one last thing, DON'T BE A CHILD AND GROW UP Jack forbes (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008

Someone else said the thing about things changing, I think. I kinda suspected that this was a historical issue, but I didn't have anything to do with Wikipedia in 2004, so I couldn't be sure. Anyway, It occurred to me to worry about someone claiming POV because Obama is where winners go on the past election pages. I would have put them in the opposite order so I could say I was maintaining the order from the last election, but it probably wouldn't matter. It's Wikipedia: someone will complain. -Rrius (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said on the article talk, they can have fun reverting the changes. I may add info for every candidate who could reach 270 at some point. -Rrius (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's back to even.-Rrius (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all, and I prefer your stance - no candidates at all (so long as they're all mentioned in fair capacities in the article). I just figure, if we're going to place candidates in the infobox then we should place all those who will have an impact on the election. -- Fifty7 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that slightly - instead of removing Perot from '92, I'd include Nader in '00. If a candidate had an impact on the results of the election, then they should certainly be there, and both can be said for Perot and Nader in the respective years. -- Fifty7 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Should Pat Buchanan be included too, then? The presumably accidental votes for him, if voted correctly, would have been enough to swing the election. -Rrius (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And they thought we were being silly (I believe "reductio ad absurdium" was the term used) when we said there would be constant edit wars if we put pictures in the infobox. In a matter of days, we have two: minor candidates (as predicted) and calling Cynthia McKinney the "presumptive" nominee before she has a majority. -Rrius (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The faithless elector thing is pretty silly. I can see an argument for Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000. If a 3d party candidate's national popular vote is greater than the difference in the two-party vote, their importance is apparent. The more that vote outweighs the difference between the parties, the more it makes sense to include that person. All the same, I am not touching the edit war going on at United States presidential election, 2000. Speaking of which, where would be the proper place to discuss usage of that infobox for past and ongoing elections? It seems as though we should be able to develop a consensus at some Wikiproject or other and end the nonsense. -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Big Changes

Can you think of anyway to stop this one? Its become a farce and more testosterone in print than I have seen in a long time. Pity as well, Matt is normally a good guy --Snowded (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well at least we all tried - thanks for the prompt support --Snowded (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, me too! Jack forbes (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Name & Capitals

Hi GoodDay. I'm a bit confused by your revert on the UK article. You say see the Republic Of Ireland article. There it says Republic Of Ireland is not the name; so why did you revert my grammar correction? The R in Republic is only capatilized as it's the title of the article. What am I missing? Ireland is the name of the country so is thus capatilized and 'republic of' are nouns used for describing it in order to differentiate from the island and by the laws of the English language are not capatilized. So can you explain your revert. Thanks.Pureditor 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As a fellow Canadian I'll take your word on that. I didn't know it was a dispute type thing. I just thought a grammar correction wouldn't be a problem. Thanks.Pureditor 14:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008 Part II

No not Clinton. I was referencing the recent AP poll that showed Nader at 6 percent in a McCain-Obama-Nader race. [1] Uwmad (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank's GoodDay, I was going to take longer off but I could'nt help myself. Thanks also for the message you left me when I was going to quit. Much appreciated! Jack forbes (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 2

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! This time it was totally unprovoked! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 13:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Concerning all 30 NHL articles current rosters

No need to thank me, I'm just copying and pasting. I'll keep my eye out for any though. Thank YOU! Blackngold29 22:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

B.Isles

Hi GooDay, was your reply "Nevertheless that's the way it is" in answer to my statement or the other user? I'm a little confused! :) --Jack forbes (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, then we will have to disagree, I think my analogy with Australasia stands. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay doke! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey GoodDay... I can't seem to throw a stone around here without bumping in to you, and 90% of the time I find myself agreeing with you. Seeing as we seem to have somewhat similar interests (ranging from the former British Dominions Beyond The Seas to Hockey) I was wondering if you might be willing to help me with a little pet project I've been tossing around. Personally, I find Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Empires bureau to be too broad and I've been considering starting a WikiProject devoted to the British Empire/Commonwealth of Nations specifically. Considering your work with the Commonwealth Realms project, I figured you'd be one of the people to go to. If you have any interest in helping with such a project, please drop me a line... On a somewhat related note, I've also made it my personal goal to get Dominion of Newfoundland to GA status. I have no idea where to start on that, and so I'm again asking: Would you be interested in helping me out with such a task? Thanks in advance for a reply, and keep up the good work :-) -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

UK

Hello GooDay, I hope you don't mind me asking, but what is your heritage, is it Welsh, English, Scottish or Irish. You don't have to answer, I'm just curious. Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, must be great having all those different nationalies to fall back on! Do you consider yourself Canadian first? Jack forbes (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, I have nieces who are proud to be half Scottish, but ask them what nationality they are and they will always say Australian, and why not. I understand now why you take such an interest in things connected to Britain, and although I don't always agree with you, I know you are giving an opinion because you believe in it. Jack forbes (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

UK by politics/Scottish by choice! :) Jack forbes (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)