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.
I'm not quite sure how you archived, but the best way is definately to enter the edit mode and copy the text from there - that way the links will not disappear. --Harald KhanՃ21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have given a lengthy reply on the talk page. I'm afraid you may have to try and work around your "stickler'ness" on this one! I appreciate that some folks like everything to be neat, tidy and clean cut - but reality is often not like that, and as I detail on the comment I left, I have strong reasons for maintaining that the editors of just this article should decide what goes there. What the editors of the other articles wish to decide is up to them. On subjects with strong historical backgrounds the only thing consistent is that there is a lack of consistency! SFC9394 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, and if the editors are coming from a disparate background then that is most welcomed - the problem here is that they are not, one look at the serial edit warier who started all this (for the umpteenth time), User:Malariouscontribs will tell you that the editing is from an incredibly narrow view. The position also has to be taken that people need to be editing an article with an informed mindset. I interact with people from around the world often, and there are very many who don't even know that Scotland exists, presuming it to be some sort of region district of the UK with no significance or own history. One editor one vote is not how wikipedia works. SFC9394 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Castro
Though it might be a distinction without much of a difference what's meeting today is the Cuban parliament, not the Communist Party so there hasn't been any decision on who is the 1st secretary of the party. That might happen later or Fidel Castro may remain first secretary of the party for symbolic reasons. We don't know yet and shouldn't make assumptions until it's reported. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I gotta admire the way you jump into so many things with so much humility. I'd just say that all those articles on the "home nations" are prolly not gonna get very far ... maybe just a waste of your time ... but we all gotta try, right? You'll learn soon enough any of your ideas can get implemented. I don't like to waste time on such things these days, but that's just me! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It is among the more ... how shall we say ... unfocused of wikipedia's many discussions. I tried to focus it, but to no avail apparently. I still don't quite know what the various wikipedian's talking there want. I'm just gonna stay away. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we'll need more voices to reach a consensus; we should make up a list of options proposed, ask WP:Quebec, WP:Canada, and the Canadian discussion board to come over and give their opinions. Hopefully that will give us a clear consensus. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay, I know you are a good faith editor (no doubt in my mind, although we don't agree on a number of things), but I see now that you may not have realized how your suggestion could come across. I'm sorry if I overreacted. In any case, there are a number of options to avoid the deadlock: normal avenues of dispute resolution would suggest RfC first. I believe also that we need more editors to voice their opinion this time to achieve more than a fleeting consensus. If consensus does decide to forego mention of the nationhood issue in the lead, you do have my word that I will bow to the decision of the consensus; I also hope Soulscanner will do the same should the consensus go the other way. I do not mean for this to be an ongoing edit war or even a slow, recurring one, as it has been over the last months.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The country of Scottish
What a storm I've created! I didn't mean to! I though the issue was fairly simple!... I'm monitoring the sitation on the talk page, but believe this will go to RfC or some form of mediation. I'm surprised however by the lack of sources brought from either side, most of it is just personal interpretation and (from the clear-cut nationalist side) a selective quote from a title of a book which doesn't state Scotland is a nation anyway. I've not seen anything strong from that camp, just, like you say, group-ownership, what I've called (and I'll get a slap on the wrist for this) the Scottish mafia. -- Jza84 · (talk)21:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What's most concerning is the scale of organsiation and tag-teaming here, coupled with highly (if not radically) politicised sensiblities. It is very problematic. There are some users with contribution histories which entirely comprise of the removal or downplaying of mentions of the UK and no (or very little) evidence of adding encyclopedic material to articles or writing according to neutral source material. I'm not prepared to accept Scotland is a nation any more, as it's not a proper encyclopedic, neutral or offical term. -- Jza84 · (talk)21:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's strange, if not madness; I don't believe there is a grudge to be held. Both England and Scotland (whom this issue seems to be about, rather than Wales or Northern Ireland) wanted the union, signed up for it, benefitted hugely from it, fought together as one, share a queen, an island, a currency, a language, a parliament and a common (though not single) culture and heritage. The Scottish Enlightenment could not and would not have happened without the union; it's leading figures sought to have a unitary state and identified as North Britons. Simillarly, the Stuart dynasty, of Scottish extraction and heads of the Clan Stewart, wanted a unitary Kingdom of Great Britain. Simon Schama remarked that Scotland's national identity and cultural psyche was created in response to Edward I of England's war against them, not as a natural evolution and union between its land a peoples. The Industrial Revolution was brought Scotland by Englishmen; The English Sewing Company was one of Scotland's leading textile firms. The Forth Bridge was designed by two Englishmen. Where is the mention of all this?... nowhere. Some nationalists question "what is the point of this union with England"? I usually ask back "what is the point of a unified Scotland"?
Sectarianism is clearly a driving force behind the issue, and is probably informing the various combatants cultural perpectives here on Wikipedia, which is most troubling. What makes me laugh is I saw a news report not too long ago asking about the union. When asked, one guy, a student and a Scotsman, said "I think Scotland is better off being in England". I think misunderstanding the union is also a problem outside of Wikipedia.
