User talk:GoodDay/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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)

I have a photo-less infobox at my sandbox. There is no space between the top candidates and the candidates below, so it all looks run together.

I fixed the link to my sandbox here. I have tried it [[1]] and [[2]] party names, but I think it looks ugly either way. I didn't alphabetize because it's not worth it for the moment. Feel free to edit there. -Rrius (talk) 22:55, 18 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. [3] 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)

I don't think you should pay too much attention to the IP's ranting. I know someone who lives in the USA, where many forms require you to tick a box to select your "Race". The options include things like Caucasian, African-American, Asian, etc. He ticks "Other" and clarifies by writing "Human" into the space provided. I like that idea. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:50, 18 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)

Where did your people come from in France? I just spent some time there a while ago. Jack forbes (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's great you can go back so far, The furthest I can go back is 1716 for my Scottish ancestry, and 1845 for my Irish ancestry! Jack forbes (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's amazing!whas it the son or daughter you were descended from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's great, you must be really proud. Jack forbes (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, who knows, one day you might have one of your own! ;) Jack forbes (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Soctland, a constituent country or a country?

I'm sure you are! :). You certainly can't be accused of bringing it up again. Jack forbes (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'll look on in amazement. Jack forbes (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, did you see the Scotland talk page? I have now been accused of using a sockpuppet on top of trolling and incivility. Hey ho, what a wonderful day its been :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm keeping away from the actual talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

consistency

I did, I may regret it ... --Snowded (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Perhaps you could join in too? It would be great to have an established editor helping sort out the discussion. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If anything could you just state that you agree with the proposal? You don't have to say anything more than that :) And there appear to be several accusations of trolling against Jack Forbes now, so perhaps you won't be under such close scrutiny this time, considering most of the views are turning to his bad conduct. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK thank you :) 84.13.166.40 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

How charming to hear you are interested in ancestry! Found any members or the nobility/royalty yet? From experience, the nobility always have the best family trees! They kept at record of such things, whereas the commoners usually allowed it to become forgotten. I saw your ancestor's article, very interesting by the way. I have french blood myself, though not too much of it. I am a descendant of Noël Édouard, vicomte de Curières de Castelnau but not a direct descendant as in your case. British and German blood mainly. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't edit the article really. I dislike the military. It seems odd anyway: My various anscestors would have been fighting each other on different sides. I have more pleasant closer ancestors like Bernhard, Count of Bylandt. Being an artist is a much nicer occupation, don't you think? And the family home, Schloss Rheydt, is to die for = ). That's an article I spend more time on.

PS: I'm sure you'll find some member of the nobility in your family. Almost everyone does. (Although it becomes harder in countries without a nobility such as the USA). I'm all in favour of establishing a Canadian nobility you know! They have already made a start by the looks of it. If they ever do, be sure to nominate G2bambino! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Even in this day and age there is a lot of "racism" against the nobility. In Austria everyone with "von" as part of their name were forced to change it! That is a violation of several human rights! --Cameron (T|C) 14:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is even sillier! Neither van nor von always indicate nobility. Some areas of Germany and Holland have loads of vans/vons that are common as anything! = ) The good thing about living in Britain is, you can hear which class people are the minute they open their mouth. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Captains

Most teams do not change their captains from season to season, unless there is a rotation of captains. IN the minors and juniors, yes you would have to wait for the new season to begin to name the captain and alternates. Unless, you know that the Islanders and the Devils have releasing or trading their captains, I think it's safe to say that last season captains will be in their current positions next season Raul17 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Debate at UK

Wow, what a debate. I'm glad it's all centralised for once though. This way, all the countries have to accept the outcome. They have been notified on the respective talk pages so it's not as though they haven't had the chance to comment also. --Cameron (T|C) 19:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to log off now and see what has happened by tomorrow! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you talk to Fonez4mii? His aggression is going to prevent any sustainable solution and he is now throwing around generalities. 9-6 will not force a compromise through on the country pages. --Snowded (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First sockpuppetry case

This is my first sockpuppetry case. Have you ever been involved in one before? --Cameron (T|C) 14:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, I would never presume to force my opinion on to you, (not that I could), but you should read the discussion and the diffs throughout the page. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom

I have come up with what I consider a really good alternative. Please see what you think on the matter. Fone4Me 21:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Last post

