User talk:GoodDay/Archive 17

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Atheist

We are everywhere. We just aren't as noisy or depressingly influential as theists. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Will you be sacrificing any babies and drinking their blood this solstice? I can't get any fresh babies this year, so I'm going to have to thaw one from the freezer. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

lol

By striking out your comment you denied me my witty reply. I was going to say "By the reasoning I am not a horse, therefore I should never eat a carrot." I suppose I will never get to use that gem due to your retraction. Oh well. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, I decided that my "he aint a vandal" argument, wasn't gonna be persuasive. It was the argument I used at Vintagekits 'indef-block' situation. Myself & Giano haven't actually been 'good ole buddies', but I do find him entertaining (much to his annoyance). I do agree with him about the IRC though. Editors shouldn't do their Wikipedia buisness there. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Bias?

I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.

Sincerely,

Jz --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah free speech blah blah censorship blah blah baby killers... -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jz, I was the one who reverted your addition twice, and I left a message on your talk page about it. The revert of your edits has nothing to do with bias of any type. It's just that we need to develop a WP:CONSENSUS before putting a whole new section in an article, especially one as highly-watched as Barack Obama. Frank | talk 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jz, you need your eyesighte tested, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't revert my additions, then why post on my talk page saying they were reverted? -.^

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Something to do, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How often do you get accused of liberal bias, GD? I figure you must have found that amusing. -Rrius (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This was the first time for me & it was very hilarious. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you a liberal, GoodDay? If so why are you talking to a monarchist like me, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I aint a liberal. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me you're a reactionary?!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably lean towards anarchist. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of anarchy have you got in store for Prince Edward Island or are you saving it for a surprise?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an activist, just a dreamer. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a John Lennon song.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"You may say, I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one...". GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't care to live in the world he describes in Imagine. What would I do without my possessions? I want my stuff, man!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya ever see George Carlin's views on 'stuff'? If not, check out Youtube. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I like Bill Clinton's views on stuff better. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hamburger Bill. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Irish American

The comments over at Talk:Irish American are getting sillier by the day. Read the latest at Why not Obama? section. How could someone 1/64th Irish be genetically more Irish than JFK and Andrew Jackson?!! I tell you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the word Terrorist

Please remove the word "Terrorist" from the UVF page. Currently it reads: "The group is a proscribed organisation in the Republic of Ireland, and a designated terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom". Thanks.

If you wish to 'delete' it, go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Jack Layton

You recently removed the office of NDP leader from the infobox in the article Jack Layton citing that NDP leader is not a House of Commons office. Can {{Infobox Officeholder}} not be used for any major office, whether in the House of Commons or not? MitchellDuce (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place about this topic, at here. In the meantime, you're free to revert my deletions. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware that that discussion was taking place. MitchellDuce (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Flames captains

I'm not sure anyone other than Sutter knows the full schedule. We'll see in January if there are two new A's, or if it rotates back to Phaneuf and Langkow. Reso lute 19:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Irish American

I'd like your opinion on Talk:Irish American. Do you consider Obama to be an Irish-American with only 1/64th Irish ancestry? I think it's ridiculous, but his photo is in the infobox. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm bit skeptical of that article. IMHO, anybody who lived on the island of Ireland between 1801 & 1922, was British. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it's geographics, well it's still a bit of stretch for Obama to be included. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

British?! Uh-oh, careful now you're treading on dangerous ground here. My father would turn over in his grave if he heard you call his Irish parents British (Sorry dad, GoodDay said it, not me!!!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume 'British ancestry' & 'Irish ancestry' are based on geographics. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Or a British "subject".... --HighKing (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, imagine the flairing tempers if I brought this up at the Irish American article? Don't worry I won't. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

British

There's no such thing as British ancestry. There's English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Manx. British is just a political term with no connotations of ethnicity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that, but that's just me. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority people in Britain have British ancestry! It's called mixed British blood (in both the biological and cultural sense) - or, more simply, being British. Our British ancestry is what makes Britain so great. I'm personally not so fond of any of our separate 'identities' when you extract what connects them, even my own Welsh identity - I find them all too insular and arch. But add the Britishness and it all comes alive for me. And its a hard thing to hide - most of us have it, whether we like it or not! It's like seasoning, or adding various foods to a central ingredient to make the dish, and I can never choose one 'nationality' over the other - they simply both go together, as in the 'loving two children' analogy (ie not putting one before the other).

Everything I really love is British - the best of its culture, the literary history, the bands, the humour.. We are really lucky to have these two levels of nationality, and so much of the world hinges on our history (despite our recent damaging mistakes), that world would be far worse place without us. Dangerously damaged and weakened in my serious opinion. We need to be around to rectify the mistakes. Every country has periods in its history which they should not be proud of, but we cannot change the past, and it has simply provided us with our present. Which leaves us with the future of course. The Irish and the British are infinitely better for being so closely connected, too. If we accepted that on Wikipedia, we might be much less inclined to swipe at each other so much. Fortunately, in the real world, our bonds are celebrated, and for many are simply a given. (Wikipedia isn't good with 'givens' alas - they are too hard to source.). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've often thought of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland as brothers. They may come to the knuckles, but will stand together if confronted from outside foes. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, you and I have opposing views. What is this British crap! I have no British heritage. I have Scottish heritage with an Irish flavour. If you are happy to be a nodding dog to the English then go ahead, but don't try and say we are all the same. Jack forbes (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say we are all the same though did I? With respect, I see Britishness in many comments you make, especially when I dip into this particular Talk page. If you look at the words that are chosen (which are of course from the English language we all use), the humour, the cultural references - that abound throughout the UK - they are British. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If ya were born after 1707, you're British IMHO (I reckon I'm repeating myself). GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That is just sovereignty though. Nobody denies the sovereignty surely. Objects to it maybe, but not actually denies it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They sure do object to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as British nationality. You have Scottish, Welsh and English who make up the UK. Matt quite obviously is not too proud to be Welsh if he thinks British is more important. He should stop calling himself Welsh in that case. I'm actually quite disappointed in him. Jack forbes (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2009 (UT

I'll have to let you & Matt work that out, I'm quite cemented in my views. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on Jack read what I wrote. You've got so angry you've misinterpreted all kinds of things. I've always been proud to be Welsh. Hyper-nationalism is something I'll always shy away from. I'm simply happy being both Welsh and British - and the two together is what defines me. I can't pretend I'm something I'm not. Genetically and culturally I'm British. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I don't know what your genetics are but, I do know mine. Genetically I'm Scottish/Irish and culturally I'm Scottish. I say I'm disappointed in you because I do normally take your opinions on wiki very seriously and more often than not agree with you. Not on this occasion though. Jack forbes (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is all just a matter of opinion. If you are genetically Scottish/Irish why would it be wrong to consider you genetically British + Irish? If you have a mix of English, Scottish and Welsh genetics which many do because of 100s of years of mixing, isnt it easier just to say British?

