User talk:GoodDay

This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

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

You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talk-page's 'history'.

I've a secondary userpage called User:GoodDay/My stuff, which is where 'my stuff' has been transfered from my Userpage.

My talkpage

If anybody is offended by what occurs at my talkpage? Do yourselves a favour & remove my talkpage from your watchlists. If you don't like the show, turn the channel.

Seasons

I thought the agreement we had come to was to use the term "season of play", yet I see you began changing team season articles and you're not using that phrase we agreed upon. Jmj713 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You can add the phrase if you wish. I'm just concerned about the numberings adding up to what's in the 2011-12 team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just that you are creating mistakes in articles where the phrase "season of play" is already used, like the 2010-11 Wild. By adding +1 to the number you are giving the team one more season than they have played. Jmj713 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You can add "season of play" to them, if ya want. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

All things Scottish

My wife and I are planning a trip to Nova Scotia this summer, and in reading through the article on the province, I noticed the somewhat odd paragraph that closes out the lead. According to the paragraph, Nova Scotia's tourism promotion efforts lean heavily on the Scots, and someone thought it important to note that as a percentage of the total population, Nova Scotians of Scottish ancestry are actually in a minority. Fair enough, except that's also true of every other nationality the editor in question chose to mention. Now I ask, are my wife and I about to venture into a hotbed of ethnic discord or are we safe, considering the fact that neither of us has a drop of Scottish blood? Or, would we be better off getting a transfusion before leaving the States? I've singled you out because a) you were one of the more recent contributors to the article's talk page and b) your own page seems a conducive place to post such an inquiry. My personal inclination, as a strict adherent of WP policies on NOT, POV, VER, and OR, normally would be to simply yank the offending material, but I thought I'd consult someone closer to the scene before proving myself to be just another pushy yankee. Your counsel on this would be appreciated, here or on my own talk page. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You & your wife are safe to visit Nova Scotia as you are. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the paragraph is referring to the rest combined are the majority. And as GoodDay mentions, this is by no means a bad place... -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Obsession?

GoodDay, the only editor with an obsession is you, for haunting Talk pages and trying to stir things up.... --HighKing (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're the bugger fellow who started this whole crazy British Isles stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. I didn't "start" the crazy stuff, that was going on long before I got involved. Since then, I've tried to make sense of it, put guidelines around it, stop the edit wars, etc. The mess and craziness was caused by the disruption and socking - so much so, that BISE had to be abandoned (for a lot of the reasons Mick has written about at the AN/I).

But what I think is underhanded and sneaky of you, is when an AN/I report is filed which doesn't involve me, you try to rope me into it anyway by stirring up things at Mick's Talk page. That's low, and poor form.

And BTW, don't know about things in Canada, but calling someone a "bugger" is not funny.

As a suggestion to you GoodDay, keep away from areas where you are not a participant with views and opinions. And next time, if you're going to name-call or make insinuations behind someone's back - don't. It's not clever. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your reaction to any suggestion of your being removed from the British Isles topic, is quite predictable. You can't let go of it. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an ostrich reaction - bury head in sand. Pretends a problem/issue doesn't exist. Hopes it'll go away. Discourages change and dialogue, marginalizes minority communities and views.... Yeah - I'd hope most people's reactions would be just as typical to any sort of suggestion that hasn't been thought out properly. Of course, if the real issue was tackled properly..... --HighKing (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, G'day, if anyone was to be removed from the "British Isles" controversy on Wiki it should be yourself. As a Canadian subject of the British Queen you should really steer away from the topic. Sarah777 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Canadian subject of the British Queen"? Wowsers, Mies would argue with ya indefinitely on that. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me add this comment GD, and it's being issued in a friendly tone of voice. Anything to do with the British Isles has become for you an electric hare and you are instantly off and running like a greyhound at its appearance on the racetrack.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Be not afraid, the politically charged editors of the BI topic, will eventually cease their PoV pushing. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally think HighKing and LevenBoy should both be banned off British Isles terminology and articles as for a good while it seemed to be all their sole cause on Wikipedia. BISE just exemplified how obssessed they both were to the issue. GoodDay is entitled to his opinion, just as long as he doesn't become as extreme in the issue as those said two editors.

