User talk:GoodDay/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about User:GoodDay. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Cock-a-doodle-doo!!!!!!!

You're up early, GD. Or is it still night where you are?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm about 10-minutes away from going to bed. It's 3:21 AM & I'm looney being awake at this time. Whatever happen to my 'trimming down' to 4 hrs daily? GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been up for about two hours. I usually arise at 6.30 AM to make sure my daughter gets ready for school instead of oversleeping.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been logged on to Wikipedia (taking half-hours off in between) since 'bout 9:00-9:30 AM - yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought I was a Wikiholic!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm soon ready for the funny farm. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaker-designate

The person who has been nominated by his party to be its candidate for Speaker of the House is the Speaker-designate. I have been trying to mediate an edit war between those who say, "The Speaker hasn't been elected yet, so it's TBD" and those who say, "We know Boehner will be Speaker, so he can be listed as Speaker of the 112th Congress." Describing him as Speaker-designate seemed, at least for a time, to ward off the edit war, and I really don't want to get back into it. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The full House didn't get to vote on the Speakership yet. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right. That's why Boehner is the Speaker-designate. When the full House votes, he'll be the Speaker. It's like being the Presidential nominee between the convention and the general election. JTRH (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you read my comments above about the edit war? And the phrase "Speaker-designate John Boehner" brings up 54,800 Google hits: [1]. That is his accurate title at the moment. JTRH (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an inaccurate title & should be avoided. Boehner could be dead my January or have a scandal or (though unlikely) the House might re-elect Pelosi again (the Democratic nominee). GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not an inaccurate title. The link above confirms that, including the fact that he now refers to himself by that title and it is commonly used. Yes, if something happens between now and January 3, someone else might become speaker, but Boehner is the speaker-designate now. Would you have decided that it was inappropriate to call Obama the "president-elect" the day after the 2008 election because the Electoral College hadn't voted yet? If so, you'd be virtually alone in that. JTRH (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Presidency was 'in-directly' voted on nation-wide, unlike the Speakership. The only election Boehner has won (at the moment) is his own congressional seat. Right now, the Democrats have the majority in the House of Representatives & will continue to, until January 3, 2011. Anyways, I won't be reverting again, as you've got the sources - even though those sources & Boehner are crystal-balling. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding. It's not crystal-balling, though: He is, right now, the nominee for Speaker of the incoming majority party. The title is appropriate. JTRH (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The only time one can be Speaker-designate, is those few minutes between being elected Speaker & being sworn in as Speaker. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Then he's the speaker-elect. "Designate" is the equivalent of "nominee," and he's been nominated but not yet elected. (Forgot to sign). JTRH (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, speaker-elect in that case. Anyways, there's still no 100% guarentee he'll be elected Speaker. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Bob Livingston didn't became Speaker, but he was Speaker-designate until he resigned from it. Just a quick perusal of the first couple of pages of Google hits from the link I provided: the phrase "Speaker-designate" has been used by NBC News, the Los Angeles Times, United Press International, and the leadership of both parties in the House. Pelosi referred to herself (and was referred to by other members) as Speaker-designate at this point four years ago, just as is true of Boehner now. Do you really take the position that all of those sources are using the term incorrectly? Good luck with that. JTRH (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a media created term. But, 5-weeks from now, it won't matter anyways. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's a "media-created term," then it's been accepted by those to whom it applies (including members of several state Houses). It seems to have been in use for quite a while. But you're right, it'll soon be a moot point. JTRH (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What's gonna happen next? Susan Boyle will get a frog in her throat? GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are geese considered silly?

Just the ones that fly backwards. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

At least their asses can fly! Have you ever seen a human swoop up into the air like they do? Hmm, hmm?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nop, never. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of Wikileaks?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's terrible & should be abolished. There's no telling how many lives have been put in danger by it. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are my sentiments exactly. What's the guy trying to prove?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He's trying to proove he's an a--hole, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And a dangerous a..hole at that!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, he'll be tracked down, put behind bars & denied computer access. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think on Gary McKinnon? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as he was interested in UFO cover-ups (BTW- UFO is often mistakenly used, when describing alien crafts), he ougtta be extradited off the Earth onto one of those space-stations. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the Dawning of a New Era.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-leaks & reality tv. The world is getting weirder each year. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll drink to that!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw that!!

Thanks! :) - Alison ^❤ 04:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. PS- Now I'm blushing. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops!! :) - Alison ^❤ 05:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya can't blame me. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I am! - Alison ^❤ 05:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And I thought I was in the In-Crowd

You are becoming very socially upwardly-mobile I see........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Watcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' talk page for starters... What's next, dinner at the White House? An invitation to William and Kate's nuptials?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Now and then, I visit the great swami's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am still waiting for my invitation to the wedding.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The swami's doors are open to all. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Swami. That word reminds me of a certain Beatles song.......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember it being used in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you're awake in the hour of the wolf!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, insuminia is a exhausting thing. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I presume you have finally succumbed to the siren song of sleep and are now happily cavorting with misty wraiths in dreamland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have returned. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope you slept well. Have any interesting dreams?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Weirdly enough, I dreamt I was editing on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That does 'NOT surprise me. I always dream of Wikipedia articles. In fact, there was a time last week when the 14th century became more real to me than 2010. I have had to take a break from Roger Mortimer, Baroness Badlesmere and their gang of merry hanged, drawn, and quartered men.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also having trouble reading books. I keep noticing spelling errors & such. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Whenever somebody makes a statement I inquire whether they've got a source for it!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Giggle Giggle. Meanwhile, I'm in the middle of trying to prevent censurship at the Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton article. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

royal wedding

Here's one for starters - (fundamentalist)

Wouldn't you enjoy yourself more joining in here? Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I rarely take part in those articles & discussions, as they can get nasty. I make it a point of not pushing my republican PoV, on any articles concerning the monarchies. I've been so successfual at this, that Mies even suspects I'm a closet monarchist. Currently, I'm a tad annoyed with Martin's attitude towards me. It appears as though he's assuming I'm pushing Broadbent's comments into the Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton article, for republican reasons. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want my honest opinion, I think you are a closet monarchist as well as a secret fundamentalist. You probably even hum Onward Christian Soldiers as you edit!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that is an amusing mental picture. GoodDay, can you hum? I don't think he would sing that but perhaps his online persona is a cover for his, now infamous ...religious royalism. That wedding article is best avoided, the vast majority of text that is in it now will not exist by the day on the wedding. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just about done, with that article. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What's a fundamentalist? GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nay, I'm a realist. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Departure from BISE