If you can be Scottish culturally, why cant someone be British culturally? There is certainly such a thing as British nationality, infact its the one with legal international recognition. Being British does not stop someone from being Welsh or Scottish, just as it doesnt stop us all being Europeans either, its ashame that some separatists do not think its possible to be both. I do not deny anyones right to consider themselves Scottish or Welsh, yet some seek to claim people can not just be British or that it does not even exist. Why is my identity and opinion invalid? BritishWatcher (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My mother is English, my father was Welsh - I was born in Wales, whereas I have a brother born in England who sees himself as Welsh, and two other brothers born there who don't. My grandparents are Welsh and English. It is very typical of the Welsh to move out of Wales of course (and the Scottish and Irish too). The English get about too, despite having the dominant economy. Almost everyone in Britain has at least one grandparent from another British country, (if not more than one, or a parent, or are in a situation similar to mine. They cannot be denied British nationality, especially as so many of them will state it! Culturally I'm British for sure – its such a mix, but that's why it is so good.. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, at the risk of busting some bubbles, I fully recognize British culture in myself and my friends and neighbours, and many Europeans would admit that British culture permeates throughout the British Isles. On the other hand, I'm finding it extremely difficult to define exactly what *is* British culture - far easier to pick up on more dominant English/Irish/Welsh/Scottish traits. Why is that? How would you define "Britishness" in a clear way? --HighKing (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ever seen the French push-in in queues? It's quite funny. A German standing by traffic lights when traffic is nowhere around, perhaps? They admit to these national traits. Sometimes it is easier to compare. Of course people are people, and we are all capable of the same things. the English can be passionate and the 'Celts' can be methodical - both manifestly so, in my opinion. A lot of traits are total cliche's - but yes, the British are a hell of a lot better at queueing than the French! Matt Lewis (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I know why I stand at red traffic lights when there's no traffic in sight! My remote ancestress from Baden is responsible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My father used to dive in and out of the traffic whilst crossing the road, mad as a hatter. Funnily enough, whilst living in Melbourne, Australia I noticed they would patiently wait for the green man. You might expect them to be very similar to the 'British'. Jack forbes (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

All of you who live in the UK, are British to me. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, erm, you said that a little further up the page. Jack forbes (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Had to make sure there were no doubts among ya'll, about my PoV on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, GoodDay. We`will have to drag you off that beautiful little island of yours and bring you across to these shores. Your POV may remain the same but, you will maybe get a better insight into the whole thing. Jack forbes (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as Scotland has representation at the UK Parliament? I doubt I'll change my views. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, British is no more an ethnicity than Canadian is. Jack is Scottish!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He's British 'then' Scottish, just like I'm Canadian 'then' Prince Edward Islander. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you would change your view, I said you might get a better perspective on the differing views within the UK. If you changed your view I would swim naked up the River Clyde in the middle of winter. Thankfully, that will never happen. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A better perspective? that's possible. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, please change your view. Please!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nay. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways of denoting one's nationality in the UK:

1) The technical hierarchy, where British comes first as it is the sovereign state (unless you have dual or multiple citizenship).

2) The nationality of choice, in which it is a personal matter whether any one is put before the other or not (or combination of nationalities perhaps, like the many Welsh/English, Irish/Scottish etc in the UK).

What you do GoodDay is insist upon (1) all the time, even though some see it as only a technical matter. What makes it frustrating is that people in the UK are naturally inclined to (2). Personally, I never say I'm British first, unless I'm flying abroad perhaps - my personal choice is to see myself as equaly Welsh and British.

Also, you are forgetting about dual citizenship too. Would you say "But you are British first!" to someone from Northern Ireland who has dual Irish citizenship? The Irish have spread their seed all over the UK, and this adds to the mix, as does the UK's ex-Empire multicultural aspect. Many people in this global world now have multiple citizenship too, and only some countries disallow it (it is allowed in the UK). Basically, you are being too simplistic, and it's hard to see why sometimes, unless Canada comes into it somehow. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, people of Northern Ireland are also British (British = UK). Having said that, I do respect personal choice on the main-space & at respective userpages. However, I still support using 'British' in the UK biographies. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you see them as British first - that is the qustion here. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The dual Irish citizens I mean, of course. If you really do it is incredibly rude of you I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

They're British (as in UK) in my book. However, having said that, I don't push it on the bio articles, nor on individual userpages. Examples: I address Jack forbes as Scottish & Daicaregos as Welsh, on their respective userpages (on the assumption that's what they wish). GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it that means you see the dual Irish/NI citizenship holders as always being 'British first'. And what about the solely Irish in Northern Ireland - are they British first too? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If they were born in the United Kingdom & are living in the United Kingdom, they're 'British'. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly going nowhere, so I'll asume that when you say "they are British!" you mean they are British first in all cases. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're British first in all cases, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Be assured people, I'm not an evil fellow. I've other views that I make a point of not pressing (too much) on Wikipedia. For example: I'm an atheist, but I won't push it on others (except here). GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That hardly compares to your highly personal view of the UK! Matt Lewis (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Religious folk would disagree. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I am speaking as someone with personal experience here. You would never, and I mean never get away with calling an Irish nationalist from Northern Ireland British. They would furiously reject it and insult you into the bargain. Sorry, but this is the reality of the situation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth is, some may go further than an insult. Not saying that's right, but many would. Jack forbes (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I know these things, but that doesn't change my view. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Power sharing means accepting that not everyone in NI is British. If you don't accept power sharing what would be your solution? Perhaps the US could toss a coin to give NI to one of the two states. Unless you think it should be fully independent of either of course. You are a lot like the infamous Doctor No sometimes, but even he accepted power sharing in the end. 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha haaaa.... GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If/when Northern Ireland becomes independant or joins the Republic, then I'll view them as Irish. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Tut, tut, tut, GoodDay. In this case, I will always disagree with you. People have the right to identify with their true ethnicity rather than a government-imposed nationality. For example, my great-grandmother from Louisiana always identified as French never American. And she was born around 1840-long after the state passed into US hands.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A German standing by traffic lights when traffic is nowhere around... but yes, the British are a hell of a lot better at queueing than the French I am not kidding when I say that these two statements made me LOL Thank-you Matt Lewis, Thank-you :-) Going on to the dual nationality question. You are actually talking to a person that has dual citizenship between the UK and the US. For me I am very proud to call myself British. I would like to point out that in the United States for a very long time in its history people used to call themselves a New Yorker or a Virginian before they would say that they were American. It actually took the American Civil War to change that mindset. In the UK we never had a civil war after Nationality became a driving force of statehood in the 1800's. It was a big driving force behind the unification of Italy and Germany. But for us only Ireland had a war over its national identity. In that case separating itself like Austria-Hungary did around the same time. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