And i'm quite sure that HighKing knows full well that "bugger" is also used to refer to someone, maybe not in the best way, and not always meant in the derogative way the word actually means. I use it in casual speech as no doubt anyone else here has and never used it to mean anal intercourse or the like. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In English it is in common use as a jocular rather than a serious insult. I read somewhere that one form derived from "bodger" meaning daft/stupid/useless - as in "daft old bugger" from wife about husband. All my respectable elderly aunts used it and they wouldn't have dreamed of mentioning anything referring to even ordinary intercourse, let alone anal. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bugger" is a harmless phrase. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It's not. Really. --HighKing (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, it is a harmless jocular phrase. But, I've scratched it out, as you think otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wowsers, am I the victim of another Easter Rising? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

GD, a wee bit of advice. If you are ever in an English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Northern Irish, or Australian pub don't call someone a bugger. It could cost you an ass-beating (as we used to say at my high school) at the very least.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No offense but that's nonsense and all depends on the context of how its used. I've heard and used the word bugger many times without malicious intent, and would agree with Fainites better defined description than how i tried to explain its other meaning. HighKing is only trying to inflate the offensiveness of the term so it reflects badly on GoodDay. Then again what do they say? Always going out of their way to be offended?

In fact i've noticed over the past month or two that there appears to be a slowly increasing campaign of systematic putdowns and low-level abuse towards GoodDay by editors you could say are of the nationalist persuasion. Whilst i've only noticed bits of it here and there, it does appear to be in effect to be a case of wiki-bullying using GoodDays sometimes pointless contributions to discussions to throw abuse at him. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you wouldn't walk up to someone you didn't know and just call them a "bugger", but you would say "you silly bugger" when your friend spills his drink on you. Or - if you bumped into a long lost friend you'd say "where have you been you daft old bugger?"Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, it depends on context. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay knows I'm not ganging up on him. It would be prudent to find out how certain slang words could cause offence though, depending on the social milieu.Jeanne Boleyn. Can't find the signature icon.

Yesterday, was the very first time, I've ever been informed that 'bugger' was a bad term. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you GD, as I know profanity isn't your scene. However, it would behoove you to become hip to the meaning of slang terms; find out whether they have a vulgar and/or offensive connotation in other English-speaking countries. An example was on the JFK assassination article. The opening line used to read that Kennedy and Jackie were riding in a motorcade. I changed it to traveled as riding is slang for screwing in Ireland. Were a group of Irish students to come upon the word riding they would burst out laughing, thereby introducing an unseemly levity to a serious subject. Jeanne Boleyn. 16.06 (Automatic signature has a glitch)

Could greatly improve a number of tedious sports programmes though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What does "behoove" mean? GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In one's best interest. Jeanne Boleyn

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

¿GD, what did you do now? I think you are a glutton for punishment, so you shall be banished to the Islanders related wiki pages!! Raul17 (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just informd HighKing, that he was obsessed with the terminology British Isles. Predictably, HK didn't take it too well. Banished to the New York Islanders related articles? oh well, atleast they're not named the British Islanders. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Another rewriting of a sequence of events GoodDay. Let's not fall out over this one, but I didn't give an iota about you saying I'm obsessed over British Isles. I placed the remark on your Talk page to point out that it was poor form trying to get me dragged into an AN/I report by making a sneaky comment on the Talk page of the editor who was actively involved, and by attempting to turn (yet again) an AN/I on an editors behaviour into a "ban everything to do with British Isles" discussion. --HighKing (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That 1-year ban is going to be in place (sooner or later) & there'll be nothing 'both sides' can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Answer to your question

The answer to your question here is 5 hours 24 minutes. Bjmullan (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Attack of the NDP

Assuming this isn't Layton's version of Cleggmania, how peeved will Stéphane Dion and Bob Rae be on 2 May? Either of them could lose to the Conservatives, but losing to the NDP as well? -Rrius (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Very peeved if they loose their respectives seats. Also, I believe shortly after the election, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will leave politics. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I expect he'll leave the leadership rather quickly. If he leaves Parliament, he'll at least have a reason for not showing up. -Rrius (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep & the next Liberal leader will be? Bob Rae. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so too. With the way the polls are going now, I'm starting to wonder about Harper's future. -Rrius (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Conservatives will win another minority government. About a year or two latter, the party memebers will force Harper to retire. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It just dawned on me that there is something to consider about the next Grit leadership election: the caucus will be much smaller. The whole thing may come down to which Liberals actually manage to keep their seats. Also, will a shrunken party looking for something new turn to Bob Rae? This could be fun to watch. -Rrius (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, a merging of the left is inevitable, between Jack Layton & (former New Democrat) Bob Rae. Within 5 years, we'll have the Liberal-Democrats or Democratic-Liberals. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here Comes the Bride