I've grown tired of BISE & all those fights over British Isles. Also, I do suspect LemonMonday & LevenBoy of being socks of MidnightBlueMan - both accounts seem to get quite defensive & protestive when an SPI is threatened. Both rarely appear simultaneously around BISE & related areas; when LM's around, LB isn't & visa versa. Both are SPAs obssesed with preserving British Isles. Many may ask, why don't I pursue this theory? I haven't the energy nor ~~patients~~ patience for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean patience or have you become Doctor GoodDay?! XD.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Err yeah, kinda looked like I was a doctor who spent too much time on Wikipedia & neglected my patients, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Beatles albums

Reminds me of the Beatles song Doctor Robert. Which LP was that from Beatles 65 or Yesterday and Today? I used to own all their albums; I didn't think I'd ever forget detils like this! Old age....sigh....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Released in the USA & Canada on Yesterday and Today; in the UK on Revolver. There was controversy of the former, due to its 'indeceny'. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaaat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See Yesterday and Today. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I must share George Harrison's sensitivity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironically enough, the guy who encouraged the usage (though for political reasons), latter became a vegetarian (Paul McCartney). GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an ugly cover.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it either. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK

Please read my edit-summary here and understand it. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 17:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I could've been vindictive & deleted your post, but since you're not a vandalizer or an obnoxious IP, I won't. I guess I'm just an old softy, with nothing of importance to post, oh well. Anyways, I'll respect your 'edit summary' request. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think I care whether or not you delete my posts. For your information, I don't. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 17:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My talkpage, my choice. No harm done. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Gooday GoodDay! Many thanks. Will correct. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was right the first time. TharkUn it is. I fell for your evil wiles. Will the BISE conspiracies never end! Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The first time, you had as ThurkinColl. I noticed the errant u, but missed the errant i. GoodDay (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thurkin 'ell. I had Thurkin then changed it all to Thurkun. I'll change it again if I can get past the ec's. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No probs. GoodDay (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators

Do you believe in magic ? Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Magic as in slight of hand, yes. Magic as in unexplained powers, no. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A little magic for you from Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I made need it. My first time voting in Arbcom elections & it's looking like 1 of the 7 candidates I've supported, may not get seated -if elected-. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Imagine the disruption that will ensue if Giacomo is one of the candidates that has enough support to be in that position.....If he was to refuse to identify then Jimmy has said he won't seat him and it would be returned to the community in a huge messy RFC to attempt to change the condition and that would need consensus of two thirds support and even if then the foundation might not accept an unidentified candidate.. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If this scenerio plays out, the foundation will have the final say, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The foundation .. have you got a picture? User:Balloonman has recently also dropped out. Thats two users dropped out b4 the start and one sock master and one resignation. Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's how Arbcom elections must be, a weeding out process. I hope 'if' Giacomo gets elected, he'll change his stance & do what the foundation requires of him, to get seated. The guy's been angry with Arbcom for so long, he deserves a chance at hit. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe, if Giacomo still wishes to be an Arbitrator, without giving his ID? From now 'til the next Arbcom elections, he'll have to persuade the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees to abolish that requirement. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is .."angry" a good starting position, it seems there is a degree of support for seeing Giacomo as a vote against Jimbo (authority) I also don't see that as the route of good stable growth. Hmm, apparenty the foundation are in sunny California, foundation mailing list ... ask for a group pic. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If elected, Giacomo's gotta hand over ID, if he wants the Arb hat. There's nothing more he can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if he could bring himself to do that as he has clearly run with a declaration of refusing to declare his identity. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Then his candidacy is effectively over. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not long to go now, Sunday evening is the close of voting and then Jimmy lets us know a day or so later. Its rumored that some users have over twenty accounts and that four or five of these accounts could be in control of the whole result....Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Fear not, the scrutineers will weed'em out. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not bad for my first time voting. 5 of the 7 candidates I supported got a majority result. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

R U ready 4 XMAS yet?

Well? Built any snowmen yet? Put up a tree?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be putting up a tree next week. There's no snow around though. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got everything up. I just need to put presents under the tree!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Got the tree & also presentless. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Real or fake?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fake. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Same here. My crib (nativity scene) is enormous. I had put some images of it on my talk page but they've since been archived.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Just got my lights up. Overall though, I'm quite low key when it comes to decorations. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I love decorating for Christmas. It gives a bit of warmth and colour to the bleak days and nights of winter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My fav colour is 'red'. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay says his favourite colour is red. I believe it

Tomas Kaberle

Please verify that on the Official Website for the Toronto Maple Leafs, the official roster claims that Kaberle, Beachemin and Komisarek are alternate captains while Phaneuf is the captain. Thank You. (John (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

Kaberle is only wearing an A, because Komisarek is injured. Once Komisarek returns to the line-up, Kaberle will be letterless again. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal label origins

Hi GoodDay, I’m creating a new article User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of England, and I’m seeking opinions/consensus on their origins. re There are a number of anomalies, such as the difference between a ‘blue’ and ‘white’ label, in reference to whether there is a difference between ‘Heir apparent &/or presumptive’ –and- ‘Prince of Wales.’ These anomalies stem from the label argent given to Thomas of Brotherton &c, as heir apparent to King Edward I. Was this the origin of a white label? Were Thomas and his descendants Princes of Wales (Mowbray was descended from the earls of Chester &c) ? Also, can you clarify the relationship between the arms of Mowbray as Thomas’s heir, with the arms of Richard II? Thanks for your time, knowledge and considerations. Can you please reply on the articles talk page. (NB: I've also asked John K & OperaHat) Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no knowledge of royal labels, I'm afraid I can't help ya. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

GoodDay you should know better. The discussion on United Kingdom is clearing supporting the status quo. You know that if something is being discussed it should not be edited without agreement. I assume you are having a bad hair day or something, but just stop please. --Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was over the inclusion of Welsh in the 'regional section' of the infobox. But now, that I see it's about the infobox's title? I'm flabbergasted. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