Hi GoodDay, this will be my last post. I have had enough of sockpuppets and trolls, no idea is put forwad withought dripping in POV. The so called discussion at the UK page has become a farce, are those suggestions suppose to be a compromise? They should look the word up in the dictionary. To be truthful, I have more and better things to do with my life, and anyway my family and I (wife and two kids) are planning on immigrating to Australia where I lived many years ago. I still have friends there so We'll fit in quite well. Anyway that's that, I wish you luck, you will need it at the UK related pages :). Take care buddy. Jack forbes (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

What sections don't you want archived? -Rrius (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives

No problem. I also added {{talkarchive}} to your older archives. You may want to cut and paste any ongoing discussions back to this page if the old discussion provides important context. You can always cut and paste them back to the archive when they peter-out. -Rrius (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sign the petition

I don't usually do this kind of thing but would you please sign the Come back Jack petition. --Cameron (T|C) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Maple Leafs

I've been reading (imagine that) about the switchover from NHA to NHL. It seems to me that if we consider the St. Pats and the Arenas as predecessors to the Leafs, then we should probably consider the Toronto club from the NHA to be a predecessor as well. Hear me out. Livingstone owned the NHA franchise. In 1917, the NHA took the players and franchise away when the 228th dropped out. They ordered Livingstone to sell, but he didn't. Because they expected it to sell, there are cites that the players were to go back to that franchise. The following season, those players became the property of the NHL Toronto franchise. Also, the manager Querrie was the same. While the Arena Company paid for the franchise (and paid again a year later) it seems to be basically the same thing. Same jerseys, colors, too. I am pretty sure the NHL and Leafs don't consider Livingstone's club a predecessor, but we can here at Wikipedia if it is explained and cited. I don't think a merge is necessary, just the connections between. I don't think it is original research. Also, the date of the start of Blueshirts can be iffy too. While O'Brien sold his franchise (according to Coleman the Les Canadiens) or a franchise (according to other books the Les Canadiens were sold to Kennedy). At any rate, the Toronto club started in 1912, franchise bought in 1911. Myself, if I owned the Leafs, I would consider the Blueshirts a predecessor and Toronto fans would accept it. What do you think? (Keep the discussion on this page?) Alaney2k (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain about this. I've always heard the NHL Franchise discribes as Arenas-St.Patricks-Maple Leafs; but as for the club & the Blueshirts? I embarrassed to say, I'm not knowledgable enough of the pre-NHL days, to be able to argue this either way. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then you'll just take my word for it. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New WP

Are you going to add yourself?. Thanks for signing the petition by the way. I am going to miss Jack if he doesn't come back. = ( --Cameron (T|C) 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I can add you if you tell me your "intrests/specialist areas". = ) How did you manage to add yourself last time? --Cameron (T|C) 20:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can take a look to see if it's ok. I wrote: "Freelance/NPOV promoter". --Cameron (T|C) 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: Have you seen Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities? I never see you there and yet I'm sure you'd love it there just as much as I do. People go there to ask questions and Wikipedians chime in to answer them. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the date problem now.

PS: You took part in the founding discussion, that's good enough for me! Don't be so humble. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 10:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of all Wikipedians with the userbox "This user is interested in the British Empire". About 250 - 500 users have the page displayed on their userpage. Obviously that is too many users to inform (and we would get told off to doing so!). So what I am going to do is check for editors that have edited this month and inform them about the project. The others are probably inactive or retired! Wish me luck! --Cameron (T|C) 20:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

UK page

Maybe you can explain to Fonzy your point about consensus on the UK page. He is setting up a massive edit war, preaching to everyone and now deleting other editors comments (not to mentioning banning IP votes). I get a sense of a 14 year old playing games not a serious editor. --Snowded (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right to reference possessiveness and it would be good if an admin could mentor him/her. Given the very recent edit history it is needed. Pity really, I think without all that aggression we might have achieved something (and thanks for your earlier support). --Snowded (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. I am backing away from this debate completely now. Lots of editors seem to have their own POV and refuse to look for a compromise. Combined with USER:Fone4My thinking he owns the talk page, I am not going to contribute any further. I am going to get back to editing.Pureditor 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Canada Day!

Hopefully we can celebrate by finally getting some consensus on the UK cabal. I think your deadline of today might be a bit early. Stick with it and don't give up on getting consistency! I've returned to the debate now that Fone4my has gone.Pureditor 05:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Jack's talk page

And the diffs I left about the personal attacks he has made. We are not dealing with a nice user, and in one edit, even threatened to fight with me, and along with calling me "arsehole", "prick", "dickhead", among others, this is not acceptable. Additionally, the user is up for sockpuppetery at the moment. Fone4Me 15:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's TharkunColl?