Have you plans to watch the royal wedding tomorrow GD? I missed Diana and Charles' wedding as I was at work.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to take another gander at Catherine. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I missed Chuck & Di's wedding too. I was so sick of the wall to wall coverage, I spent the wedding week in Venice (booked the previous week, on a 'for the love of god get me out of here'). Nothing so drastic this time, though :) Daicaregos (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping there'll be alot of cleveage shown among the female crowd. From a republican PoV, it's mind boggling that these events (royal weddings) still occur, in the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there certainly won't be among the participants. It's the propaganda that's mind boggling. Apparently, the royal family do a wonderful job. Not surprising really, as their job is to maintain the power and privilege of the royal family - call it an incentive. Daicaregos (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully, the wedding is not occuring in Ottawa, Canada. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that Ottawa. Why? Daicaregos (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mies would never let me hear the end of it, if the wedding were held there. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We never seem to hear the end of it either. Can't see any reason why the wedding shouldn't be in Canada, or any other country their family purport to represent as head of state. Perhaps they think England is more important than anywhere else in the Commonwealth. Daicaregos (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're stuck with it in your (sovereign) country though. The wedding should've been held in Australia, where they would've gotten the biggest enthusiasm. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What? GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Republican sentiment in Australia is at its lowest for 20 years, and having the wedding there would probably lower it even more so it would be a real propaganda coup for Australian royalists. Royal weddings will occur long after this one, and why not? Accept it or not, a lot of people actually like having the monarchy, and many more in others countries for some reason are enthralled by them as well - and such public displays of pomp and circumstance are desired by them. If you don't like it, don't watch it, there are other things on TV or things to do. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also in responde to Dai. Perhaps William and Kate where born in England and wanted to have their wedding in their home country? Perhaps because Westminster Abbey is in London and it is the central place for British princes and princesses in the past century to have their weddings? No less than 10 since 1919, including Williams granny, the Queen. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just awoke 'bout a half-hour ago & I've missed the wedding (oh darn). I wonder how much it cost the British taxpayers. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the size and clamour of the cheering crowds outside Westminster Abbey, they sure weren't complaining! I watched the ceremony. It was lovely, with pomp and glorious colour. The right mixture of tradition and modernity with that Diana-like normality, so that bride, groom and attendants didn't appear like wax statues. Anyroad, I enjoyed it. It was a historical event I'm glad to have seen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Different people starring in a recycled reality show, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean reality show?! Realty would spark another debate about the royal couple's landed property.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe, I just corrected the spelling error. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No different to elections or Question Period being an ongoing reality show. I suppose they should be abolished, as well, eh? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparing democracy to aristocracy is a non-starter. The Commonwealth realm monarchies are a doll house game, which doesn't belong in the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was more like comparing aristocracy to aristocracy, the only difference being one is political and the other isn't. Politics is just an ongoing game, as well; you just prefer that one over the others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Castles, Kings, Queens etc etc, belong in fairy tales. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the history of fairy tales would indicate castles and queens do belong in them (I wonder why they tend to hold more fascination than offices and presidencies). They also have a role in the real world, though. And, at least nobody pretends monarchies are something they aren't, unlike republics and their myths about equality and every little boy and girl having a chance of becoming president. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The monarchies are a hypocracy to democracy. They must be abolisehd as soon as possible. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... T-shirt slogans aren't really an argument. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Whenever monarchies are abolished, republics just create their own plastic version such as the USA did with the Kennedys. White House=Camelot hahahahhahahhaha. See everyone secretly longs for the fairy tale castles peopled by kings, queens, princesses.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

JFK, Jr didn't become Prez upon JFK's death. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You miss Jane's very apt point. In the absence of a real monarchy, a fake one is created, whether that be a political dynasty or a celebrity one. It's usually the latter, since most republics in the world are parliamentary ones and the president who fills the place of a monarch is typically such a drab, partisan, party hack that celebrities are given a higher status in the collective mind, instead. Go to Berlin and ask where you can go to catch a glimpse of the Wulffs, and you'll likely get a blank stare in response. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add: Even you, GoodDay, for such an avowed republican, demonstrate a strong fascination with monarchy! I still hold that, under all your anti-monarchical curmudgeonry, you're a secret monarchist! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here! Here! He probably wears one of those paper Burger King crowns when he's alone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe his plot to be rid of the present Canadian monarchy is so he can take the throne for himself. Usurper! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you have converted me. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The monarchy as can be clearly seen yesterday can unite the nation especially in dire times. The lack of involvement in politics by the monarch and the vast amount of charitable work the royal family do is immense. Many people envy the fact their country doesn't have one - and if it is the stuff of fairy-tales, well most people want some of that in the real-world. Even if you got rid of the monarchy what differnce does it make? The country would still be dominated by rich and powerful elitists which even republics have - at least the monarch doesn't get invovled in the politics. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all a bunch of silliness. Monarchists have got to get over their inferior complexes & thus stop putting these strangers on pedestals for them to worship. GoodDay (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean like those who support a politician? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I can assure you that as a monarchist, I have no inferiority complex. You shouldn't go around making sweeping statements without the facts to back them up.I could just as easily say sports fans have inferiority complexes as they put their teams on pedestals and suffer major psychological trauma when the team loses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I knew yas would be peeved with the 'inferiority complex' explanation. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't peeved just exasperated, which has a different meaning.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe GoodDay has an inferiority complex bourne out of jealously that he wasn't born a royal?? lol ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 13:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just as famous as the royals, I just don't have as many people who believe it. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as long as you don't put on a rabbit suit and claim to be Bugs Bunny!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Rollback