~~Furthermore, I fear that you & Dai 'might' be allowing your Welsh PoV to cloud your judgement on that discussion. Thus another reason for me to depart it. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)~~

GoodDay, please demonstrate any evidence of that PoV argument in our discussion on the talk page, or withdraw it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The very fact that you're supporting inclusion in the infobox title of the Welsh version of the UK, is what has caused me to depart the discussion. This view is mine & mine alone, so I wont be pushing my concerns onto public talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

~~Also, I will not withdraw my above mentioned concerns from my talkpage. If this mean you (and or Dai) wish to have me blocked? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)~~

Its not like you GoodDay --Snowded ^TALK 20:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, put what's being supported at that article's infobox is just beyond belief. I rarely get upset over these things, but I am today. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of AGF, I've withdrawn my above statements. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Snowded, I wasn't editing against consensus. There was no consensus for including the Welsh version of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the article's infobox heading. Therefore, I was re-instating the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User talkpages

I could easily delete any future posts here by Dai, as he's done to my post at his talkpage, but I won't. I've no problem with anybody disargeeing with me 'here. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you could. I've no problem with anybody disargeeing with me either. I just dislike being lied to. You are free to bring any other topic to my Talkpage, but that one is closed ... and for that reason only. Daicaregos (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Discovering that the welsh version was added without consensus, is what changed my mind. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, GoodDay, I've just noticed your most recent edits, both here and at UK here. You continue to use 'Welsh' without the courtesy of a capital letter, as discussed earlier. I think it best you stay away from my page until you've learnt some manners. Daicaregos (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I use 'english, scottish & irish' without capitals, too. What's your point? I'm speaking of the languages, not the people. He speaks welsh & He's Welsh is different. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

PS- If you're a part of a discussion at the Canada article, concerning it's languages? feel free to use english & french, I won't bar you from my talkpage for doing so. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Daicaregos, you are the most notorious POV pusher, so you can cut the crap about the good manners.
Varlaam (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you've both met before. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough bashing, is enough

Snowded, I won't be responding to your comments of me on the UK talkpage anymore. You got a beef with me? bring it here (my talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally I do GoodDay as you know. But I responded to your comment on that talk page as did G. --Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

G is always welcomed here. Your compromise at the UK article was/is brilliant. But commenting on contributors is a place for user talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, you snooze, you lose is a common saying on PEI. I was using it as discriptive of the 'silence is consensus' argument, the pro-inclusionist were claiming. BTW, there weren't any sources showing English and Welsh were 'de facto' official languages of the UK (the whole Kingdom, not just in Wales). GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In respect of the UK article. Adding inverted commas is not providing a reference to a wikipedia rule or guideline, its another spurious comment and has nothing to do with accuracy. Mind you I suppose I am asking too much of an editor whose contributions to this encyclopedia are confined to multiple opinion statements on talk pages and ANI referrals together with the odd request to disruptive editors to engage in disputes for your amusement. Personally I think you are more disruptive than many a sockpuppet, its just more insidious --Snowded ^TALK 04:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You've been arguing all long that a 1-month run of non-comments on the change to the infobox top (17 November 2010) was a consensus for acceptance of the change. If this is so, that consensus no longer exists. The Infobox should be reverted to before November 17, 2010 & then your proposal could be brought forward. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No GoodDay, an edit which is uncontested for a month is the new stable position. If people want to change it then they have to get a consensus. Congratulations on your attempt to argue from policy I suppose I should be grateful for small mercies. That said the above comment, while triggered by the UK article applies to your edits in general. I've done my best over the years to AGF and simply point out when you are stirring things, but I've come to the conclusion that you have no intention or desire to change. Wikipedia is meant to be a serious enterprise, not your personal playpen--Snowded ^TALK 04:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you & others (in the past) have encouraged me to have more of a backbone & to stop being a push-over, looking to compromise with everyone. Your compromise is faulty, as there's no official language of the UK & in that instance 'only' English must be used, as this is the English language Wikipedia. I'm most concerned about what has taken place at that article's infobox & am frustrated that I can't do anything about it. PS- I've removed the UK article from my watchlist, as I'm not 100% confident about the motives of some editors in that discussion-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Having unwisely peeked in once more at that article's discussion, my concerns over editors motives have increased. GoodDay (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns over the motivations of other editors GoodDay then raise an RfC on their conduct. Otherwise you are just letting fly with random accusations which is a failure to abide by WP:AGF. Of course raising such an issue would bring your own conduct into focus which would be no bad thing. --Snowded ^TALK 12:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to provide diffs in such a situation. You (for example) are a self-proclaimed Welsh nationalist & I'm a self-proclaimed Canadian republican. There's no way either of us could proove the other is letting their political beliefs knowingly/unknowingly influence our judgement on Wikipedia. Your continued stance that the UK's official langauge is Welsh, simply baffles me, when it's been prooven to you that's not the case. GoodDay (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind. We all have declared or undeclared political positions what matters is that we take a neutral point of view in editing. You really should not make general accusations unless you can back them up. Its a failure to follow AGF and has got the odd editor banned in the past. Welsh is an official language within the UK, I have not said it is "the UK's official language" to use your words. --Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

YES, that's correct, Welsh is not the official language of the UK & neither is the Scottish languages, nor the Irish language & the English language. The UK has no official language, therefore the Infobox's heading should only be in English as this is the English language Wikipedia. So why are you against English only? GoodDay (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Within the UK? then you're claiming Welsh is an official language in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland aswell as Wales? GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Welsh is an official language within the UK GoodDay, the disagreement with other editors (I really don't know where you are coming from half the time and I suspect you don't either) is if that means it should be in the information box or not. --Snowded ^TALK 13:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Inuktitut, Cree & Chipewyan are official languages within Canada; but (correctly) Canada name isn't in those languages at Canada's infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Show me the equivalents of the Welsh Language Act for those three languages GoodDay and I can form a judgement on whether they are comparable cases --Snowded ^TALK 13:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean the 1993 Act? which it's own article states "...is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which puts the Welsh language on an equal footing with the English language in Wales"...? GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, there's a Canadian Parliament Act that OK's governemtn services being conducted in the language that is required in those aboriginal/inuit areas. But darned if I know what the Act is called. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are suggesting its comparable, so provide a reference for checking and explain why you think its comparable. I'm not doing your work for you --Snowded ^TALK 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Official Languages Act (Canada) 1969/1988 Section #32, provides that government services will be handled in the native language of respective minorities. I doubt a National Languages section would be accepted at the infobox heading of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Been looking in on the UK infobox discussion (via my past contributions, as having it off my watchlist reduces the temptation to post there) & it appears I'm not alone in my views of how the infobox heading should be. Others have described the compromise as I've seen it lately - a smokescreen, to get Welsh included. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To British or not to British