I don't actually have strong British sentiments, I just want a balanced approach. Much of my work is in response to what I've seen here. -- Jza84 · (talk)21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
HI GD. I already made my contribution in favour of nation. This is not a bad discussion to be having at all. Hopefully it will help us understand better what a nation is. When we discuss nationalities, passions rise (as they ought to). My ancestors came from Scotland, and tho I have never been there, I believe strongly that Scotland is a nation conquered. I was so happy when Scotland was devolved. I'm hoping it will, in time, become a sovereign state in the European Community. Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello GoodDay,
thanks for your reply on the UE page. I am sorry for you that you feel oppressed by the "pro-diacritics faction" and have stopped editing articles. Is it that bad? I mean, there are more important things in life that diacritics (even if some people might find that hard to believe). Jasy jatere (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)
No, don't you ever give up. They do not have the numbers, they only have the dedication. 98% of all readers would crush their side, if they but knew that this was even being debated. But they don't know. However, as Wikipedia grows, more and more readers will become editors, and the prospects for change may grow better. And while policy may or may not ever change, the status quo allows us to debate on individual articles. And if you feel strongly about this, you must continue to do so, or it will only get worse. I am so encouraged by what happened at FJS; I waited two years for that to be moved, and it was. These battles can be won by courteous and intelligent editors like yourself, but only if we stick it out. Don't give up. Unschool (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hockey
Don't let some editors break you, you've gotten through it before. Just because you disagree with some policies, doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to do the great work you've done. Trust me, I strongly dislike diacritics, but I accept them for the improvement of the ice hockey articles. If hockey was as popular as say baseball, maybe I wouldn't have to because there would be a wealth of editors to take my place...but it's not...so the couple editors that do edit them are (most of the time) the only ones that will. I hope you change your mind and continue to edit hockey articles, though it seems this was the final straw so it is doubtful that you will return. If you don't change your mind, then whatever project you decide to help from now on will get an extraordinary addition to their project when you join. I'm sorry that you've left the WP:HOCKEY, and I wish you luck. BsroiaadnTalk07:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that the diacritics would be enough to turn you away. As the game of hockey becomes ever more popular internationally, we will see only an increase. Alaney2k (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
if you are leaving hockey I am sorry to see you go. I understand your concerns and am not an editor myself, but certainly your contributions were appriciated. I suppose everyone has a side, and i certianly understand the international spelling issues, i do believe the other side has some minimal ground to stand on. On one of my local teams, one of our Rams' linesmen got diacritic'ed eventually on his uniform. It seems that two seperate words existed and without the dots, his name turned into a vulgarity. I can see why he fought to be dotted :) oh well, even in regaurds to England we are a people seperated by a common language. Childhoodtrauma (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the simplest way of answering your question is to provide you with this link[3] and then this link. The second link will take you to the list of articles Giano has written, 15 of which have been on the Main Page. His most recent FA, Queluz National Palace, was written whilst in the thick of his bid for a seat on the Arbitration Committee last fall. He stopped editing Wikipedia earlier this month when the Arbitration Committee rendered what many think to be a rather unhelpful decision that directly affected Giano, and has also cost us another FA writer and admin, Bishonen, with another one fading ever so slowly away too. It would take you about 10 hours to read the arbcom case and, although it might be enlightening in some ways, on the whole it is just depressing and interminable - kind of like a Leafs season. There's also that box at the top of Giano's userpage that sort of summarizes things from his perspective. I rather doubt he'll be responding to you - I think he has made a grand total of one edit since the arbcom decision took effect, and that was to correct vandalism in an article he wrote. Don't take it personally - he isn't responding to the rest of us either. Best, Risker (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Giano has had a number of high profile run ins with what passes for authority around here:
Which ultimately resulted in him being placed on a editing restriction for one year. That was not acceptable to Giano, so he left. He is variously seen as a campaigner against the oppressive forces of the Arbitration Committee and all things that are bad about Wikipedia (mainly admins), who finally paid the price for challenging those in power, or a troublesome influence who disrupted Wikipedia to make a point one too many times. The only thing about Giano that is not in dispute is his remarkable article writing skills (making Wikipedia one the world's finest resources on obscure palaces). Rockpocket00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Now Rockpocket, I am sure Queen Elizabeth would take exception to your referring to her home as an obscure palace. Probably UNESCO would debate whether several of the homes Giano has written about are obscure too, since they're World Heritage Sites. Then there were articles on champion boxers and lesser known nobles. And Giano never had a thing against Admins, as a quick look at the visitors to his talk page would show. He had a problem with poor administrative decisions, like the one that left him blocked with an edit summary saying "hate speech" for being one of the first in the community to speak out against userboxen supporting paedophilia (the only block summary in the history of Wikipedia which has since been expunged, I will note, and an edit summary that was in part responsible for the administrator who blocked him being desysopped). But yes, Giano was not universally loved. Those who motivate communities seldom are. Risker (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean it as a criticism, to imply that was the only benefit of Giano's contributions. Likewise, it is true that Giano doesn't have a problem with all admins, but it is nevertheless also true, that almost all of those people whom he does take issue with are of that group. Giano puts little value in the myriad of administrative tasks asked of sysops, in comparison with those who write content, particularly featured articles. Consequently, when sysops (particularly one who is not a prolific content writer) had the temerity to cross swords with Giano, drama ensued. Its also worth noting that it was rarely Giano's causes that drew condemnation, rather the manner in which he was prepared to pursue them. Whether that was justified or necessary is a matter of opinion. ArbCom opined, Giano left, some people mourn the loss and everyone else gets on with it. Rockpocket21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
So now you have had the pleasure, perhaps you can see why Giano elicits the reactions he often does. Don't take is personally, this is just his idea of a joke. Giano thrives on intellectual oneupmanship and verbal sparring. He has a coterie of friends (and a sock puppet or two) who joins in the fun. He means no harm (you can tell when he gets serious, as half the project appears to watch the fun and have their say), but if that sort of thing doesn't float your boat, then its probably best making an exit and leaving them to their japes. Rockpocket20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed everything here (about Giano II). But, there seems to be a common thread. Giano's problems on Wikipedia? seems to be Giano's egotism. 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