People from Texas for example still often refer to themselves as Texans. My mother's father was always known as a Frenchman due to his mother having been born in Louisiana of French ancestry, although his surname was Scots-Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Very true about Texans, but you will never have a Texan say that he is not American but there are people in England, Scotland & Wales that say that they are not British... That is an enigma to me. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll have to consider me a lost cause. My views haven't changed on the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Scotland is a political region as well as Britain, so to say one can't claim British ancestry, but can claim Scottish ancestry, is quite absurd. The northern isles of Scotland are full of Norwegian ancestry as well as Pictish, there is a far greater variation between them and people in the southern uplands, than there is between many parts of England and Scotland. As for Ulster, the entire population is irish, as they're from the island. But the people will always remain British aswell, government control is always more important than geographical location. Jeanne regards ethnicity as all important, I call that racist. Trickyjack (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Everybody knows my views on the UK citizenship stuff. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

UK international football teams

It would be alot easier if clubs from England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, were called British. But, things can never be that easy, eh? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. When it comes to football clubs in the UK, they belong to their respective Associations and are regarded by FIFA to be--dare I say it--countries. Cheers. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I know & it stinks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What stinks? the fact that E,S,NI and W have there own football associations or FIFA's rules regarding them? --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It stinks that Canada, USA, Germany, Brazil etc etc each have 1 team. Where's the United Kingdom has 4 teams. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If there'd been only one UK team all these years, it would certainly have won more championships. Scotland Wales and N. Ireland have benefited, sure, but England have definitely lost.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats the price you pay for the Brits taking the modern game to the rest of the world and teaching them how its done ;) . Same thing applies to Rugby Union. Pity we're not very good at either nowadays. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just thought, the impossible dream: Canada winning the FIFA World Cup. Anyways, the UK is lucky, they should be forced (by FIFA) to be allowed only 1-team (Team UK). GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If there was just one team from the UK, it would just be the England team under a different name. Can't think of any players from the celtic fringe who would get in right now. Bill Reid | (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Craig Bellamy on current form would get in the squad, if not the team. And you never know about Gordon, as the English goalkeepers are terrible. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Such a team would invite all Brits to play. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom only has 1 team, as far as I'm concerned. England is the only team that matters. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I must look up the name but it was a british guy that arrived on a boat to Rio in Brazil with a book of the rules and a couple of leather footballs, up to that point they had no idea about football, and now we can't beat them.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here he is..his father was a (scotish) ex pat.. considered to be the father of brazilian football Charles William Miller . Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

'Can't beat them because they (the UK) got 4 teams, while other countries got only 1. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

imo.. even with a unified all UK team we couldn't beat them , they all, boys and girls play a lot of 5 a side as children and it is there that they learn the close ball skills...Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, Canada will win the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Ouch, I hurt myself laughing, after reading what I just posted. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just find that must have been so amazing, being sent to the uk to school and arriving there football was in the birth stages and returning back to brazil a huge country with a set of rules and a couple of footballs...wow..hi its me..this is a football do you want to play? Amazing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, little did the guy know, he was planting the seed of future champions. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GD, I thought you loon-lovers were supposed to be almost as indifferent to that form of football as we Yanks are. What gives? -Rrius (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge of FIFA footbal (or as we in North America say 'soccer') is limited. I not even sure if Canada has a team. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that's more like it. I was afraid everything I'd ever learned about Canada (aside from the chevrons, which I've seen) was wrong. And you just let "loon-lovers" go? -Rrius (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ice hockey is still our favourite sports. How anybody can consider 'lacross' our national sport, is beyond my understanding. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't lacrosse invented by Native Americans?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

They made the mistake of letting the French name it though. Nothing dooms a sport quite like giving Frogs the naming rights. -Rrius (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Err, ya mean (of course) "...like giving the French the naming rights". GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that there should be a UK football team. If there was, then the 1966 Cup winners would be expunged. The UK has 4 own teams because they (England, Scotland, Wales, and NI) are actually countries. There is no way we will get a united UK team. 92.26.104.209 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

They're not independant countries, but rather make up an independant country. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I thought it was understood that England, Wales, and Scotland are historically-independant countries as well as former kingdoms with their own languages, cultures, customs, histories, flags, and more importantly, national identities. I really don't understand why you keep viewing the UK as one nation such as Canada, the US, Brazil, etc. Would you suggest that the Holland and Belgium football teams merge with Luxembourg into one team called The Benelux? The UK is a political entity, whereas England, Scotland, and Wales are separate countries. Northern Ireland has only been part of the UK since 1922, before that it was part of the ancient province of Ulster which belongs to the nation of Ireland. Honestly, when it comes to this issue, I really do not understand where you're coming from. GoodDay, I'm sorry if this sounds curt, but I just have to say that I strongly disagree with you on this matter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's alright to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I cannot realise tomorrow is Christmas!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus is comin' to town

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Irvine

Elonka has just blocked Irvine. He deserves it after the nasty, hateful comment he made against the Irish on Talk:Gerry Adams. What a hypocrite-accuses others of non-existant racism, then turns around and spews out his own brand of hateful rhetoric. It appears that he has only joined Wikipedia to knock the Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Irvine has taken the view that Irish editors own Irish related articles & isn't gonna back away from that view. IMHO, he'll just patiently wait out his current block & then continue with the insults. The guy's heading towards an indef-block. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But I'm surprised he's lasted this long without a permanent block. He provokes people for no reason other than to stir up trouble and attract attention. IMO, he's never been out of the USA. He has adopted a psuedo-persona-complete with the lingo as a base to launch attacks against the Irish, merely to seek attention.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Irvine is sitting back & enjoying the reactions to his conduct. Basically, he's wasting other editors time. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you fully.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I will get my good Irish mafia friends to whack him, how about that?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not necessary, as Irvine is self-destructive. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, GoodDay!
At this time of year, I would like to extend seasons greetings to the Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past year on Wikipedia. I wish you a wonderful holiday season! --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)}

Merry Xmas

Ho ho ho, a very merry Yuletide to you GoodDay, all the best wishes for you and yours throughout 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Merry Christmas! Any exciting plans? -Rrius (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and hope you find a present such as this under your tree--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. I prefer the troll. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re