He seems to have vanished. He doesn't to appear to have had a disagreement or anything. You don't think he's retired too, do you? --Cameron (T|C) 14:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fonez

Hi, "Troll" here. I'd appreciate your good counsel where Fonez is concerned. I fear a degeneration into a slanging match should I reply further to his latest edits directed towards me at Talk:United Kingdom#Final Poll Discussion. Thanks much. Troll. 80.41.249.183 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC) (Soon to be registered under that name - promise!)

Hi. Thanks for your input at the Admin concerned; appreciate it. ;) 80.41.249.183 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Filed an ANI report

I have been bold and filed a report here. Please tell me on my talk page if you think my summary is fair and (if you wish) comment too. I have requested an admin take a look at both sockpuppetry cases and the closure by a non-admin. --Cameron (T|C) 17:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame an admin for taking action against the both of them! I hope the whole ANI thing will put the thing to rest. I hope no one thinks I'm just stirring things up again. = ( --Cameron (T|C) 17:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope it does come to an end then! --Cameron* 17:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The decision has been overruled. --Cameron* 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland, etc.

If you keep saying at United Kingdom that we need to go to Scotland, cabals will keep arguing about irrelevancies. I suggest starting a new topic (with suggestions) at Scotland, then notifying UK in a new section that the topic is open there. I won't do it because I am a little frustrated with the continual dips in tone. -Rrius (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe how many accusations have flown around on this one. I understand there are unionist v. national factors in play, but seriously. -Rrius (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not much good flexing my muscles on wikipedia, no one can see them! = ) It's always best to keep cool, not that I need to tell you that! --Cameron* 19:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done worse, don't worry. I suppose I can just blame it puberty! --Cameron* 20:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

UK not GB, noted, thanx.Czar Brodie (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. "Troll" again. Well done for taking the initiative to enter the 'lions den' that is Talk:Scotland. I hope you don't object, but for 'completeness' I have added a couple of 'options' to your list at Talk:Scotland#Consensus on Intro, ("What does the Scotland article prefer"), with the rider stating that these did not appear at Talk:United Kingdom. If you consider that such a move is unjustified, please feel free to revert - I won't take the hump. Regards 195.27.13.214 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I think my comment on Fone4My was reasonable. He is behaving in a totally arrogant way and has a very poor track record. A new editor, imposing on a debate of this type? Previous track record having to apologies for stealing other people's entries? I accepted constituent country on Wales for the sake of the peace. I don;t think it will be accepted on Scotland (hence my earlier suggestion of a compromise). However we are now back in a Unionist-nationalist polarisation. Not only that we have a small cabal who will I think attempt to impose, and build bad faith, withdrawal from editing. I've just about had enough to be honest. --Snowded (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Plugging parts

I don't think it will help and I do think it is POV. Understand the frustration but its plain wrong and a recipe for constant edit wars. --Snowded (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Our friend has returned...

Check out recent edits by a user named Night-sunne, remind you of anyone named Wassup? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-gossip

Oooh 30-something. = ) --Cameron* 20:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was mainly directed against Fone4My but you could have been the agenda driven Candian unionist! And I could be the hissy fit 14 year old! Anyway regardless of whom was meant I advised him to read WP:AGF (and perhaps WP:Attack would be an idea for him to read too, I will add it to the list). Regards, --Cameron* 20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way. Only, sadly, we seem to have lost a user in the process. --Cameron* 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Jack's case isn't closed yet...Although I expect he will only be warned. --Cameron* 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

More socks

Lord help us, is there anyone who doesn't own multiple socks puppets? --Cameron* 10:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: Jack forbes, Fone4My and UK4eva have been using illegal socks and yet none of them have been blocked? Our system must be flawed! --Cameron* 11:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Closure on the Uk4ever/Fone4My case

Please read my closing statement on this matter. Kind regards. Uk4ever (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reality check

Am I off-base here: User talk:Rrius#Reversion? -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The underlying issue is over. I'm just wondering who's right about the procedure. -Rrius (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably simplest to leave the the discussion on my talk page since there are three of us involved; do you want to watch my talk page or do you want me to use {{talkback}}? -Rrius (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

I have an editor review going WP:Editor review/Rrius and, like everyone else, am looking for someone who's not familiar with me to do a review. I'm not sure whether you, Cameron, or G2 know me too well or not, but I was hoping you could suggest someone (or even better ask for me). Thanks either way! -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa Sens captains

I'll doublecheck my media/yearbooks for the Sens. That goes too far back to remember right away. Alaney2k (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The sequence of events:

Mark Lamb was traded away. Dineen became co-captain with Brad Shaw. Brad Shaw became injured and Dineen was sole captain during that time only. When Shaw came back, Dineen became co-captain with Shaw until the end of the season. After the season, Dineen was not re-signed. The following fall (in '94) was the start of the lockout. In pre-season, Shaw was sole captain. By the time the season started Randy Cunneyworth became sole captain. Alaney2k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

re

Fonez4mii and MagdelenaDiArco were the same person, yet argued against eachother so that one point would come out. Jack forbes and Fonez4mii are the same person arguing against himself, so that one editor will ultimately become more respected, as Fonez confimed he had done with another set of accounts a while ago, to me by email. This is Jonas Rand on a proxy by the way. 89.240.200.158 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I guess they like to wear different ones every day ;) But they have all shown that they are able to use Wikipedia:Open proxies, so it's obvious how they are concealing their identities. 89.240.200.158 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does. However, it is difficult to do this, as each one must first be found, and also, some users in China can only edit through proxies, so its a controversial issue. It's quite clever though... framing your other accounts to make sure people don't associate you as the same person... shame that the user doesn't put their mind to helping wikipedia rather than disrupting it. 89.240.200.158 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there has been a discussion here which hasn't been prompted by an aggressive sock puppet! Maybe we should use that as a predictor? --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. "Jack's" back; he just deleted a comment I left earlier today on his Jack forbes page. Is/was he really Fonez4mii/Fone4My? 80.41.237.88 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No! Boilerman-yes, used to verbally attack Fonez4mii, not clever and not proud of it. User:Joe Deagan-yes, not used as a sockpuppet, kept well away from articles edited by Jack forbes. If you really think I would use a sockpuppet to take down Scotland you don't understand my politics. Do I care whether I am believed or not? Maybe a little, no one likes their name dragged through the mud, even though I brought much of it upon myself. I suppose that's why I have replied to this. Jack forbes (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If I ever do consider it, it won't be for a long time. On the other hand I once commented that sockpuppet users should never be allowed back. I would be a hypocrite if I did! Jack forbes (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" again. Thanks, I couldn't quite follow this discussion, sorry for sticking my oar in. (Off to the pub for a swift half - may be back later at the Cabal). Regards 80.41.237.88 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. I was adding to the list. They're not "Jack's socks" needles to say. Does it appear on the section that they are Jack's? Not my intention, I recon they're Fonez' socks. 80.41.253.210 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" again. Fixed the page so as to avoid any misunderstanding. 80.41.253.210 (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, since they're all using proxies, you won't find any link between any of them. 78.146.72.254 (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Ye sorry i know. Im new to wikipedia sorry. Also do you think you can edit the scotland page and keep the edits --Martinnutini (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've an open mind about the user at this stage. Certainly some of the discussion lacks depth and professionalism. There's little damage that can be done here however - any hint of distruption or inappropriate behaviour can be easily remedied. If this gentleman sincerely lacks the ability to learn our values and standards, then I can't see them lasting, for better or worse. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation

Hi, I've accepted the United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation, and you are listed as one of the participants. Please feel free to comment and participate in the discussion on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fête nationale du Québec article

Back again. Limited time. New project ...

I've put in a request to change Fête nationale du Québec to Saint Jean Baptiste Day. You may wish to join the discussion at the Talk Page--soulscanner (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay; moving it back to the original title will require administrator intervention. I made a bit of a mess of it trying to change it back and couldn't, and ended up with the current title. It's been garbled in a whole bunch of redirects. Could you make that request as an official neutral party? Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. --soulscanner (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The cable guy

"Troll" here - can't say you didn't try. Don't give up just yet, painful as that might be ;) 195.27.13.214 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" again. Province at NI is a fair description, IMO, and I'd be perfectly happy with country at E/S/W, but agree kingdom would be a non-starter anywhere. (The only contemporary and reliable source for use of kingdomwhich I could find was at the www.scottish.parliament.uk site, but even then that was a unique example of kingdom). 195.27.13.214 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Re. final comment at Cabal; you can guess which compromise gets my vote. But I recon I'll likewise be disappointed. Must fly - work calls. TTFN 195.27.13.214 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

86xx

You're probably right. What was it that Wilde said; "I can resist anything except temptation". Wotapalaver (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he describes you as (as long as it's civil), nor what you are. You could be the cloned lovechild of Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley and it wouldn't matter. What matters is bringing citable facts. I won't hold my breath waiting for that day for dear old 86. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello back

Can't complain. And yourself?Darthflyer (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Burma

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added you along with added 18 other users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Deamon138 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

El Presidente

Gough Whitlam or William Deane.--Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote at Fête nationale du Québec (Saint Jean Baptiste Day)

Hi, I've set up a vote to try and resolve this here. As you've commented on the issue already, I wanted to ensure you take the opportunity to vote. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gooday. I should be outside. It's a beautiful sunny day!