presidential election galleries
When someone disagrees with me I stop and try my best to accomodate their postion. However I invite you to do the same, you expect me to go to 56 individual talk pages and ask the same question and possibly not get any reponses on many of them? Surely you can see that going to the WikiProject talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections to propose the change was the logical way to approach this. I explained this in the edit summary. I will provide a link from the talk page of this year's election to the WP discussion page, as I said having 56 individual discussions is not practical/necessary. Mark83 (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no rush, I'm happy to wait for some more opinions. And I meant to say, you're right - I did miss the other party candidate images. They obviously should all either have a pic or none. Mark83 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
hello again
Sure was a long time between edit wars. I invite you to check out WP:WQA for what I added and throw in your two cents if you want. Grsz11 (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
diacritics
I gave up a long time ago. Putting diacritics in article titles and in articles goes against the most common usage in English and it goes against common sense -- in English of course. I found it was impossible to reason with "them". no matter how many references you point to, "they" refuse to budge and see that diacritics are rarely used in English. Anyways, i gave up a long time ago. I gave up after I was blocked for reverting back to the original article titles (without diacritcs). some guy was going and changing all the articles to the diacritic form without discussion. I was reverting them all back to their original state and trying to talk to the guy about it and i was blocked for vandalism. that is when i said enough was enough and gave up. I still edit occasionally and still have a few pages on my watch list, but i am by no means a regular contributor anymore. this is not English wikipedia, it is international wikipedia and they should offically change it to that. Masterhatch (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me about the discussion. Looks like its the usual bunch of monarchists again! --Camaeron (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I certainly thought you were.. I stand corrected...--Camaeron (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Gidday
The whole Commonwealth realm thing is basically a Wikipedia invention. True, the concept is used outside this mighty kingdom, but not much and it certainly doesn't enjoy the status it does here. And I think a small group of editors are responsible. It worries me that all the major google results for 'Commonwealth realm' come from here. And it is driven by monarchism. I've nothing against anyone being a monarchist, but when it is an engine churning out this sea of articles- jeez! I ask you, 'List of monarchs of Australia'. Duh! Doesn't take a genius to work out they're all British! Do people go around saying, 'gee, theres a coincidence. We've got an Elizabeth II, and guess what! The Brits happen to have a Queen called Elizabeth II too!'. Oh dear, lol.--Gazzster (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Though having one commonwealth realm indepentant of the political borders would simplify matter a lot. Here on wiki and elsewhere..--Camaeron (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not quite that radical, but it would simplify a lot, and I mean A LOT, of problems. And what with Scotland etc. wanting to be independent the Queen is going to have even more titles. The Queen ought to just be called Queen of the Commonwealth as she isnt political anyway. The political states can all stay as they are..independent from each other except having the same monarch! --Camaeron (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult to resolve this topic. Unless somebody can instantly create 15 clones of 'Elizabeth II' for each realm (without telling anyone, who's the original 'Lilibet'). GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's strange! Filtering out the various sites that have the separate words ' Commonwealth' and 'realm', Google search on exact phrase 'Commonwelath realm' without 'wikipedia.org' gives 12,300 hits (including www.royal.gov.uk http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page4422.asp) while exact phrase 'Commonwealth realm' with 'wikipedia.org gives 16,000 hits – so the expression is emphatically not a wiki invention. Bill Reid | Talk19:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, GoodDay. The Irish Republic ceased to exist in 1922. As can be seen here, the state of Ireland is named just that - Ireland - in the current Constitution, and may be described as the Republic of Ireland, following the eneacment of the Republic of Ireland Act. It is nothing to do with "control of the whole island" - in fact, the citizenship of the Republic of Ireland voted overwhelmingly to renounce the territorial claim over the whole island in a referendum which amended Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. You can read more about that in the second link above. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun22:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Nomination
As one of the users I come accross most frequently I would like to ask your permission to nominate you for adminship!
Your work is always of good quality, your unbiased attitude is extraordinary and your opinions are always objective and well sourced!
--Camaeron (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Your work against You-Know-Who's is excellent, GoodDay. Adminship would sure help out. On a side note, feel free to let me know if you need some help with an edit war or discussion...always glad to help. Grsz11 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You know who??? The questions arent that bad. Besides you have thousands of edits, thats bound to help! Have a look at them at WP:RFA. Im going to run for adminship myself in a few days. If I make it you definately will. You have thousands more edits than me! --Camaeron (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You oughtn't support me if you wouldn't support yourself. You are far more experienced on wikipedia than I am! Im certain you'd be a brilliant admin! --Camaeron (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If youre sure. But you really oughn't if you would run for adminship yourself. One rule fits all...--Camaeron (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks btw!
Why do you oppose them? If you spell a name without the diacritics where they're supposed to be, its misspelled, simple as that, and there are several English words that use them! I wouldn't go on the Spanish Wikipedia and change all occurrences of Ryan Smyth's name just because "th" doesn't exist in Spanish. The Dominator (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
the issue is NOT whether English uses diacritics or not. Some words and even names in English are commonly found with diacritics in every day print. The issue is when words and names don't commonly use diacritics yet are given diacritics on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is clear when it says use the most common spelling in English. Well, if a word or name most commonly uses diacritics in English print, then wikipedia should follow. And vise versa, too. If the most common spelling in English does not use diacritics, then wikipedia should follow that. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the issue here. I can't speak for anyone else, but i don't want to see diacritics (and the like) eliminated from wikipedia, i just want to see them used properly, as in the way English naturally uses them. Masterhatch (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure most will agree, the article Lubomir Visnovsky (see page, for how it's spelt) is simply diacritics overkill.