You did ask [1]. It has quite restricted use: only for obvious vandalism, but is handy when there are multiple vandal edits on a page. I think I have used mine about three times in 6 months. Bielle (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A way to broom away vandalism, cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny suit

I'm innocent! A demon rabbit possessed my body

Wearing a Bugs Bunny suit while carrying out a spree killing is a guaranteed trip to a mental institution rather than a common prison. Convenient, eh? Put on a bunny suit, wipe out a lot of people then claim insanity. The law needs to be changed so that those people go to prison as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The insanity plea is pathetic in Canada. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember this case: Son of Sam? The homicidal maniac claimed his neighbour's dog ordered him to kill. Bloody hell.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, a bunch of baloney. He should've been fried immediately. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All a killer has to do to avoid being sent to prison is to put the blame on the Devil. Convenient scapegoat. Poor devil.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The fellow who decapitated another on a bus trip in Canada, claimed that God told him to do it. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard the news today, oh boy

Gotcha Ossie! Can you believe it? After 10 years, Osama was finally caught.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally caught & eliminated. Wowsers, I knew there'd be big news today (Canadian federal election), but this caught me off guard. GoodDay (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange it happened the day Pope George Ringo was beatified (cue:Twilight Zone music). I wonder if he was wearing a Bugs Bunny suit when he was caught?! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but he & his son reportedly used a human shield (in this case a woman) to try to avoid their fates. They were cowardly to the end. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: John Paul II shouldn't be elevated to sainthood (whatever that is). Like his predecessors, he attempted to cover-up the pedeophilia scandals in the Catholic Church. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you really believe he was buried at sea? I don't. IMO that's being said to prevent his body being stolen by fanatics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's suppose to be so, to avoid his grave from becoming a terrorist shrine. If it's so? the pallbearers must regret it. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but without a body, there will be Bin Laden impersonators all over the world saying they got the wrong Osama!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And many will claim Bin Laden wasn't killed & it's just the Obama administration seeking a re-election boost. There'll always be conspiracy theorists. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already been told that by ignorant people here today who naturally launched into an anti-American tirade. Don't let me get started, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The birthers will likely claim that Bin Laden was about to reveal records of Obama being born in Kenya & that's why Bin Laden finally got killed. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have my own theory as to who shopped Bin Laden to US Intelligence. Can you guess who it was?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably his second-in-command. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It wasn't a member of Al-Queda. Guess again. (Remember this is just my theory)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Qaddfi, so that NATO & the UN will leave him alone. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...interesting theory, but I've got a different one. You're getting close though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The only other names I can guess are Bashir al-Assad, Muhammad Abbas, BL's western son or Hosni Mubarak. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Noooooooooo.....try again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha you'll just have to figure it out for yourself. Oh they're discussing the celebrations on Ref desk Humanities.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pervez Musharraf? Bielle (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just like to say guys that Osama did not use a woman as a human shield as first reported. Beware the nonsense that comes from right wing press of whom most don't even bother to try and verify their facts. Oh, and he wasn't armed either. I have no big complaint about Osama being killed, but please, people should wait for the truth (if it all comes out) before splashing these kinds of made up stories onto front page headlines. Carson101 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming more like Dallas everyday, and we're most likely to never learn the full truth about the incident. I don't care what happened to Osama, but we should be trusted with the true account for the sake of historical accuracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama-Osamagate? GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pope edits