What possible reason could you have to ask the question, if the answer makes no bloody difference to your preconceived viewpoint? Daicaregos (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

At the WikiProject-in-question, I had scratched out my question, but you answered it anyway, so then I had to unscratch it. At Rockpocket's talkpage, I was over-tired & had since 'scratched' it out. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I believe you need to take a break from Wales related articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping the same of you.
You evaded my question completely. You said to others to bring a 'beef' here, but what is the point if you don't address it. It becomes rather tedious asking the same question of you twice. Daicaregos (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I just told ya, sleep deprevation causes me to use less common sense. If I had been more fully awake at the time, I wouldn't have bothered with that Welsh film stuff (for example). Those Welsh articles are making you too emotional, take a break from'em. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And now that you have common sense, has your view changed? I ask because the edit summary for your strikeout said merely "comment not necessary", not that it was wrong. Daicaregos (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not involved with that 'film' article, my view would be irrelevant. Since ya asked here, though: It should be described as a British film, IMHO. But if you're seeking a compromise there? British and Welsh film will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay would you describe a film made in Canada as a Canadian or a North American film? Come to that would you describe the American classic Gone With the Wind as a North American film?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The correct North American analogy is surely with the status of films made in Quebec and in French, which are classified as Canadian films. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a continental example. I haven't suggested European film. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How is the singer Tom Jones usually presented? I recall he was always introduced as a Welsh singer from Pontypridd-never British! Ditto for Mary Hopkin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They're both British to me. As you both can tell, I don't bother much with British bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me ask you this. If you were in a Dublin pub and you happened to strike up a conversation with a man from Crossmaglen, County Armagh, Northern Ireland would you insist to his face that he was British? Or would you accept him as Irish?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends: If he understands english & has a gun/knife on him? I'd call him Irish. If he doesn't understand english? he's British. Also if he attacks me over being called British? he's also mentally unbalanced. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

GD, I think you might be dodging the point on purpose....:-) People are what they are, and dislike being told by other people what they are. At the same time, groups/gangs of people really hate it if members leave, and may continue to insist that they are still members regardless.... And this has nothing to do with geographies, political or continental. So the "Gone With the Wind" example is still relevant - and I suggest that you would hesitate to provide an answer outside of *your* gang. Your other responses demonstrate a knowledge of this concept. It is complicated, I agree. In my opinion, a man from Crossmaglen may be nationally and ethnically Irish, but be a British citizen. Different gangs. --HighKing (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All who live in the UK, are British to me. I disagree with the MoS for the bios, which sides with self-identification & so I tend to avoid those bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm making is, British what? A British citizen (I agree). But ethnically, culturally, etc, may be something else - Indian, Irish, Italian, etc. The infobox arguments could all go away if they removed "Nationality" and replaced it with "Citizenship", which removes all self-identification issues and simply comes down to which passport is held. Although invariably, somebody would want to add another box to indicate the self-identified nationality I'm sure... --HighKing (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy was born in Northern Ireland & is visiting Ireland (republic), he's British. If he's become a resident of the republic? then he's British-Irish. Thus the current President of Ireland, is British-Irish. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

People born in Northern Ireland are allowed to hold Irish passports.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

They're still British people, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Gerry Adams (like Mary McAleese) is British-Irish, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For most people, the concept of "place of birth", "nationality", and "citizenship" are one and the same. But for those where it's different, it can lead to misunderstandings. --HighKing (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's one reason why I don't hover around such bio articles anymore. I brought up McAleese's British birth, at her article in March 2009 & was immediately growled at. I also disagree with the MoS for these British bio articles, another reason to avoid them. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dya think having separate entries for "Place of Birth", "Nationality", "Citizenship" would fix a lot of the problems? Good idea / Bad idea? --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It might work. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What nationality is Prince Philip, in your opinion? Fmph (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

He's Greek-British. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on? Which of the three criteria (above) or is there any others? --HighKing (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Born in Greece, grew up Greek & is now British. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So, Place of Birth + Citizenship (and possibly nationality?) --HighKing (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with PoB & Citizenship. Nationality is too murky & more open to political squabbles. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

One question, GoodDay, what would you call someone born in Belgrade prior to 2003? Serbian or Yugoslavian?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Belgradian? Without anything else to go by, I'd refer to this person as Yugoslavian but be open to correction. --HighKing (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say they would be quick to correct you and point out that they were in fact, Serbian. From what I've seen and read, and judging by the Serbs I have met, Serbian nationalism is quite robust. See these articles: Black Hand and Three-finger salute (Serbian).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, if they want to identify with their nationality more strongly than anything else. This is a good illustration of the point we're exploring here, and a good illustration why the current infoboxes are inadequate. --HighKing (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

February 4th, 2003 - is the key date. From 1992 to 2003, it was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia & from 2003 to 2006 (without changing any territory) it was Serbia and Montenegro. So here goes: born betwee 1992/2003 - you're a Yugoslav-Serbian 'today'. Born between 2003/2006 - you're a Serbo-Montenegran Serbian & Born on & after the seperation of Serbia & Montenegro - You're Serbian. Note: This is a reversal dynamic of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

See my reply above. You're correct when you only take into account 2 out of the 3 mechanisms available, but we shouldn't be so quick to ignore the 3rd, and we shouldn't assume we know how to weigh each of them. --HighKing (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the black & white approach. Thus my reason for neglecting the 'nationality' stuff. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in case there's any doubts of my views on the UK - people born & living in the UK are British, not Welsh, English, Northern Irish or Scottish. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the child born of an American father, Irish mother on a US military installation in the UK? Legally the child would have the right to three different citizenships.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the base on 'temporary' American territory? GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