I don't care what the NHL says, they omit diacritics and are wrong. What is so hard to understand, it's like if I went on the Czech Wikipedia and said that Mario Lemieux is actually Mário Lemjů since that is how it is pronounced in Czech. I would be wrong of course. And diacritics overkill??? Yeah, that's because his name has diacritics, that's like saying that the Sidney Crosby article has the word "Crosby" in it too much. The Dominator (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not simple as the NHL 'spells it wrong', it is the common spelling in English. I do not see Visnovsky spelled differently in the english media. Alaney2k (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read a lot of newspapers, magazines, and books on hockey in my time. And i can say that easily 99% of them drop diacritics (and the like). In fact, in all the reading i have ever done, the only diacritics that i have seen added in English print are with french names, and even that is rare. It isn't just the NHL that doesn't use them, it is 99% of the English speaking world. And yes, overkillis the right word for what is happening on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a trend setter and is not the place to try and change the English language. Wikipedia is a follower, hence the "no original research" policy. Masterhatch (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's as simple as that, all English sources dropped diacritics for convenience sake and all others followed. Western media mispronounce the names very often, that doesn't make it a common usage, just Yanks not being able to pronounce names properly. The Dominator (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's your POV that the diacritics were dropped for "convenience sake" in the English language. I do not claim to know the reasons they were dropped (if they were ever there in the first place), but i do know that i don't think modern English has ever used them regularly. Dropping diacritics is not an Internet or recent thing. It has been like that for hundreds of years. As for the way we pronounce names, well English pronounces things the way we do and other languages do the same. George Bush is pronounced "jo ji bu shi" in Korean. So, are the koreans wrong for the way they pronounce bush's name? It may sound strange to the English ear, but that is the way it is normal in korean. English has it's ways and other languages have theirs. Oh, one more thing, it is not just the "Yanks", it is all of the native English speaking world. And i am not a Yank, but the way. Masterhatch (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about local accents, I mean actual mispronunciations, I can speak with an American (well Canadian) accent just fine and pronounce them more correct than English speakers. The Dominator (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!
I have been editing here long enough to have seen wikipedia go through many, many changes. When I first started here, very few articles used diacritics. And I am not just talking about hockey. Then something strange happened. All of a sudden, thousands of articles were moved all over wikipedia without discussion or consensus or any of that crap. I tried moving a few of them back and sh*t hit the fan. There has been a war ever since. The pro diacritic people mass moved virtually every article on wikipedia without discussion and then claim that since most articles already use diacritics, then that is the way it should be. Well, if they actually looked at the history, they would see that virtually all articles started out without diacritics. it was an underhanded tactic, but it worked for them. They also keep blasting NHL websites saying that they are "lazy" or whatever for not using diacritics. Well, what about English hockey textbooks? magazines? newspapers? hockey fact books? the NHL itself? Are they all lazy? I think not. they are just following the most common spelling in English. Websites aside, English still rarely uses diacritics. Masterhatch (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The BBC uses the term 'Irish Republic' frequently in its broadcasts, instead of the term 'Republic of Ireland'. Why this should be the case I will leave for others to judge!
You probably did, the mass media has largely ignored him, wouldn't surprise me if they said he dropped out. He has phased back his campaign and and does not expect to win, just to continue spreading his message. War wizard90 (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Canada
I noticed your involvement in the Canadian Wikiproject and thought you might want to get involved with Wikimedia Canada. We're working together to establish a charity presence in Canada. We meet every two weeks generally on IRC (in text) and TeamSpeak (Voice). Our next meeting is on March 20th 2008 at 20:00 EST. Alan.ca (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Because of the tension between what is meant by "state" and "country" when it comes to Ireland. What is referred to by the "state" called Ireland is quite clear, but when people talk about the "country" called Ireland they could mean two things: the state or the island. For example, select the "country" called Ireland from this list and you will be told about Belfast.
I use the convention of using "state" to refer to the 26 counties and "country" to refer to the 32 counties, though it's not a hard and fast rule. --sony-youthpléigh23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi There
You don't know me but i hope in the future we will become good friends
Adrian Fletcher (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
by the way there is this guy, you have had dealings with him in the past who has what i personally interpret as a racist image on his page please delete it as it is wrong.Adrian Fletcher (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
bye,bye
And just because he interprets something as racist, that must mean that it is, right? Anyway, he's been blocked indefinitely now. TharkunColl (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(B)I
Apologies, I was being tongue-in-cheek (sarcasm and irony begin again north of the 49th parallel, right?). Yes, some recent contributors to that page haven't warmed me either. This isn't a "gang" or a "club house", whatever Bardcoms opinion of you, it's irrelevant.
Wow, that's a bit personal. But for the record, I think very well of you, and can honestly say I have never had negative thoughts about you. I enjoy your contributions, and you make good points and bad points, same as me I suppose. I did use the word troll in reference to your bringing up the Irish Sea point over and over (what, 8, 9 times), and IMHO the point had been replied to several times. Bardcom (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, not you or any of your comments; Sony's comment above reads as if my opinion of you is negative, and irrelevant. Bardcom (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm - I've just looked at Sony's Talk page and I now understand the context of his replies, and they make sense in so far as you said on his talk page that you feel my behaviour towards you is bullying. For the record, I apologize and I would hate to bully anyone away from this discussion. I've explained the trolling comment above. I say again, I enjoy your contributions. Bardcom (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Two questions
These questions arent really wikipedia related but Ive been meaning to ask you them for a while: Firstly: Why do you patrol and take an active interest in Monarchy and royal related subjects if you are a Republican? Why do you dislike The Queen? --Camaeron (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Good answers. I hate it when people state they hate the Queen because they hate the monarchy. The two aren't synonyms after all. But after all most families have are guilty of blood shed. I can say that personally. And the ironic thing about my family is, as we are spread throughout England, Scotland, Germany, France and Russia, some of my ancestors fought against each other. I must commend you for you NPOV it really is "top knotch"!