I've asked the dissenting editors to acknowledge the Wikipedia naming conventions that emphasize that article titles should be the ones that are most recognizable to English-speakers[4]. If they do not, I think we should ask for a Request for comment as the next step in solving this dispute, as such a refusal could constitute bad faith. It will require at least two editors to start the process. Thank you. --soulscanner (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left other messages with other editors. I'd appreciate you keeping track of the disussion, though, if only to add the odd comment. I'll keep you informed of the progress. --soulscanner (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A Reply, etc

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I've replied there, and I see the editor is now being inflammatory on Talk:Wales, even though the proposal will have the effect of bringing about a large degree of consistency amongst the relevant articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

UK as Countries

Thanks for the message. I posted on the mediation a while back: "Encarta defines a country as: "1. separate nation: a nation or state that is politically independent, or a land that was formerly independent and remains separate in some respects.""

This definition applies to Scotland, Wales and England. It would have applied to Ireland, prior to their independence, but I don't think it applies to Northern Ireland now. NI seems to defy definition. It isn't a (separate) nation, as there are two separate nationalities there. It isn't a province - which would be Ulster - as there are two Ulster counties in the Republic. It isn't 'a state that is politically independent'. It was never 'formerly independent' (in itself). It was born out of political expediancy, rather than anything else. Seems to be easier to say what it isn't, rather than what it is. Nice try, though. What are your thoughts? Dai caregos (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Exams

Thanks GoodDay, I managed to pass them all. Even maths and chemistry, hehehe. = ) Now that my exams are over you'll be having to put up with a lot more of my royalist rants. You'll wish I was gone again in no time! = ) --Cameron* 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww, don't go getting sentimental on me! : ) --Cameron* 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not meant to say that! You're meant to say "We republicans are the hard and unfeeling types who never dreamt of being knights when we were little!". = ) --Cameron* 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aiming higher you see. Baron would suit me more. = ) Besides then I get to wear a wonderful coronet to Charles' coronation! --Cameron* 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

All royals live long. Though I want HM to live as long as possible I also hope that Charles will ascend the throne. I don't think William is ready yet anyway. Besides he needs a wife to support him. I don't think Middleton is a good idea. --Cameron* 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There was some talk of putting equal primogeniture in the Equalities Bill, but one of the realms is really just going to have to propose something (whether a document or a call for a summit) for anything to get done. -Rrius (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem. It's hardly salic law. It seems a shame to part with yet another tradition. None of the Royal Family have ever complained, why should we? Politicians spend far to much time meddling with the Royal's matters. --Cameron* 11:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell; so far the doesn't seem to be an outcry for such a move. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Straka

It's not quite 100% official, nor are details of his contract available, but The Hockey News recently confirmed he will not be returning to the NHL. IrisKawling (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is all of the info I have, and I figured it warrants at least removing him from the Rangers roster, but if you still disagree you can re-add him if you wish. IrisKawling (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I've started a new page for structured mediation if you're interested. BigBlueFish (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, however you thought it was, I'm sure he was a good guy ): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.198.73 (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your revent involvement in reverting articles to use the term British Isles

GoodDay, I'm surprised. Many of your reverts were incorrect, but I'm more surprised that you actually editted an article. Silver lining I suppose. Still, if you're going to say "Discuss it first" you should at least make an attempt to open the discussion... --Bardcom (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject British Empire/Participants

HI I have read your post on this talk page and added you name to the list Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This user participates in
WikiProject
British Empire.