You should get consensus for these changes, and find a way to work and link "Pope" into the first line. As it is these edits have a very POV appearance. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pope isn't a part of the papal name. Also, the article titles have Pope in them & mentions the individual was pope in the opening sentence. Saying "Pope X was pope.." is not necessary. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The ones I have looked at don't mention the word Pope in the opening sentence - they just have "bishop of Rome". I doubt these edits will survive long as they are. The article title is normally supposed to be the same as the bolded subject at the start of the text, as you well know. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all the papal bio articles have Pope in the bolden intro. My correct changes may bring about consistancy. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are wandering into more controversial areas than you may reallize. From your userpage you don't seem to be a Protestant POV warrior, but this is the appearance these edits give. If somebody was Pope, or President of the US, then the first sentence of their bio should say so. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article title & in the intro as to what position they held. PS: I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I decided to 'revert' my deletions & made additions to bios articles that didn't have 'Pope' in the bolden intro. Change my mind, when I realized the anti-popes were using Anti-Pope in their bolden intros & thus could've caused confusion. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Iggy goes down?

With a quarter of the vote in, Ignatieff is losing his own seat. I heard he had five speeches for tonight, do you figure any mentioned losing the national election and the local one? Though with Duceppe down, at least he won't be alone. -Rrius (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And you must be thrilled to have been wrong about your minority Conservative prediction. -Rrius (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahem? There is only one Iggy. ;) Resolute 03:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WOWSERS, I didn't expect these results: Conservative Majority Government, New Democrat Official Opposition, Liberals have worst defeat in party history, Bloc Quebecois crushed in their beloved Quebec & the Greens breaking through. HOLY SMOKERS, Duceppe & Ignatieff loose their respective seats & now both have chosen to resign as their respective party's leaders - Duceppe in a few days, Ignatieff in the fall. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Duceppe didn't slap any timeline on his resignation that I can see in reliable sources. He flatly resigned. He did say the party would meet in a couple days to determine a way forward. Perhaps the best way to word the article is to say that Duceppe "announced his resignation"? Resolute 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the most accurate, until we can nail down the exact date of his resignation as BQ leader. We know it's sometime this week, so I suppose it's nothing for me to get too nitpicky about. As for Ignatieff, as I understand him, he's staying on as Liberal leader 'til the fall (when the party chooses his successor). In the meantime, the Liberals will be choosing somebody to lead'em in the House of Commons (not an interim leader of the party, as CBC has alreday erroneously reported). GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Duceppe described himself today, as a 'private citizen', so I reckon he did resign as BQ leader - last night. Besides, I'm not prepared to get into an edit spat at Bloc Quebecois, with any IPs. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Skookum1 is gonna be very angry with the election results. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton

Your recent smutty comments on the talk page of this BLP are unacceptable and have been removed. When we handle the biography of living people we act in a professional and respectful way, not with immature personal comments. Consider this a warning.--Scott Mac 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lighten up. A simple "your comments have been removed", would've sufficed. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the comments, if this is what Scott is referring too, are that bad and warrant a warning. Removal on the basis of WP:NOTAFORUM would of sufficed. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment on her talk page. I have to say the sexist comments are childish and unencyclopedic. I think it's understood that she has a great body which was displayed to perfection in that slinky white dress. But to make leering chauvinistic statements in the article reflects poorly on Wikipedia. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, but she was asking for it. Wowsers, a few days after the wedding, she was wearing skin tight white pants. I mean, if ya don't want that kind of attention? dress differently. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Miscommunication

Apologies for any confusion; my "good grief" response was certainly not directed at you, it was a general statement regarding the discussion in general. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Scott's following comment confused me. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV

Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) ✝DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding seats required for majority in election infoboxes

Can you advise me what other electoral jurisdictions have this in their infobox? Timeshift (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been concentrating on the sovereign legislative elections. I'm guessing the Eastern European countries would have parliamenty elections. I've done so many, that it's becoming tougher to think of many more. The next step maybe the non-sovergein legislative elections, like provincial & territorial elections in Canada, state legislative election in the USA, state elections in Australia. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. You have added the seats required to form a majority to every Australian election. Why? What other jurisdiction has this? I'm asking before I start to revert. Timeshift (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

UK, Canada, etc. As for why, I can't speak for GoodDay, but as a reader, it makes it easier for me to interpret the infobox when I can see how many seats were needed for a majority for then looking at how well the parties did. -Rrius (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you wanted to know 'cuz ya wanted to help. Informing readers about what's required for a majority, is helpful & certainly not harmfull. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just don't consider it adds a lot. A majority is 50% + 1, I didn't think we needed to spell it out for them. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't do any harm & saves a few seconds of working it out in one's head. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't get too excited now

File:Erection Homme.jpg

A penis flaccid (left) and erect (right)