I would had assumed that the way it was set up (with the outgoing and ingoing) was approiate. I can safely assume, for future reference, that doing that would not be permissible? WhammiesWereHere21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand the outright switch (which I had edited a few times myself, where they had Paterson already in, and no mention of Spitzer as outgoing, like it was), but I was talking about the one you had recently switched around. I just want to be sure the setup as it was (with the outgoing and incoming listed at the same time) was not permitted, thats all. WhammiesWereHere21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, in those days the pools of male actors was basically those 2! I mean, Heston as Moses! Btw, if you slow down the (uncredited) voice of God in The Ten Commandments, it's Heston's.--Gazzster (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Governor of Arkansas
I have made no comments on articles regarding the governors of Arkansas or Massachussets. In fact I have not commented on anyone but the NY Governors. I am not familiar with the laws in any other states regarding succession. I'm not sure why you would want me to comment on those articles.EMT1871 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
RE: "British" Isles
Hi GoodDay, no, not really grouchy. I am probably as bad. Not really the best idea to get involved in a subject that instills so much passion, remaining neutral is impossible regardless of whatever guidelines wiki would suggest. But it is because of the passion that I bother to get involved in the first place, so cannot really win. I will however try to keep my emotions in check and will try and contribute to this debate in the right way. But I never do anything half hearted, If I get myself involved in this it is because I know I am right and therefore the only aim I have is to remove Ireland from the British Isles and will not stop until that happens! But I do not want this to get personal, so will try to remain civil at all times. Thanks Murphy71 (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to remove Ireland from the British Isles, you'll need some pretty major earth-moving equipment I think! But seriously, it's probably better to keep the impassioned pleas and appeals to emotion to a minimum, as the English are unmoved and indeed embarrassed by all such displays. Haven't you heard that we're all a bunch of emotionless Vulcans? TharkunColl (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To everyone, live long and prosper.
Hi GoodDay, I have tried to make it clear what I would prefer, A - the title of the article to be changed, or if not possible (and certainly looks that way) then B - Ireland to be removed from the article (of course Ireland can remain in a historical context but not as a current member of the British Isles.
Thaukun, It actually is time the British started to be moved by some of this stuff. Many, many of the problems in the world today all have their roots in the British Empire. Murphy71 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that won't work. Appeal to pity is simply not the best way to do it, if you're arguing with the English. They take it as a sign of weakness. TharkunColl (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
List of Australian monarchs nominated for deletion
Gubernatorial succession in Arkansas is governed by its State laws and State constitution. My changes to the Bruno article are based on the New York State Constitution. It's certainly permissible for gubernatorial succession in Arkansas to function differently from how it functions in New York. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link to Article 6, Section 5 (as amended) of the Arkansas State constitution.[4] It's similar to what is required by the New York State constitution. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the Arkansas Constitution makes the Lt. Gov. Acting Governor when the Governor fails to finish his term, but says that the Acting Governor serves "for the residue of the term." This means that the Lt. Gov. becomes the de facto Governor. So technically those men were Acting Governors, but in reality they were Governors. The word "Acting" should only be used when (1) the powers of an office, but not the office, are bestowed upon a person, and (2) that person is not supposed to serve for the remainder of the term of that office. For example, the two occasions that Dick Cheney was Acting President he was not President, because he did not occupy the office of President and did not have the authority to possess the Presidential powers for the remainder of the current Presidential term. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to the terminology used in Arkansas. All I know is that, in Arkansas when a Governor can't finish his term, a Lieutenant Governor becomes Acting Governor, but is really simply the Governor, because he is to finish his predecessor's term. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that you look up the Arkansas Supreme Court decision in Bryant v. English, 311 Ark. 187 (1992), which dealt with gubernatorial succession. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please give me your opinion on this User:Camaeron/Sandbox. I dont think it should be as controversial as my other "lists" as it is only an improvement on a horrible old list. And it wont get any longer as it merges with British monarchs at the end. Thanks --Camaeron (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you reverted an edit or 2 by this person and got them blocked. Did you look at their list of contributions? A constant pattern of vandalism from 2006 onwards. That can't just be one person, can it? No one is that persistent with manual vandalism . And if it is more than one person, then it seems pretty unlikely to me that that IP has been passed down from person to person, all of whom just so happened to be wiki-vandals. Could it be the IP of a school or something? That seems most likely to me. I've noticed that a few other IPs say something like "This is the IP of YYYYY school in ZZZZZ". How does one go about discovering that kind of thing? A quick search didn't turn up much, except that one person posted from that IP on a forum talking about being their school's "majorette" whatever that is. Gopher65talk20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
The Special Barnstar
Camaeron doth hereby award thee "The Special Barnstar" for thine exceptional editing, vandalism reverting and always maintaining a neutral point of view. Keep up the good work! --Camaeron (t/c) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol, sorry about that...It just feels so ceremonious. No doubt, as a Republican, you would turn down a knighthood? --Camaeron (t/c) 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe you Republicans...didn't you dream of being a knight when you were small? What's wrong with you people *meant as a joke* ; P --Camaeron (t/c) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesnt matter, youre just a positive thinker. There is this one guy called Kurt and he only ever opposes. Think of yourself as a kind of "counter-kurt" ; ).. --Camaeron (t/c) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think comment on talk pages from non-editors is permissible. I used to edit a lot, maybe 10,000 edits, and was here in 2002. You'll know me by my number. I have since lost my password. 78.19.145.136 (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I'll think about it this evening. Neverless, I don't believe it's my agenda to believe in some points or other, than it is your agenda to believe in some points or other. I don't want to get sucked into editing on Wikipedia again, as it can get a bit addictive, and take over a persons leisure time, and maybe lose contact with the real world,. Thanks for the offer. 78.19.145.136 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
To put it simply, Scotland entered into political union with England (incl. Wales) to create the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Kingdom of Great Britian entered into political union with the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and (now) Northern Ireland entered into a political union with the European Economic Community. (Now European Union). These are all a series of political unions where sovereignty is lost completely, or diluted, in order to achieve certain gains. For Scotland, politically, the EU is simply the next step up, or next layer of bureaucracy, from the UK. Since devolution we effectively have a three-tier system of government, (exluding local government - the fourth tier); Holyrood, Westminster, Brussels/Strasbourg. The Scotland map showing just Scotland is deliberately done to exclude any factor other than the geographic location of that part of the globe called Scotland. If you're going to introduce anything else other than simple geography, why stop at the UK? You might as well go on to include the EU while you're at it. In my opinion, neither is relevant to showing the reader what part of the globe is occupied by that place called Scotland. It has nothing to do with politics, which is why your assertion that it does is wholly misplaced. Rab-k (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Shading the rest of the UK, isn't going to cause the shading of the rest of Europe. The United Kingdom & the European Union aren't the same. There's no Monarch of Europe or Prime Minister of Europe.