They tend to be joint British-US bases or NATO. The base I worked on was NATO.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The child is an American (it's a guy thing). GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At 18 the child may choose which citizenship he or she wants. The child is actually a triple national.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

An American, an American-British or American-Irish. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock

Are you my puppet, or am I yours? Maybe, in some wierd "the universe is all a cycle" way, we control each other... Wow. Deep. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just gonna ask ya- who's the left sock & who's the right? GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel a little more left than right today. We can take turns, though. I'm an equal opportunity puppet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At least you both are clean not smelly nice socks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, as regards asset management - both of you guys are quality. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If only I could agree completely with myself at Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The most ironic thing is that I'm almost entirely convinced that UrbanNerd is a sock of the indef blocked user Po' buster/PhilthyBear/ScottRios/NationalCapital. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So, the sock is within another shoe. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do recall someone suggesting that, it was probably you. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Who ever that bloke is, his/her attitude is becoming a bore. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame that everything is a battle with them, they do seem knowledgable and want to help the wiki improve, but constantly name calling and throwing around bad faith assumptions and a general battle ground mentality will never get you anywhere. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks he/she is heading for a involuntary timeout. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If both feet are taken, can I be a mitten? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Even deeper... Maybe we're all just toes on a giant pair of toe socks. Who's controlling me, man!? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahahahaha - I'm the sock-master & you are but one of my hundres of socks. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci is a sock of whom? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you suspect Mathsci is a sock, start an SPI. Meanwhile, I'm disappointed in Dunlavin Green, 'cuz now he can't be trusted. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It has not been established that he is a sock.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been confirmed that DG is also Captain Fearnought & IP 86.44.77.178. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Incredible. Why would he resort to sock-puppetry?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To get his own way on articles he's interested in, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in terms of the dates of contrib histories - DG is a sock of CFN. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Presidents of the Republic of China

Presidents of the Republic of China are always by convention referred to their term in office, not their overall order. For example, Ma Ying-jeou is referred to as "the 12th term President of the Republic of China" and never as "the 6th President of the Republic of China". (In Chinese the same phrasing is used whether the former convention or the later convention is used, but the number given is always 12, so that is the convention.) I reverted your edits. If you disagree, the appropriate place to bring this up would probably be Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. --Jiang (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If that's the convention, then no probs. Thanks for notifying me. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Countries of the United Kingdom concerning Northern Ireland

GoodDay, you have just notified me that any changes I make re describing Northern Ireland as "a country" will be reverted - a rather hostile position to adopt. You have stated that you regard everyone who lives in the UK as British - are you trying to say that Wikipedia should not accommodate any more inclusive vision? A very large proportion - over 40% - of those who live in Northern Ireland do not regard themselves as British, and do not use British or Unionist terms to refer to Northern Ireland, such as "country" or "nation". My view is that Wikipedia should aim for neutrality and that when references are made to geographical terms that are politically contentious, this should always be pointed out and neutral alternatives should be given. I do not accept that there is, as you claim, a lack of consensus on this point: NPOV is a central principle here and you are not entitled to impose your political views. I will continue to edit in favour of neutral terms, and to point out when a non-neutral term is used, particularly when it has no legal basis. Brocach (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out to you that 'others' will revert your changes 'unless' you get a consensus for them first. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As for NPoV concerning the 4 parts of the UK? there's none. IMHO, there's a devolutionist PoV prevaling those articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what a devolutionist PoV is - my concern is not whether devolution is good or bad, it's certainly a fact, but whether editors like devolution or not shouldn't determine the word(s) or term(s) used in Wikipedia to describe the parts of the state. Several terms are available, some of them are politically loaded (e,g. nation) and some aren't (e.g. parts of the UK). I don't mind them all being listed as alternatives, but do object if only the politically loaded terms are permitted and neutral ones deliberately suppressed.

I have engaged extensively, politely and in good faith with those who are determined to present Northern Ireland as a "country" or "nation", and many editors have expressed views one way or the other (some better informed than others). However it is clear that there are certain editors who are more interested in inserting exclusively Unionist terminology than in keeping Wikipedia as a neutral space. The consensus throughout Wikipedia in favour of NPOV applies equally in relation to articles mentioning Northern Ireland, so the consensus is with me - and it is notable that not one of my edits (even those that have been reverted) has ever been challenged as showing anything other than a neutral approach. I have never sought to impose my views (in fact, have never even discussed them) but I won't accept the imposition of someone else's. Fair enough? Brocach (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no probs with constituent countries of... or parts of... the United Kingdom. Ironically, I view the article title Countries of the United Kingdom as having a devolutionist slant to it. Constituent countries of the United Kingdom is more NPoV, as far as I'm concerned. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At the infoboxes of the 4 parts of the UK, I find a Unionist-slant being caused by the inclusion of the UK prime minister. Note that Canadian provinces & territories infoboxes don't have the Canadian prime minister in them. The American states & territories infoboxes don't have the American president in them. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, I believe it's understood that one cannot compare the American states and Canadian provinces to the four countries which make up the UK.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland are not independant, they make up a country. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They are countries that make up a sovereign state.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally reject that claim, despite the 'sources' presented to support them. That's why I rarely bother with those 4 articles-in-question (along with my suspicions of devolutionism). GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Brocach after our last discussion about this topic a month ago how can i assume you with any good faith? I said to you to desist and try to get concensus for controversial changes to avoid problems, you seemed to accept that. If you keep going this route of trying to force non-concensus edits on controversial matters you are only going to end up being seen as a disruptive editor and sanctions imposed by admins such as editing blocks.