I agree with you. However who is Imbris ? And who are the users who you think are similar to Imbris? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's for ya'll to determine. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

eh eh, yours sounds like one of the sherlock holmes'movie quotations ;). --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle: one must let the disputers, work things out for themselves. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks so much, GoodDay. The subtle comparison was not lost on me. You may note, however, that my emphasis was ever on sources, while old Imbris edited as he saw fit. btw, User:Mljet is the sixth sock of an extremely disruptive user. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Imbris comparison is towards the newbies & potential socks, at that article. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas, btw :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Another article fully protected

Sarum rite is the most recent article protected due to this push. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, a growing trend. The BI usage/non-usage is heading towards arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

4 hours to go for ho ho ho

I have only four hours to wait for the arrival of Santa and his reindeer. We're having a heatwave here complete with sirocco. I'll bet it's lovely and Christmasy where you are with all that snow and pine trees.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Santa had better leave me the man in the black thong swimsuit under my tree-or I'll quit believing in him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, yep we got some snow here, just enough for a white christmas. Be careful, in that heatwave, Santa himself may show up in a thong. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright!!!!! Did you see where the Pope got knocked down by a woman? Merry Christmas, BTW!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that same woman attempted to jump the Pope at last years Christmas Eve Mass. With her red coat, Benedict must've thought the devil was coming after him. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee hee.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Either that or he thought it was an overly ambitious cardinal. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I thought only rock stars had frenzied female fans rushing them and pulling them down, such as the Rolling Stones when they played the Royal Albert Hall in 1966, and girls kept climbing onto the stage and grabbing Mick Jagger. At one point a blonde girl in a striped dress succeeded in knocking him down. Go check it out on YouTube. Hilarious. Perhaps the Pope should form a rock band calling themselves Bennie and the Jets.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Most guys can only offer a girl a good time. The Pope can probably offer them eternity. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

An etenity doing what?! Whenever I see the video of that girl accosting the Pope, I keep thinking of a winged red demon flying at him!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they both have a love-child & she's after him for child support. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:The Heat miser & Snow miser images

Hi GoodDay. I'm afraid not. Per the Wikipedia image policies outlined at WP:NFC, WP:IUP, and WP:UP, non-free images are prohibited in the userspace. If you could, it'd be great if you could remove the images. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Template: Pittsburgh Penguins roster

I watched the WP:HOCKEY page that you suggest, but I still don't understand why you changed Marc-André to Marc-Andre. The official wiki page is Marc-André Fleury so that's has to be the correct name, or you should fix it too. --Giskard (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

At WP:HOCKEY (it's in the archives). We reached an understanding that diacritics & accents won't be added to NHL based articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so also Marc-André Fleury page has to be fixed as you decided. Bye. --Giskard (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

NHL player bio articles are first & foremost bio articles. In that situation, the accent stays. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No thongs from Santa

I just got back from Catania. In a few minutes, I'm off to Mass. Santa treated me pretty good. No men in black thong swimsuits, but I did receive a nice black dress and perfume. What about you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I got books, on John Adams, Zachary Taylor, William McKinley & Warren G. Harding, to go along with my books on John Tyler, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt & Harry S. Truman. What can I say, I'm a book worm. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Books are wonderful gifts to receive. I always got books and dolls (I'm a doll collector) every Christmas from my family, whereas my friends always gave me LPs. I can remember the Christmas of 1972 I received the book On the Night of the Seventh Moon by Victoria Holt, a couple of Madame Alexander dolls, and the Stones LP Hot Rocks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My 18-yr old niece got all the Beatles albums in a CDs package, pluss non-album singles. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Which book are you going to read first? I can remember spending every Christmas afternoon, following the gift-opening ceremony (in the Griffin home it was a ceremony!) and the turkey banquet, browsing through all my new books, feeling as if I were in heaven.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read the Taylor book, now reading about McKinley. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are your favourite US presidents and First Ladies? Mine are Abraham Lincoln, JFK, William McKinley, and Andrew Jackson. As for First Ladies, I like Elizabeth Kortright Monroe, Julia Gardiner Tyler, Dolley Madison, and Jacqueline Bouvier.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Presidents: John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson & Gerald R. Ford; notice what those nine have in common? First Ladies: Lucy Hayes, Frances Cleveland, Grace Coolidge, Jackie Kennedy & Lady Bird Johnson. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

LBJ and Lady Bird?! Hmm, this is the first time I ever saw those two being on anyone's favourites list. Just, what do the nine presidents have in common apart from being men who occupied the Oval Office? Sorry, but I don't dig it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

They're the accidental nine. They succeeded to the presidency due to the fact their predecessors died (8) or resigned (1) in office. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The Accidental Nine. I like that. It sounds like a good title for a thriller novel. What do you think of President McKinley and his assassination?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Like the Garfield incident, the medical profession was as much to blame for McKinley's death. It's even more shocking, that nobody thought to use the X-ray machine (which was at the Pan-Am Exposition) to find the bullet. As for Czolgosz, he was the only Prez assassin, who actually faced the President he shot (unlike Booth, Guiteau & allegedly Oswald). GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think Czolgosz was part of a conspiracy?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bye bye 2009

Well, where I'm at there are only five hours to go until the new decade rolls in. Do you realise we're already into the second decade of the 21st century?! Oh BTW, Happy New Year!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2010, here we come. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, this is gonna be my 2nd (or is it 3rd) time consecutively, that I won't watch CNN's coverage of NYC's Time Square celebrations. The reason? Kathie Lee "not one bit funny" Gifford. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's now 2010 here in Sicily. Thousands of fireworks like exploding Christmas trees are illuminating the mountainside.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We (in atlantic Canada), are still 4.5 hrs away. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that's gaelic. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, aren't you stating the obvious?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just being sure. 'Tis a beautiful language. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Irvine

Isn't Irvine blocked from editing?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, from 21 December 2009 to 4 January 2010 (2-weeks). GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why is he posting comments on his talk page?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked editors are allowed to use their talkpages, until they use it to attack others. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say he's violated that a few times, but I'll let it slide for entertainment value. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Irvine22 can get through the week, without getting blocked again? GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonanza

GoodDay, read my latest article (Julia Bulette), and while you're doing so hum the tune from Bonanza.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I reckon neither Adam, Hoss or Little Joe woulda had a chance with her. For some reason the boys were either discouraged from having relationships or their gals ended up killed. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Little Joe did fall in love with her in an early Bonanza episode.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but either it didn't work out 'or' she got killed. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack1755