GoodDay, note that the maps in that series do not show the European Union in white, they show the European continent, and yes, there is a difference. Therefore, this argument is tangential. Getting back to the point, I think the question that needs to be asked is: do we want a map that shows the location of Scotland within it's continent as well as within it's sovereign nation (with two different colours), or a map that only shows the location within the continent? — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
British usage on Wikipedia
As I've mentioned on the talk page, I agree with you about switching English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish to British on the 2008 page. I certainly won't object if you want to change any of those, and so far I haven't seen many objections to either of our posts on the talk page. As I stated there, most posted nationalities refer to nation-states, and listing constituent countries (e.g., England) to me seems analogous to listing constituent states (e.g., California). Simply saying "British" seems most reasonable to me by far. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The constituent country article does indeed list examples other than the UK. Even the United States was formed as a sort of "merger" of smaller colonies that still (as states) retain a notable degree of individual autonomy. But Americans are still listed here as "American," not "Californian" or "New Yorkian" (is that a word?) or whatever. In any event, the British listings are highly inconsistent. Some say British; others say English, Welsh, etc., and I imagine that some sort of standardization would be good. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Spring in the Air!
Happy First Day of Spring!
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
They fail to grasp the idea, dont they? If they dont comply I shall take it to Wikiproject UK Geography. They will sort it out! = ) --Camaeron (t/c) 17:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I share your concerns and I also sympathise with your feelings on how you've been treated. That particular "close-knit" group has some great editors, but the lack of willingness to portray Scotland's place and relationship within the UK in a more accurate way (i.e. nation) is genuinuely holding back the potential of the article. There is systemic bias at several Scottish entiries.
WP:SCOTLAND's lack of progress in developing GAs and FAs, to me, is symptomatic of it loosing its focus and concentrating solely on gentley (but firmly) pushing the notion of Scottish independance (though it should be entitled Scottish nationalism in my veiw as Scotland would not be politically or economically independant!). I respect that this POV exists, but I do believe it to be over-represented here at Wikipedia, and the treatment by those who are Unionists by a core of uses is less than friendly.
I suppose the only real way forwards is to be at least as organised as that group, and find a way for those with the alternative (dare I say, mainstream) views to better communication, perhaps with the aid of a WikiProject or central talk page? Certainly, leaving those articles alone is not going to address balance, but organisation and strong debate is. --Jza84 | Talk 23:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I still havent had an answer from G2 as to whether he/she wants to found a project with me. I have an example of what it could look like here if you'd like to take a look. You can change it if you think you can improve anything (if I dont like it I can just revert it...so be bold!). --Camaeron (t/c) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Though Im not going to bother doing it if G2 doesnt want to...It'd be silly maintaining it all alone. The good thing is the project could adopt List of Australian monarchs etc...and be a focal point of all of our discussions...--Camaeron (t/c) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have decided on realms after all. After reading the article "Commonwealth of Nations". They really are two differnt things. I want to concentrate on Queen Elizabeth as a Queen not as Head of the Commonwealth. Commonwealth Realms really dont have anything to do with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a political organisation whereas Commonwealth realms are just nations with the "Elizabethen" monarchy... --Camaeron (t/c) 19:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now created the actual page Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms please add yourself (again) I decided it would be better to readd our names as somebody could ask why the time we signed is actually before the actual page was created...(if you get what I mean!)...--Camaeron (t/c) 19:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it such a big deal? Remember that quote from my RfA, when it comes to political or semi-political stuff, "Practically nobody reads those articles and half those that do don't understand them, and half those that understand them don't agree with them and the few who are left are the editors". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message
Hi GoodDay. Thanks for the friendly message. We are each entitled to our opinions and it is sad when people can not have sensible discussion to resolve differences. Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Im not going to bother changing it everywhere..it redirects to my page anyway. Im thrilled I got it though! --Cameron (t/c) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Madness
Yes, one of my all-time favourite movies! Fascinating historical figure. And a good, if not somewhat out of contextg, social commentary for today. Monarchs fascinate me, just as religion fascinates many atheists.--Gazzster (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
One of my favourite movies too! Have you seen Elizabeth: The golden age? Dreadfully inacurate but a good film all the same--Cameron (t/c) 22:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
After the consensus (providing it is positive) I think we ought to create the page and hope for the best...It is sourced, accurate information after all. What more could an encyclopaedia want? --Cameron (t/c) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I placed the consensus on a page of its own and placed {{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Commonwealth realms/Consensus}} on both pages thus ensuring that both pages have the identical contents. Otherwise every comment would have to be placed on both pages. Thanks for the idea...otherwise somebody could accuse us of trying to control all commonwealth articles...--Cameron (t/c) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry...start again... Take a look at my userpage and click on edit. You will see {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. They are, as you might have guessed, the userbox top and bottom. In between are all the different userboxes...--Cameron (t/c) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi GoodDay, don't get too worked up over the BI article, it's a bit like Vesuvius, and blows up every 4 months or so. It will go on for a long time, so embrace the craic, and enjoy the ride. This certainly will go on forever. I was on the page 3 years ago, scrapping with Thark, I often joke with him about the sherry. Mel 78.19.171.224 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandboxes are easy...Create a link on your navigation or user page or where ever somethis like User:GoodDay/Sandbox. Click the link and place {{Template:User Sandbox}} on the page. Ta da...--Cameron (t/c) 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edits on the roster template. Sydor and Malone took over in January because Roberts was out for a long time, and Recchi was gone. That means they've served as long as Roberts, and will continue to wear the A's if/when he returns, because they were still down one because of Recchi. Thanks. Grsz1122:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
True. Malone and Sydor had originally alternated home and away because they were only allowed 1 C and 2 A's. But after Crosby's injury they could use all 3 (Malone, Sydor, and Gonchar). I don't think they would strip the A's if Robert comes back (they still don't know), and would probably continue with home and away in the playoffs. Grsz1122:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The same editors everwhere. And certain of them have big-named themselves, wittingly or unwittingly, and have a certain cred in discussions. So they tend to dominate.--Gazzster (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Mind you, Frank Byrne says he died in 616, but +/-4 years is not so bad, while there seems to be some doubt if his son's name was Fergus or Óengus. If only all our stuff were so accurate.