Reply

I don't know when I'll start editing again. I guess when the time comes I'll know. I still like to keep up to date on the discussions, but as you know, I'll be staying away from Britain and British Isles articles for a good while. Probably for the best, keeps the blood pressure down. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, I'm going round making my apologies to those who deserve it, and you are certainly one of those. I apologise for letting you defend me at a time where I did'nt deserve it. When I saw this happening I should have held my hands up and confessed to not being whiter than white. I felt pretty bad afterwards, not about the block so much, but about allowing people to defend me when I could have stopped them. Once again, sorry! Jack forbes (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDay, I don't want to start archiving till I begin anew, sounds a bit silly, but it would feel like a clean slate. Jack forbes (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope your solving all the problems at the Britain related and British Isles articles while I'm away. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nice to take a back seat for a while. Jack forbes (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember in my lifetime the name Irish sea being controvertial. Of course,try telling the French the water between them and England is the English channel. Jack forbes (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales intro: a new poll, and consensus actually in sight

I know you have already voted, but there has been two new proposals since (now combined into one poll), and another combined poll of older suggestions. As Keeper's first poll seems to have been superseded now, I thought you might like to know this (assuming you didn't, or are tucked up in bed perhaps). It seems a consensus is genuinely on the horizon here given the people in agreement, but I’m sure that, as such an interested party, people will wish for your input again.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:2007–08 NHL season

I've just made a recommendation on the page Talk:2007–08 NHL season. Since you edit there regularly, I wanted your comment. BMW(drive) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Mind taking a look at HC CSKA Moscow. Don't want to go over 3 myself since I warned him about it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Montreal Canadiens

Reply is on my talk page. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And what am i doing now?

I try to get concensus. Now we have the article talk page discussion, and before that we have the Djasso discussion. I dont mind to have a discussion without reverts, but i think you agree that Djasso didnt look for a concensus with me but to make a point. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We all had a missunderstanding, my fault here. I was shure the discussion on Djassos page is the offical one. When i was blocked yesterday only that i understood that by not having the dicsussion in the right places, i havent had it at all. Thats why today i moved it all there. Now i'll wait wor a few days to see what more ideas will be here, and opinions. I only hate mixed comments. For example a guy there wrote like a million paragraphs why my arguments are wrong, and then i the last paragraph proposed the same thing i have. People there dont understand that my opinion on who is greater was brought only as an example to a different view, while what i promote for the article is somthing else, which is nutrality. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It cant be your fault, it all got wrong because i have puted the discussion in the wrong placed and havent known about the 3RR. If i would put it all in the right place from the first place the discussion could be closed tommorow since many people would by now state what they think. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you good in writing articles?

I think there should be an article at the Wikipedia about the IIHF Centennial All-Star Team. Here is the link about it. The problem is i dont quite know how to write them. The World Team of the 20th Century have done a table with the players, not only that, down in that page? They have a template with the names of the players. If you couldn't do it, could you please leave this messege to someone who could? Thank you.

P.S. I think in the CSKA Moscow and Montreal articles we can already edit the article towards a concensus. Check my latest edits in both of them. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some things there, improve it if you like. Since i'm a new user i cant edit yet protected pages like the article on Wayne Gretzky, could you please add there in the bottom this template:

Thank you. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Who should i talk to there? The "Base" of the article looks nice. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! And i will turn to them later, after i add few more things there. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't

G'day; don't edit war on River Shannon and Irish Sea; the established version of both articles was recently overturned and I have reverted to the status quo. Current advice is to not introduce the term "British Isles" into Irish related articles as it is controversial and provocative. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Gold heart

Feel free to revert mercilessly, per WP:BAN. SirFozzie (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User Jokerrr

Hey GoodDay, I must say in a way he or she has a clever username... Anyway, just a heads up, this person is reverting changes you, and I and DJsasso have made, including reverting typo fixes... I think this person may be a fan of Central Red Army, though that is just a guess... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for my opinion on who it is. -Djsasso (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

Your reason for reverting Lough Neagh is one of the most bizarre I've come across in a long career at Wikipedia. The edits from this IP are no more "troublesome" than those from the other, shall we say, "interested" parties. Your reverting actually betrays your hatred of IPs in general. This I cannot understand, though it is, regrettably, a common trait of signed-in Wikipedians. Have a look at the relevant policies and you'll see that IPs are not to be disciminated against and have as much right to edit articles as any other user. Jimbo Wales states that - paraphrased "it is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that anyone can edit this article right now [IP or otherwise]". Please try and curb your dislike of IPs. Whilst most vandalism is perpetrated by this class of user, they are also invaluable to Wikipedia as a whole. 141.6.8.75 (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi 141, as a disinterested party I would not call GoodDay's reason IP discrimination, he stated that this IP has a history of POV changes. It would be the same as saying 'this user...' BTW, registering an account is really easy, and then you can get messages on your talk page and all of that. So you might consider it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And just to clarify; I've reverted IP account 141.6.8.89, which had 3 unconstructive editing messages (thus my reason for describing IP account as troublesome). GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10