I wish I had been at my computer yesterday when the discussion was raging over on Jack's talk page. I would have tried to calm the waters somehow. I hope he decides to come back as he's very talented, and Wikipedia needs hard-working, intelligent editors like him. As I told Jack Forbes, older editors need to realise that we all must encourage teenage editors like Jack1755 as they are the future of Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He'll be back, he's just learnt an ownership lesson, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope he does return. He's a nice, intelligent young man full of enthusiasm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He's got the Wiki-bug, he'll be back. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully it'll be soon. I like receiving his messages on my talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After he's been back to classes for a few days, he'll get bored. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Try not to inflame situations over BI

I don't plan to work on BI tonight, but I've given it a look and can see that you are unnecessarily inflaming things again. here, here and here. I'm saying this because I can see forward into where it will lead - distress for some editors (specifically HighKing), and basically good kicks for others. Why go after Highking when he is just doing what he always has done, questioning the validity of BI in various articles? He is entitled to question whatever article he wants in the BI Taskforce Specific examples page - you have to show him more respect. We have no guideline, the matter is not simple, and even when I disagree with him (and I haven't that often), I can always see he has a point somewhere. He supports WP:BIDRAFT2 (as it so-far stands), so is certainly no extremist who wishes Ireland to be outside of the British Isles. Like me, he wants to see uniformity in the use of term, esp in regard to Ireland, where the 'naming problems' on Wikipedia lie. He doesn't deserve to be misrepresented as an extremist, or to be ganged up on and made fun of. He's a perfectly normal editor who is focused on achieving something he sees as positive, and plenty of editors are focused on particular topics - the majority on Wikipedia, no-doubt. There is nothing wrong with that, and he is one of the few naturally 'civil' editors on the subject too. There are enough trolls, socks and quite nasty extremists on Wikipedia already, without wrongly painting anyone in those colours. Many of us might think the term is hardly worth all the effort, but its Highkings prerogative if he does. And let's be honest as well - what is any of us doing discussing this, if British Isles really is that unimportant to us?? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping I could find something common between HK & MF. The usage British Isles and Ireland is unacceptable. If 'Ireland' is excluded from a sentence, then the usage of British Isles is not required. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Laughing so much I spilled my lemonade over my geography homework, careful good day you'll get a detention. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay is not beyond criticism, despite the line he increasingly more often walks - nobody here is. I'm looking at your edits on the subject too, Off2riorob - you have been well OTT about HighKing too, in a very unfriendly tone too. I just don't like ganging up. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming I was beyond criticism. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My efforts at finding common ground, can be scrutinized at times. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I found nothing conciliatory about your comments - the appeared fully sarcastic to me. Mister Flash is clearly into Ireland being part of the British Isles (he is very much a advocate of the term), and HighKing supports WP:BIDRAFT2, which is centered on Ireland, and how the UK and Ireland must at very least both feature in an example, to make 'British Isles' a valid term to use. They both clearly expect Ireland to be part of any actual use of the term. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As my comments were to (and for) HK & MF, I'll let them decide if it was in good faith. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine - but I'm offering HighKing support here, because frankly right now he needs it. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't recalling ever 'attacking' HK. PS: The Specifics Examples page, needs a moderator. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just read what I've written above, and think a little before you make your edits. I do wonder if any admin in this place would actually have the character to ever admonish you. A moderator might be good, a guideline would be better. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, you and could get into another long drawn out 'discussion' on my Wikipedia conduct or motives. But, in doing so, wouldn't we be wasting both each others time? GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have thoughts on my 'motives' I'd love to hear them!! I just think you make too many slack comments, without thinking them properly through first. You must remember that little pixie in us all. I stepped in before HK saw your comments, because I really thought he would have been justifiably upset. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke isn't it, this is a total waste of time, and that is what my teacher says. Are you being sarcastic? Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be interested enough to slag of HighKing whenever you see the chance. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Slag off? He is not even here, I find all of this childish twaddle worthless pointy twaddle. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant to type "whenever you see the chance" - it's so ironic that the few who use "pointlesness" and "childishness" as continual criticisms of the subject, cannot seem to stop being involved enough to keep saying it (and expressing their own point of view of course too). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt means well, Off2riorob. I just wish he'd realise, I do too. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You have one of the highest edit counts on Wikipedia, and your discussion ratio probably puts you at #1 as a 'Talk page commenter'. Which means you must take more consistent care - it's not always just the thought that counts. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I always try to 'take care' & won't be offended if an editor wishes (and ask) me to delete a post of mine, from their talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you all mean well and that this task force is a very big issue, thanks for all you hard works on this crucial issue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Off2riorob. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I just hope he realises that to those who need to see finialisation of the progress so slowly made, this actually really is a serious subject. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles usage debate, will eventually be solved. A house divided, can not stand. It'll become one 'or' the other. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It won't..it will be constantly repeatedly reverted by good faith passer by editors that disagree with whatever is there. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style (and the guidelines there-in) is very often the place admin hang their hats in difficult matters. Right now admin have nothing to go by regarding British Isles - which is one of its major problems: it is a lawless world within Wikpedia. The element of written stability will be enough to settle it down in many ways. Any passing-by 'good faith' editors (if that is all they are) need only be referred to the guideline by someone. A guideline won't lead to continual reversing either - the various articles will still make sense, and in a good many cases, a lot more so. Most people don't give two hoots if the term is used or not. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Sylver... What you need to do to grow here at the wiki is to get far away from the issues your involved in, defend the bio of someone who you dislike, here is a good job for you GoodDay , read the comment, he thinks a good article can be worked, the guy is a crooked hypnotist, there appear to be multiple citations supporting these issues, all of which are waiting for you on the article talkpage, it is needed to write a fair article with no BLP issues.. he also has an enemy here on wiki which complicates matters, perhaps as its stubbed try proding it to get rid of it, if that fails, AFD will likely be a waste of time so the only option is to attempt to write a fair article that doesn't appear as an attack article...Can you do this work for wikipedia? Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe in hypnotism. Besides, I already putter around articles that I disagree with, the monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes thats the point, you edit articles you agree with and articles you disagree with, the next step is to spend time working to edit articles about things you couldn't care less about, then you are a wikipedian editor and not editing for your own interests. Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems boring, but I'll consider it (someday). GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You will like it if you try. Regards GoodDay, at least you can laugh at yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll see. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob

Seeing as you know this kid, I was wondering if you could shed some light on the fact he has taken a bizarre disliking me. See his talk page and mine. Just utterly bizarre.--Misortie (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A dislike for your conduct, not you (as you both haven't met each other). From what I can tell, Off2riorob saw your post at Gordon Brown talkpage as not having any suggestions for improving the article. As for deleting your posts at his talkpage, he appears to have considered you to be arguing for the sake of arguing. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Conduct?" - He actualy responded to the post using the talk page as a forum aswell, so that's garbage.--Misortie (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just guessing, as only Off2riorob has the answer. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Indian summer

I wonder if the expression Indian summer derives from this woman's: Josephine Meeker's experiences? When I first read her story (at the age of 17), I envied her and wanted to travel back in time to the wild west so I could be captured by Indians as well. A pity there isn't a photo of Persune. I wonder if he looked like Eddie Little Sky? Hmm.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, she must've been awsome in bed, for the guy to offer to give up so much for her to get her back. You'd a thought he was a virgin, before he met her. GoodDay (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He sounds like a classic case of someone obsessed, although that word was probably unknown in 1879.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thankfully he didn't develop the Evelyn Draper syndrome. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to have seen Persune in a whore suit though. Ahhhh....thrill city.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Rush is right" sockpuppeteer

An administrator involved in the creation of edit filters contacted me today about a request I made last October here. Since the diff I used to show the seriousness of the issue was a direct threat made to you by this individual, I would like to know whether you are aware of any recent activity by this person. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He/she harrassed me over a 3-month period with numerous IPs 166.205.xxx.xxx. The last time was December. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, you should file a report against that individual at WP:LTA, possibly to get a listing at WP:BANNED that would enable every Wikipedian to revert their edits on sight without WP:3RR getting in the way. If you need help putting that report in its proper form, I'll be happy to assist you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made the report. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, did you promise a one-night-stand that you'd "call her" and fail to do so? Hmm....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

At least with Draper, there was sex. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you know you never had sex with an IP? It's not as if a red light flashes IP when you're doing it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of a Dan Quayle joke. "Quayle nearly frozed to death standing infront of a brothel, waiting for the red-light to change". GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't thought of Dan Quayle in years. Shows you how old I am.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember when Prez George H.W. Bush became ill in May 1991, there was a story about VP Quayle's potenetially assuming (temporarily) the prez duties. The title was Hail to the Quayle. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Owain Glyndŵr/Owen Glendower

GoodDay, your intolerence of anything other than English is admitted and well known. Having been involved in several incidents that attempted to remove reference to non-English names or terms you will be familiar with Wikipedia policy in this regard. Consequently, your edit here can only be considered to be trolling. Please do not repeat this disruptive behaviour. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In all the english language books I've read concerning that time period, his name was Owen Glendower. The current name of the article belongs at Welsh Wikipedia. Note: I've not moved the article-in-question, nor have I put in a request for it. I done the more harmless thing & brought my concern to that article's talkpage. If nobody responds there or a consensus for a move doesn't come about, then no harm has been done. I'll thank you, to remember to AGF. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay. You are an experienced and (apparently) valued editor. Are you trying to pretend that you are unaware: #1 of Wikipedia policy on naming conventions; #2 that it is at the very least 'good form' to read a talk page before bringing up the same point again; 3# that such a move was likely to be at best contentious, if not downright antagonistic? Further, having read all the english language books concerning that time period, you haven't managed to make a single improvement to the article. As I say, WP:DUCK is appropriate here. We are used to you stirring things up (apparently just because you can) and some even seem to tolerate it. What makes you think that no harm has been done by your winding people up? Please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has vandalized the article, there's no edit wars occuring on it & no page movement wars. There's no harm being done. Just because I happend to believe things on the English language Wikipedia should be (surprise) in the English language, doesn't make me a troll or fascist. PS: Don't ya think you being a wee bit sensitive? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, all very interesting ... but you have not addressed a single issue raised:
#1 Are you unaware of Wikipedia policy on naming conventions?;
#2 Are you unaware that it is at the very least 'good form' to read a talk page before bringing up the same point again;
#3 Are you unaware that such a move was likely to be at best contentious, if not downright antagonistic?
#4 Having read all the english language books concerning that time period, why haven't you made a single improvement to the article?
You know what? Just in case there was any doubt that you are an intentional wind up merchant, I just noticed that you've changed the title of this section to Owen Glendower [sic]. Classy, GoodDay. Real classy. Matt had you sussed. Daicaregos (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1) I do occassional forget about 'naming convention', no doubt cause I tend to disagree with some of it. 2) I forgot to read that article's talkpage history, I can't think of everything. 3) I honestly thought, editors would control there emotions & give a simple response of "..no, it should not be changed.." & 4) Make a single improvement to the article? I suggested an improvement at its talkpage & got the Charles Bronson/Bruce Lee/David Carradine/Chuck Connors treament. As for the section heading of the discussion, note that I left the Welsh spelling & after all is not the dispute about the 2 versions of his name? GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Daicaregos, you must learn to control your temper. If it'll help, get a punching bag (perhaps with 'GoodDay' written on) & work out. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, GoodDay, that you were hardly trolling. There was no need for this to turn into anything more than a polite exchange. Your initial comment was politely phrased, and your admission of fault in not reading the talk page history was commendable. I understand your point: certainly Owen Glendower was the standard spelling in English for a while; had Wikipedia started in the 70s, it would probably have made sense to use that spelling. But it's now in the minority. A quick Google Books comparison is instructive in this regard: Owen Glendower is more or less restricted to fiction by dead authors, history books published before the 90s and books about Shakespeare. A search for Owain Glyndwr produces far more recent books, a large proportion of which are histories. It's certainly the spelling used in the most recent and authoratitive history of Wales, which is John Davies's. An Amazon book search for Owen Glendower gives similar results: mainly historical fiction (and most of that by a couple of now dead authors). Owain Glyndwr, by contrast, throws up mainly history books, many of them recent. As I said on the page, Glendower seems to have gone the way of Boadicea. garik (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Those were things, I didn't know. I truly thought 'Owen Glendower' was the common-name. Thanks for AGF on this topic, Garik. PS: We must always be open to article discussions, even if they turn out to be a repeat. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A review of GoodDay's talkpage conduct

I've retitled this entire discussion. In truth this is basically a 'review' of my actions, over the years. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What is a troll?