Belgium was Federal Governmentless for what, six months? Made no difference at all to daily life, pointing out just how irrelevant our (well, as I don't vote here, their) elected representatives are. Would anyone really notice if the country were split more definitively? I suppose someone would. but probably not me. Angus McLellan(Talk)23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah! The Flemish Secession hoax article is a bit short on detail: more at fr:Bye Bye Belgium. According to the programme, they'd run off to Léopoldville, or whatever it's called this week - the country changes its name regularly, so for all I know the capital city does too. Irish names? If you ever get a chance, read the introduction to Charles-Edwards' Early Christian Ireland: Google books should oblige. As he puts it: "One purpose behind restricting secular history to a limited range of themes was to reduce the horrors of early Irish names...". If they confuse you, that's to be expected because Early Irish names confused Early Irish writers. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the request at my talkpage. I'm afraid I cannot rollback the above ip's edits as I am uncertain that they are vandalism. I'm afraid you are going to have to discuss it, and work out where consensus lies. My prime reason is that I live in Cornwall, but am not Cornish, and am aware that Cornish is considered an ethnic group - as there was a Ethnic Cornish tickbox in the last Census. As I believe that the ip may be correct in that instance I am not uninvolved enough to enact the rollback. Sorry I can't be of more help. (ps. If it is obvious vandalism then reverts do not count toward 3RR, but if you are worried about breaching the limit then it may not be obvious vandalism.) Keep talking with the editor. If they continue to edit war instead of talking then see let me know. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if requiring preconditions before discussing is appropriate... As I say, I will not get myself involved where I have a) an opinion, and b) no background knowledge. It may be best to have someone else involved in editing these areas to undo the contended edits while you engage the anon in discussion. You could always ask the anon to self revert as a sign of good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, I'm curious, I notice on the Scotland talk page that you're determined to always include Great Britain or United Kingdom into the map! What's your reason for it? Is it to improve the article or is it political? Go on, you can tell me, I won't say anything!--Jack forbes (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed you did, but while I'm no expert (I've only been here for a few weeks) it does seem to go against the grain that you and a few others seem to push your views in a concerted way. --Jack forbes (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
RoI in UK map
Replying to all of your comments:
"Your complaint about the apparent inclusion of the Republic of Ireland, on the British Isles map is understandable (even though it is colored different from the UK). " - The map did not show the British Isles coloured in. While it showed the Isle of Man, it did not show the Channel Islands, and the Republic of Ireland was the only non-UK part of the British Isles coloured in. (In any case, why should a map of the UK show the British Isles? I would like to see at least the coastline of France - and it only serves to reinforce confusion over the difference between the UK and the BI, which you demonstrate aptly by the above comments.)
"Concerning Northern Ireland, Wales, England & Scotland howerver? I disagree with you." I said nothing about Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland. Who are you talking to when you say that you disagree with them?
"I didn't write up the 1707 Act of Union & all those succeeding Acts, it's not my fault that Wales, England, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not independant." I didn't mention the acts of union or anything the separatist movements in the UK. Again, who are you talking to?
"What's with the anti-UK stuff, anyways?" I said no "anti-UK stuff". Again, who are you talking to? And if not me, then I would like you to clarify on the Talk:Scotland page that I did not say any "anti-UK stuff".
"Geez." Yes, indeed. Geez!
"... when you restored the European map at Northern Ireland, England and Wales why didn't you protest its having the rest of the UK being shaded?" Why should I? That was the long-standing consensus. The impetus is on those who disagree with consensus to convince others of change. Those maps were altered without consensus and for the reasons I cited were absolutely unacceptable. Being bold is one thing, making unilateral changes across several articles against long-standing consensus is another. --sony-youthpléigh11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Canadian
Are you really Canadian? You seem to edit nothing but European articles and yesterday you said to me you were turning in for the night at..... 9.20 Canadian time......78.16.176.146 (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Anti-UKism??
I wouldn't be too put off. It's all about cultural perspectives. There are certain pockets of users being stubborn and/or having a deeply entrenched preference, but nothing bad faith along those lines.
The thing is, this notion of "ENG/SCO is a nation" just isn't anything to do with unionist politics - it's just good practice to me. I object to the term strongly because it has zero value for a modern, international encyclopedia. The animosity (which I also feel) is not needed; I advocate "home nations" for use in UK place articles and am against any kind of unitary "British" state.
It's probably my experience as someone with mixed (and positive) Anglo-Celtic heritage and upbringing that informs my desire for union outside of Wikipedia. On Wikipedia I just find it embarrassing that editors have homed in on "Scotland is a group of people", a consensus that is probably there so that the phrase "in Europe" can be added first and foremost.