Also on claims of "unionist" bias, have you seen how many Ireland related articles have a "republican/nationalist" bias? I'd bet that there are more biased against "unionists" than for. I'd hope you will help target that bias as well. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in agreement that these articles-in-queston lack NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, we could immediately agree on your "parts of" the UK - a totally unarguable fact - if it were not for the determination of some editors to impose loaded terms such as "countries". I think the best solution is to offer the various terms and point out which ones are neutral and which are politically biased one way or another. Mabuska, I edit out bias of any kind wherever I find it - as you would know very well if you followed my contributions - so don't use that sarcastic tone with me. Brocach (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting country replaced with constituent country or a part of... at England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland, would be a major 'root canal' expierence. Trust me, I know. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Worth persevering until we get a form of words that is neutral, though. Brocach (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to limit myself on such articles, though. I'm concerned that I could be slapped with an Rfc or Rfc/U by 1 of my colleauges, on the accusation of 'trouble maker'. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm Brocach, and on non-bias, i only see a very recent history of removing anything that has statements of "national" and "country" in regards to Northern Ireland - even when its clearly stated in the sources provided. As stated before the soverign government of the United Kingdom knows what its constituent parts are and its clearly sourced that it describes them as countries. Just because it doesn't fit into some peoples agendas doesn't make it biased or POV. If we can't go by what the official-line is then we will just have to inform the cliq of nationalist editors here that their excuse for enforcing "Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland" for the state isn't viable anymore either... Mabuska ^(talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

MFIreland / WCM AN/I thread

Several of your comments are unnecessary using the name that WCM objects to the use of. While he did use this name himself, it serves no purpose to be using the name now, and it adds nothing to the ANI thread to mention it. Therefore, using it can only inflame the situation and is disruptive. Please do not use that name, or otherwise cause disruption on ANI. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 19:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not using the full name, he should cease using it himself. Recommend his former account be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I normally have a good sense of humour, I've always put my name to my edits as I never felt like I had anything to hide. In recent weeks I've put up with a ton of crap that has invaded my home life, causing distress to my mother and my wife who received some very unpleasant phone calls. I really don't have a sense of humour about this right now. I accept the apology in the spirit it was intended, just stop please OK. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already done so. I hope whoever is harrassing you in RL, is tracked down & punished. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate that. Merry Christmas. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Same to you, hohoho. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wales Article

I User WhizzSheep have added image Royal Badge of Wales to the flag of Wales in the Article Wales as it ACTS as the COAT OF ARMS For the COUNTRY WALES, So Please Could you Not DELETE and return back image to the Wales Article, THANK'S

You need to get a consensus for your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ready for Santa

and his reindeer tonight? We've only 4 hours to go till it's Christmas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm ready. It's 9 hours to go here. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a chimney for Santa to slide his fat ass down.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. But I wish I did, so as I could be there with a sewing needle, pointing upwards. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Merry Christmas, GoodDay and Jeanne. I will be on a train tonight and tomorrow, so I'm getting my season's greetings in early. -Rrius (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Rrius and a Merry Christmas to you as well. Bon voyage!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Boxing Day Jeanne & Rrius. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from sewing needles

what did Santa and his pretty reindeer leave for you under the tree?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

5 books on US Presidents: Jefferson, Pierce, L. Johnson, Ford & Carter. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, they should keep you occupied for the weeks to come. Pierce had a tragic private life. Wasn't his little boy killed when he fell under a moving train?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it occured in January 1853, just 2 months before Pierce's inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Terrible. His wife, who saw it, never recovered. Oh, is your Jefferson bio the one by Fawn Brodie?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My Jefferson book is by Christopher Hitchens. All my other US Presidents books are part of a volume series. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read the sad letter Jane Pierce wrote to her dead son? It's an external link from her own article. Which presidents are you missing from your library? I expect you've got most of the volumes by this stage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Never saw the letter. In the series, I've now got Tyler, Taylor, Pierce, McKinley, T.Roosevelt, Harding, F.Roosevelt, Truman, L.Johnson, Ford & Carter. Not part of the series, I've got the Jefferson book & 2 books on J.Adams. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised you haven't got books on the two biggies: Abe Lincoln and JFK!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll eventually get'em. Tell the truth, I find the lesser known Presidents more interesting to read about, due to the fact they're lesser known. Characters like Van Buren, W.Harrison, Fillmore, Buchanan, B.Harrison. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And Chester A. Arthur and Rutherford B. Hayes, and Taft (I forget his first name-was it William?)...Ho hum.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Heheheha, yep big Bill Taft. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

New Year's coverage

In case it storms that evening & I must remain at home, would somebody beg CNN to replace Kathie Lee Gifford as co-host of CNN's New Years count-down coverage. She's very annoying. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that 2010 is leaving us forever

File:Jack daniels 5cl.jpg

Jackie could help alleviate the New Year's Eve solitude

what have you got planned tonight to ring in 2011?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much. I'm still a bachelor, living on my own. I hope I meet my future wife in 2011, 'cuz lonliness is everything it's cracked up to be. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd love your loneliness.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been told by women, that lonely men make the best lovers. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sure we could find an online wiki priest of the faith of your choices and have perhaps the first online wiki wedding of you pair. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Knowing my own strange tastes, I'd leave GoodDay at the altar and run off with the priest!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

But of course, I can only offer you a good time. A priest can offer you eternity. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

An eternity doing what?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sex. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope to marry a school teacher, since she'd make me do it over & over again, until I got it right. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That whiskey looks good, could you please pour me out another phone?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And try to get it on like once before when people stared in Jagger's eyes and scored like the video films we saw--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

David Bowie, the strangest looking creature, until Boy George entered the scene. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw Bowie live back in 1974. He was brilliant; he really put on a fabulous show. Not quite Rolling Stones-calibre, but entertaining all the same. A couple of guys invited my friend and me to party at Bowie's hotel suite, but my friend chickened-out. Thought we wouldn't be able to handle the scene....sigh...If only I had insisted....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have gone to such a party. Bowie looks kinda gayish to me. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done some spiritual growth work and would jump at the opportunity to be the priest, Non denominational of course and all in the best possible taste. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, tonight would be a good night to eat your favourite meal, watch a couple of your all-time favourite films, then stay up late reading one of your new presidential bios.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, aint that depressing? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a death row, last night situation. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Better than what people do here on New Year's Eve which is eat lentils, watch a crappy circus on tv, then after just a half-hour's firework display, a bout of conjugal intercourse.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna watch CNN's coverage of New Year's Eve (even though it's an hour late, in my time-zone), but I see Kathilee Lee Gifford is gonna co-host again, so that option's out. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yuck. Does she still bore everyone with details about her son Cody?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the old Regis & Kathilee Show. I don't know if she still does talk about Cody. She's so annoying & not one bit funny, it's unbelievable. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