Taken from What is a troll. "The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality." Snowded, you say GoodDay is not a troll and that he just enjoys stirring things up. What is a troll if it's not someone who is trying to stir things up? I won't hold my breath waiting for an admin with enough balls to tell him that. It seems if you make a few quips and amuse a few people you can get away with it. Do I want to be around a place that allows that to happen? I don't think so. Jack forbes (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I should've read the history of that article's page, it was my blunder. Are we getting to a point where one must watch out for land mines at article talkpages? A simple response of "we've discussed this before (see archives) & the consensus was for the current title", would've been all that was required, Jack. I make mistakes, I'm capable of doing that, I'm a human being. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for defending Snowded, it's good to know that not everybody sees me as a monster. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I do think you should take the "stirring things up" message to heart though ... --Snowded ^TALK 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I must remain calm. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what we all need to do is be a wee bit slower on the trigger finger when we press save. I often reread my comments several times over before submitting them. Once you comment on something, you are committed and open yourself up to judgement. It's far better to reflect on what one is prepared to submit to eternal scrutiny by millions of unseen eyes all over the world.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering seeking mentorship. Snowded, Matt or yourself Jeanne, would be my personal preference. It's finally dawning on me, that there's something wrong with me. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm the last person you'd want as a mentor. You could very well wake up one fine day singing "God Save the Queen", and then checking out your daily horoscope. Besides, I'd convince you to buy (and WEAR) a black thong swimsuit were I your mentor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What a combination. A few simple rules: (i) don;t seek out polemical editors and ask them whey they haven't upset anyone recently; (ii) don't keep changing you position and joining and leaving discussions (iii) before any comment ask "Will this help progress the discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I just need somebody to give me 'friendly advice' from time to time. For example at the O.G. talkpage, if somebody had pointed out to me 'at firsst', to not start that discussion & then 'delete' my post (or ask me to delete) & give a reason for it, that would help. At the momment, Daicaregos & Jack forbes hate me. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I pride myself in not hating anyone GoodDay. We all have our faults but it's recognizing them and doing something about it that's the important thing. Jack forbes (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus the reason I'm considering mentorship, perhaps a group mentoring/monitoring would do. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

By definition GD your actions are that of a troll but GD I honestly don't think, that you think sometimes before you post and it does come across as Trolling and can be very annoying when you make flippant remarks, but I don't think that you have bad intentions. For example in a recent debate which I questioned you on, you said something should be changed (a name of an organisation) because you didn't understand it and just use a made up name. This type of comment is IMO very unhelpful. You have been around the articles related to The Troubles and you know that tempers are easily raised but yet you still make comments which are trollish and are not based on any coherent arguement. BigDunc 17:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus my consideration of mentorship. Right/wrongly, I tend to assume that others will control their emotions, even after all these years. Perhaps, I'm being too blinded by AGF towards others, I don't know. What I do know is this, I've been getting more angry responses these last few months & that's not a coincidents. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay is certainly not a troll. Irvine22 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Some folks beg to differ. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's their problem. Irvine22 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sniff sniff, what a guy. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Troll sat alone on his seat of stone, And munched and mumbled a bare old bone; For many a year he had gnawed it near, For meat was hard to come by."JRR Tolkein. Irvine22 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That belongs in my poetry section at my stuff. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay's request for Mentorship

From my PoV, I see no problem with my actions. However, that in itself is the core of my problems. I've been getting heat lately from a number of my peers & I recognize that it can't all be a coincidence or that my peers all have temper issues. Therefore, I'm willing to have any (or all) of those peers-in-question to be my mentors. All I need is gentle reminders or nudges away from potential land-mines. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

6 Mentors: Jeanne boleyn, Snowded, Jack forbes, BigDunc, ~~Daicaregos~~, HighKing & Matt Lewis would be a good group. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wounded. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you're included. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a mentor, stop trying to be part of a group and stand up for yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's something wrong with me, I need help. If I don't get assistance, I'll be heading towards a Wikiquette or something & possible one day indef-blocking. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He does need a mentor and I am proud of him that he is starting to recognize it himself. He far to often just adds comments to discussions that are hit and run comments that he knows will only upset people and don't add to the conversation. He has in as much admitted it in the past. I for one want to commend you for taking this route GD. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my illness also occurs at WP:HOCKEY. Thankfully, you were able to use tough-love & help me become more moderate. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if 'talkpage' sanctions could be put on me (except for my own userpage, of course)? I'm certain my posting is alot more prolific then my editing (note: most my edits are minor anyways). GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been here over four years and you have over 44 thousand edits and you have never been sanctioned in any way, you do not need a mentor. Get out there and get dirty, say what you feel and don't hold back. So what if you get a wikiette, if you do then defend yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, I have almost blocked him on numerous occasions. It would be in his best interest to not listen to someone with a full block log and to actually learn to work in a collaborative manner. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a 1-year ban from public talkpages, would do me & others a world of good. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we all need someone we can lean on, and if ya want to baby, ya can lean on me....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, let it bleed indeed. Thats what he needs, a block log, he has always been collaborative with me, whats the charges anyway ? ~~

GoodDay, you don't need a year ban from talk pages. Pray don't do a Bette Davis act. We're here to give ya a wee helpin hand--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Forget the 1-year talk page ban, GoodDay. If you take everything that's been said to you on board you will have my admiration. Jack forbes (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Ps, not that you necessarily want it. :) Jack forbes (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lesson number two: Well, have you memorised your fiest lesson, GD? If the answer is "aye", we now must needs proceed to lesson #2, which is to purchase a black thong swimsuit just like the photo in Commons.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not that guy. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But yeeeees, GoodDay, you must become that guy in the black thong swimsuit. You have chosen me to be one of your mentors, therefore you shall do as I command and wear that BLACK THONG SWIMSUIT!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No way, jose. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but I can be veeeeeery persuasive. If I say you will wear that swimsuit, you will, and that's that. Na na na na na.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In these last few days, I've been wearing the pointed hat with the D on front. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, that guy could use bigtime mentoring himself. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed 10 items from my watchlist, which are related to the areas I've been getting into trouble with. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Where has my thong man disappeared to? Oh, GoodDay, you're just too cruel to deprive me of such a glorious panorama.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I booted him out (again). GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced my request of mentors to 6. Daicaregos wouldn't make a good mentor for me. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, you don't need mentoring. Just take on board what people are telling you, that's all. Avoid adopting intransigent attitudes in areas where you quite evidently know very little about. Your mini-statements are not helping and leave you open to misinterpretations but once a mistake on your part has been pointed out to you, take it on board and adapt to the reality of the situation. Unless you are prepared to argue your corner fully then my advice is to stay out of it. Quit your use of staccato one-liners and if you feel strongly about something then elaborate on what you mean. Sometimes you comment so quickly without thinking that a little later you go back and scratch it out. Get to know policy a bit more then you'll avoid taking a stance that is counter community understanding. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is good advice, reforming my public talkpage conduct is in process. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, I followed this discussion from Snowded's talkpage as I'd taken your page off Watch (if you don't want me to post here, please feel free to remove it). You have a lot of goodwill towards you, but there is exasperation too, including from your friends. I sincerely hope you are being honest about wanting to change your ways. Whether it should be by mentoring or by some other route I am unsure, but you cannot go on as you are. It would only have been a matter of time before you were reported to ANI and blocks would surely follow. This advice is well-intentioned, please AGF: no-one is expected to know everything. However, some basic knowledge can be gleaned from reading the article itself, prior to commenting on it. Not having done so is quite apparent and can be construed as either arrogance or taking the piss - neither is appreciated. Everyone's time is precious and we can all be doing something better than reading an ignorant or ill informed contribution to a talk page. Claiming to have read extensively on a subject is impressive, if true. But if you have extensive knowledge without having contributed to the article, you lose credibility - why wouldn't an experienced editor have tried to improve an article with referenced info if he had it? I am sorry we have fallen out, GoodDay, but I wish you well for the future. Perhaps improving articles would be something worth trying. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently in the mist of reforming my public talkpage conduct. We've not had a falling out, as you're always allowed to post on my talkpage. You might find this surprising, I've never had another editors' userpage on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Away for a few days and look what happens! G'Day, when one is involved in some heated debate (as one often is!) your little non-sequitur one liners can irritate, but really, I don't think occaisionally trolling makes a troll. As someone said 44k edits and no blocks (however close some Ad**n has come to blocking) doesn't exactly place you in the first rank of trouble-makers. You are more a burr in the saddle than a troll under the bridge :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, I don't know my own power to annoy others. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are serious about adjusting your editing style here, GoodDay, then I will offer some advice. I apologize in advance for being blunt:

We are an encyclopaedia, not a social networking site. About 60% of your contributions are to talk-space and you have had almost as many edits to User-talk alone, as you have had to article space. This is high, and suggests that you prefer talking about edit/articles than doing something about them. Aim to bring your talk space contributions nearer 40%. In doing this you will consider what you have to say a little more, and whether it actually adds anything to the project.
Stop trying to be everyone's friend. I have lost count how many times you have flip-flopped over issues, evidently to side with the editor you are currently engaged with. If you are discussing an issue with two editors, you will inevitably sit on the fence. Now I know you are Canadian, and fence sitting is almost the national past-time (sorry, Canucks), but really! So if there is an issue under debate, grow a pair, take a little time to form an opinion and stick with it. If you don't have an opinion, then don't comment at all. You will find that having someone's respect is much more edifying than being their patsy.
Being part of the conversation does not make you important. Your habit of chipping in to conversations with statements so nonconstructive that they appear to be trolling is what irritates people the most. I don't believe you have a malicious bone in your body. I do believe that your are confusing being ever present with being involved. If you have nothing contructive to add to a talk page discussion, then go away and edit and article instead. If you want to be involved, and I think you do, then do one bold and constructive thing every day (preferably in article space), instead of typing sometimes hundreds of banally inconclusive and often insipid comments (in talk space).

Follow these and GoodDay may no longer be ever present, but he will have presence. Rockpocket 02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, may I also add that your contributions on monarchy/royalty articles' talk pages are always very astute and well-considered. Can I be bold by suggesting that you concentrate in these areas and not just confine your efforts to the talk pages, but rather editing the articles themselves? I well recall your suggestion that Henry VI committed suicide after the death of his son, Prince Edward at Tewkesbury. In point of fact, many historians think he did indeed die of melancholy, so your remark had pith. Another thing, seeing as you have so many biographies on American presidents, why not edit their particular articles, as you have plenty of reliable sources available to cite?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rock: You're absolutely right on all 3 pts. Jeanne: You're correct, I more productive in the monarchy & US presidency related articles. Overall, I've had too many irons in the fire. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GD, I see you have taken our advice and have been busy editing US presidents and politicians' articles. You're doing well. Keep it up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne, I'm a 'born-again Wikipedian'. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, I hope you can see from all of the above that you have a lot of friends on Wikipedia. As for me, you are probably thinking, with friends like him who needs enemies! I do hope that my very strongly worded opening post has helped in the long run. Jack forbes (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It sure has helped. As written in my personal introduction, "I'm willing to learn". GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

Just a quick question. Has that user who was stalking and reverting your edits and general harassment stopped as yet? Canterbury Tail talk 13:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

His last appearance was on December 30, after having been away for 'bout a month. He's been less prolific. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Captains

Thanks for adding captains to nhl season articles. I created the stub articles using a program and my source data did not have captains. If you would continue to check all the nhl season articles, it might help get the percentage of your edits in article space up. :-) No need to reply. Alaney2k (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Alaney2k. This is exactly what I'm up to, adding the 'captains' to all the NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope its not you

Have a look at this. I hope you didn't set up EvilDay, if you did apologise fast and delete. The warning is trivial and not worth a complaint but it gives you an idea of how a remark you find innocent can so easily be ,misinterpreted. Also that sort of comment adds no value whatsoever (although you have used it a lot) and is probably a good idea of what you should not be saying--Snowded ^TALK 14:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, I think this EvilDay is the same IP that's been stalking GoodDay lately.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

EvilDay? Jeanne is correct, it's most likely the IP-stalker trying (feebly) to get me blocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Good evening, KRML". "Is this Dave Garver ? Play Misty for me" -Evelyn Draper. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The stalker can keep trying all it wants, I'm not leaving Wikipedia. Even if I had no interest in the Project, I wouldn't retire for spite. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, this EvilDay used an extremely crude word which starts with a c. In all the time I have been here, I have never seen you resort to swear words. Never.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I even censure such words from my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fear Not

I'm going to choose to take your word for it, though if you are currently standing outside my door in a hockey mask I would humbly request that you make sure your weapon's aim is sufficient to take me down in one shot, none of this dying for hours in a pool of your own blood nonsense. Best of luck with the stalker, that must be very unpleasant. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It may still be worth reporting the edits of the IP to their ISP as harassment. He may have just devolved to being a minor annoyance for you, but he may be an active threat to someone else. I haven't been able to figure out just what WP:ABUSE does, but this seems close, you may wish to ask them for help with this following the current revamp. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Will be sure to keep an eye out. I'm sorry if my report ends up leading to problems for you with the stalker, who's probably loving all this attention. This incident also raises an interesting issue on the spoofing of signatures, perhaps we should disallow non-autoconfirmed editors from reverting the edits of the signature bot? Either way, now that I'm reasonably sure I'll make it through the night with my throat intact, I'm off to bed. It's 03:51 and even insomniacs have to sleep sometimes. PS: I'm kidding, I was never that worried. Me no fear, I be manly and brave and such. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)