Currently, I think the in-house Scottish system of supporting users favours those who are in favour of Scottish nationalism by way of existing and established users supporting and organising new users, whilst perhaps ignoring or even discouraging those who do not (I think User:Breadandcheese had it hard and like to keep in touch with him).
I suppose the best way is to stay committed, try to focus on content not contributors, and be unscrupulously polite with those who have alternative ideas (who knows, we might even convince some people round to the citation!). Don't be disheartened please; take comfort in the fact that there have been many others who share your concerns and ideas for progression. --Jza84 | Talk 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, really... Wikipedia is not a democracy (!) and I'm reluctant to vote. However, straw polls have their place and they can help form a basis of a consensus. Votes aside though, the weight in arguement is far more clear if you ask me, and more decisive than any vote. I guess we'll have to wait and see. The onus is on us to achieve consensus though as it is us who wish to seek a change.
On a simillar note, I'm actually working on a more befitting lead section for Scotland, found at User:Jza84/Sandbox1. The second paragraph is still weak, and there are other issues, but this is the type of thing I've always imagined for Scotland on Wikipedia. --Jza84 | Talk 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly hope so. I really cant see whats wrong with it! Never mind, as long as the info isnt deleted. --Cameron (t/c) 13:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Scottish map
You probably won't believe this, GoodDay, but the actual choice of Scottish map isn't going to strip me of any sleep at night. My issue, however, is the way you have gone about your edits, having walked over general consensus reached over many months. My edit reverts were not intended to annoy you or to force my own opinions on you; I just want other users to see what you are up to behind the scenes, as - if I'm being honest - I think you have a very blatant agenda and cannot understand your disregard for "the silent majority" who have spent many years making the 'Scotland' article what it is today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.242.216 (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotland
I am not stubborn enough to revert the map if I thought the majority wanted your choice of map! If you can convince me otherwise I would relent! Ps This is nothing personal even though it might have seemed it from my side at times!--Jack forbes (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The two users who have not discussed it for a while may come back! Anyway I won't be reverting again as I feel I've been doing too much of that lately! Would'nt want to be blocked as I heard that reverting too much can lead to this happening! What would I do all day, go to the pub? HANG ON THERE!!!!!! --Jack forbes (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, protection is away for a few hours and look what's happened. I honestly don't buy the stuff about edit-warring being bad necessarily (I think it does help many articles quite a bit more than is appreciated), but I worry about good editors being blocked by the wandering trigger happy admin. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume you will accept too? I will make a list of people that have agreed on my sandbox page if you are interested in the progress. regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Not bored by any chance
You are not bored by any chance are you? I need an opinion on the talk pages of man and woman. Nobody is there to give a neutral opinion... = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is the map on the article about Prince Edward Island a different style to those on all of the other provinces and territories of Canada? As it only shows Prince Edward Island people might start thinking its a separate country or something. Shouldn't you change it to something in exactly the same style as the rest? Otherwise people might start thinking that the various parts of Canada are actually different... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.9.248 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point, well made. How about it User:GoodDay? Why not show PEI in the proper context as a Province of Canada on the standard info-box map (see image) used for Canadian Provinces, in the same style as that on the Nova Scotia article info-box, and the British Columbia article info-box, and the Quebec article info-box, etc. etc? After all, you were editing the Prince Edward Island article only last month, yet you never sought to improve the map? Tut, tut! How about you pop along and change it? You could put a note on the discussion page worded along the lines of "The map on this article is incorrect. It gives the impression that Prince Edward Island is independant from Canada. Would somebody fix it please.", or alternatively "I've added the standard map, that's being used for all the provinces in Canada", or even "The standard map being used by the other provinces? should be used at this article." Look forward to seeing your improvements on the PEI article next time I take a peek. Regards Rab-k (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (PS this is an example of that world-renowned British sense of humour. I don't care what map goes on the article you see, just so long as it shows PEI as part of Canada).
Thanks for your replies. I see you're dealing with "What about X?" fallacious arguments. I did not revert you, of course, but merely added the map in a different section for now. I still believe that the infobox image should show the subject in the article. The Scotland one does, the PEI one does not. DoubleBlue (Talk)16:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"PS- I'm happy to see you've agreed to consistancy (thus to having the Scotland map changed)". "Agreed to consistency" - no. I do, however, agree with consensus, where it can be reached. (Nice map on PEI article BTW.) Rab-k (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Rab-k? you want the Canadian related maps consistant; but not the UK related maps?
Figured you'd recognise sarcasm when you saw it. P'raps not it appears. I was being sarcastic and infering a degree of double-standards on your part. Which, I'm happy to see, you promptly proved me wrong. Rab-k (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your "quick solution" was claimed less than 1 hour after DoubleBlue (Talk) stated "I think a broader discussion would be helpful here". A little premature, don't you think? Rab-k (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick moment
Have you a quick moment to spare? I added a source and another user claims it cant be opened (or is faulty). Would you care to take a look and comment as to whether you can open it. It is on this page Talk:Monarchy of Grenada...Thanks...I am, once again, in your debt. --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your neutral comments
GoodDay, thank you for your neutral comments. Very much appreciated and welcomed. Hopefully it will trigger the right type of discussion... Bardcom (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello GoodDay, although a nationalist I certainly have no anti English feelings. I am not saying you have inferred this. as I said on the Scotland talk page I have English relatives and if I was anti English I'm sure they would have noticed by now! What I'm really trying to say is that you can be pro something withought being anti something.( just to contradict myself I am anti union but not anti people!)--Jack forbes (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Look out I'm back! Dont know for how long though I really ought to do some revising (exams coming up soon!)...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Check out this for a laugh click me!...The cheek of some people! They come to the help desk to have their homework done! Btw I have posted a new comment at Scotland too! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