New York Governor

FYI, Andrew Cuomo was sworn in as Governor on 31st December 2010 well before midnight. Thats why I changed it. 117.193.198.234 (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevent. The NY Constitution already determins that an elected Governor assume office at midnight EST New Year's Day. Under your claim, Cuomo wouldn've taken office 31 Decemeber 2010. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a boring rainy day here. I think Cuba sounds like a much more delightful place to celebrate New Year's. Don't you agree, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Snow is melting in my area, feels more like late March. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

GoodDay, thanks for your help with disruptive editing on Andrew Cuomo's page. I have asked for editor assistance with my issue with 75.73.50.195 (talk), but appreciate you input on the discussion board. Sinisterminister (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidential books

Which of your new presidential bios are you reading at the moment? Have you uncovered any previously unknown scandals?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I completed Pierce & L. Johnson, but haven't uncovered any scandals. Right now, I'm reading book I got from the library, Larry King, My Remarkable Journey. Then I'll read Ford & Carter. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it, no scandals in the LBJ book? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He had alot of women. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it say this in the bio?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep & it says he was quite proud of his self-described Jumbo. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as you have a reliable source why not add this to his article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to do so, as lately I've been under servelliance (see abov discussion). GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as you've a reliable source, you can add it. I think it would improve the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I forget what page it's on, but the book's author is Charles Peters. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I peeked at your birthday updates & ya forgot Fritz Mondale. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you'd need the page number as well. I only list a sampling of birthdays.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe ya do; okie dokie. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well have you added it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Which one? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon's jumbo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the excerpt from page 139: "Johnson's behaviour could be disgusting. He would, for example, require staff members to accompany him to the bathroom, where he would proceed to defecate in their presence. He also demanded that his subordinates join him for nude swimming in the White House pool. Johnson was enormously proud of his large penis (which he called Jumbo) and delighted in humiliating his less-well-endowed associates by requiring them to reveal their relative inadequacy". GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You may place that in the article if you wish, but I can't. If somekinda argument breaks out over whether it should be included or not, Snowded will accuse me of stirring trouble again & may hit me with an ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sceptical of this entire anecdote. The Jumbo bit I believe, but not the rest. Who alleged this to have happened?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the author hasn't been called out on his sources. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If he doesn't give his sources then it shouldn't be added to the article as it sounds a bit dubious--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

But the book itself is the source & the author Charles Peters, should be trustworthy. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't believe it, so I did a quick search. It didn't take much to get confirmation. Page 121 here outlines the same behaviour. I say add it to his bio and watch some editors go into apoplexy!

Presidents. Sheesh. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't be adding it. If any arguments break out over its inclusion? I'll get slapped with a Rfc or ANI report. Remember, I'm a negative to Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki glitch?

Since late yesterday, I've noticed a mysterious 'grey' bar appearing off & on at the top of pages, when I change pages (via 'go' button). Is this occuring with other editors? GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Crikey! A mysterious Gay bear - perhaps its a psychosomatic vision. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, but have you noticed it on your display? GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, we need to laugh, its good for our health. I don't know if I use this go button, where is that? Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the button underneath the 'Search box' & next to the 'search' button. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course, .. no , I haven't seen anything unusual when I used that entry method. I don't remember the link but there is a WP:bugzilla place where users make reports about glitches, that might be a good place to see if anyone else has reported any issues. 19:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Be careful at List of Welsh people, Off2. Whatever you do, don't mention the fact that Welsh born after 1707 (along with Scottish, English people & since 1920's Northern Irish) are also primarily 'British'. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That list is on my list - its completely non encyclopedic and less useful than a cat. Hey, did you see User:Vintagekits has been caught socking? Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's Latin Fury. Well, add my moniker to the oppose camp, concerning his request for being unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one thing I was thinking about, as there are many comments that are indeed possibly with some truth..that this place is riddled with sockpuppets and you would be shocked if you knew who they were and some of them in authority positions... was that users could opt in to a checkuser to verify only one account and that the checkuser would be on automatic recheck by bot every three months, creating a verified one account user - but it would likely be technically very difficult - I look sometimes a high profile situation arises and there are some objections to content additions and it always seems that an account with a few edits a year jumps out of nowhere and reverts, clearly a sock and its unaccountable revert just serves to disrupt and upset honest accounts, tiresome indeed ..yada yada. (thinking out loud, hope you don't mind) - LOvely sunshine and lots of blue winter sky out of my window, have a nice day GoodDay - Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Some day the 'pedia will sock it to'em. Have a nice day Off2. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dances With Wolves

GoodDay have you ever seen this film? I watched it in its entirety last night. It was wonderful. And the American Indian actors were fantastic!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've watched it about 5-times, beginning to end. Dances with Wolves, Stands with a Fist, Ten Bears, Wind in his Hair, Smiles Alot, Kicking Bird, etc etc. Fantastic story & very moving music. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wind in his Hair was georgeous! That long flowing raven black hair....Whew!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You gals are always turned on by the agressive ones. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And the sexy ones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The agressiveness turns yas on. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agressiveness no, as I utterly detest violent men. Let's say the take charge types are appealing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wowsers, remember the 'powow' meeting scene: Where Wind in his Hair suggested shooting a couple of arrows into then John Dunbar, to see if he had special powers? GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I also found Kicking Bird attractive. I like that all the actors playing Indian roles were actually Indians and not whites in dark make-up which is so condescending.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Tatonka", he got a heck of a scare from Dunbar, when he was about the take Dunbar's horse. Wowsers, I was just gonna mention that, they actually used Native Americanes to play Native Americans. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords

Eventually, the title should be changed as it was an assassination attempt according to several sources. The Reagan assassination attempt Wikipedia article is not the "1981 Washington shooting" Hakkapeliitta (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Giffords might be the first female national politician in US history, to be such a victim. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for help

I've noticed that you often update articles related to Newfoundland and Labrador and I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me fix up the Newfoundland and Labrador article. The page is in hard shape and it's way to much work for just one person, I've just put out a request in the articles discussion page but I don't know if I will get any interested helpers that way. If you can help it would be great. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, reconstructing article section content, isn't something I'm good at. I fear you've tapped the wrong bloke for assistance. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Too bad, I'll look for others to help, thanks anyways. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kb's list

I'm not certain, but is such a list allowed on the 'pedia? Many have criticized my posts on others talkpages & article talkpages. But my 'edits' have rarely been criticized. GoodDay (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Boo hoo. I ain't even on the list. At least you're notable, GD!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

He don't even got my moniker correct. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of his list? I wrote Wikipedians and their historical counterparts in good fun, and only mentioned actual users in a complimentary way. IMO, it creates an unpleasant atmosphere when specific users are negatively evaluated by another and then listed for all to see.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish he'd fix my moniker, "Goodday" looks silly. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ask him to fix it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

He just did. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm frankly disappointed that Kittybrewster would create such a list about other editors. In my opinion, KB has muddied an otherwise positive editing history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't offended by it. Just wasn't sure how others listed, would respond to it. Kb isn't the only editor who has issues with my posts. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It has since been deleted as possible outings were involved.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was wondering about those 'RL' hints, but didn't actually think they were important. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wowsers, as regards to his criticism of me, it appears he likes to stir things up. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, his list was way beyond the line.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucky for Kb, Giacomo didn't see the list. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm really surprised at KB's behaviour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Kb got into trouble over something, a long time ago. I just can't remember what it was. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Giacomo didn't mind the list at all. What a guy. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happen to leadership conventions, eh?

All my life in Canada, a political party held a Leadership convention to choose it's next party leader, the individual candidates had Leadership campaigns. Suddenly (via an over a month 'closed' RM discussion at British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election, 2011), all such articles have been moved to Leadership election. Honestly, this seems like a Wikipedia invention of titles, to me. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

John Roll

I think that is the first time I observed an 11RR violation, or was that 12? KimChee (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, he/she/they were very determined. I just hope there's alot of screaming, swearing & kicking going on right now, by who ever that vandalist was. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's a night owl tonight?

Well?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Who, who, who... GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Read this for a study in pure human evil: Davy Payne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The UDA & IRA, both embarrassments of Northern Ireland, UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you read about what he did? My God. Oh check this out. I think you'll enjoy it: [2]--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The IRA started & the UDA were over-zealioust in stopping it (the troubles). As for the Beatles -messages- in the songs? spookey stuff. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Manson knew a lot of music-industry people very well, it's not inconceivable that John Lennon had met him and Susan Atkins, and wrote Sexy Sadie with her in mind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNsvcVgfLaI Night Owl [Cleethorpes Weekender] - dance with me? Here comes the night owl, walking through my door ... Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The opening music sound like Tom Jones' It's not unusual. Also, like the 2 women (particularly the one in blue) dancers, wearing short tops, revealing their mid-sections. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes siree, those were the days, still happening in a smaller way Northern Soul - Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeepers, those 2 gals looked hot. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...all this talk about hot females leaves me in the cold!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If only I could get one of those gals into a hallway. Then start fingering or better yet licking her navel. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yowser! I estimate that first video is from ~~1979~~ (looking at it again it appears newer than that)- Hey Jeanne, you can come too .. get your dancing shoes on an lets go - http://www.viddler.com/explore/tanaiilinkshell/videos/21/ - Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I love the nightlife, I like to boogie, in the disco and ahhhhhh yeah....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sexual dancing, wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I want action.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yummy yum yum. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Outdent

I know your intentions are good, but I'm perfectly aware of {{od}} and I'm sure Andy is too. We'll use them when we need to, no need to refactor our comments. With all friendliness and respect - Kelly ^hi! 02:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But you're not using it. It's purpose is to prevent a post from getting 2-words wide & 200 lines long. Please impliment as I have. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, it hadn't gotten that to that point. I promise to use it when I think I need to, really. But your interjections of the template were causing edit conflicts. Kelly ^hi! 02:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to impliment when a post is inline with the end of the outdent, unless you're going to extend the outdent. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom "Test"

Why are you horsing around on United Kingdom GoodDay, you know better than to edit comment some important change there as "only a test" - were you trying to wind people up? Deep breath, breathe, breathe. Feel your pulse and think about calm things. Birds on a lake. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rangoon's small group comment & inflexibility on the topic, really p-ssed me off. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my compromise "United Kingdom is a country, which consists of England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland". It was blocked 'cuz a few devolutionists didn't want the UK called a 'country' at the expense of the other 4 intendities. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I get that you were "p-ssed" but having angry stabs at key articles with "test" comments is over the edge - I'm just saying, you know better, so why bother? Point-scoring wins no friends. One day at a time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Atleast the foolishness over trying to get Welsh into the infobox heading petered out. I don't know how & by whom, but someday, the devolutionists are gonna push too far on those articles & there'll be a backlash. Their political bias is so blantedly obvious. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think things are a bit chaotic at the moment - we have a rush of obviously pre-incarnated users with new accounts running amok with wild "pro" and "anti" edits. Hopefully things will calm down and go back to the more normal steady bickering soon. I wouldn't like to say who will "win" - the "nationalist" or "devolutionist" camp are more determined by their very nature I would guess, since the "mainstream" English/British editor isn't likely to be too bothered by any of it. The more blatant changes will generally get reverted, although it surprised me that the Welsh language one was up there for so long without a fuss. Were you paying attention? :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I had the UK article off my watchlist at that time. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And your excuse for that lapse? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was peeved off over something else at that article, at the time I took it off my watchlist. But I forget what it was. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol. My second advisory of the day - never unwatch, no matter how annoyed one is. Go to bed. Watch TV. Play chess. Anything but Un-Watch. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll keep the article on watch. It's less stressful & more entertaining when one keeps out of such PoV discussions & merely observes. Things are just about as silly at the Elizabeth II article, where a Canadian monarchist & supporters, are trying to keep the United Kingdom from slipping out of their commonwealth realms are all equal mantra. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Myself & DeCausa seem to be the only editors 'willing' to leave out country/countries. The UK-is-a-country side & the E/W/S/NI-are-countries side, are incapable of holding back their differences. As a result, we've got the stupid looking ..country consists of countries... GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a tad suspicious of Afterlife10 & 86.178.52.148 accounts. But I've no energy for opening SPIs, even though The Maiden City keeps popping into my head. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)