User talk:GoodDay

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

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

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

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

Slowing Down

I'm trimming down my time on Wikipedia & so will be around sporadically. My Wiki-addiction is disrupting my real-life. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Posting at other User talkpages

I'm tired of being threatened with RfC & ANI reports. I'm tired of being characterized as though I were some kinda Palpatine character. From now on, I'll no longer be contacting or conversing with others on their talkpages. My talkpage will be the only place to converse for me. Hopefully, nobody will attempt to censure me here. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Countries of the United Kingdom concerning Northern Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MFIreland / WCM AN/I thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wales Article

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

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

Ready for Santa

I hope you've got something nice for me, GoodDay. If not, I'll not be landing Santa's sleigh on YOUR roof!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apart from sewing needles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Year's coverage

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

Seeing that 2010 is leaving us forever

File:Jack daniels 5cl.jpg

Jackie could help alleviate the New Year's Eve solitude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York Governor

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

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

Happy, happy

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

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

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

Thanks

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

New Year resolutions

Help me out here GoodDay, give me some diffs of where you have worked to reduce conflict on British Isles related issues. I have a very long list of diffs of where you have done your best to provoke or perpetuate it. --Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm no longer involved at BISE & therefore no longer concerned with where British Isles is or isn't throughout the articles. I've no more comments on LM/LB's whereabouts. I've even thrown in the towel on the infoboxes of Canadian provinces & territories. I don't quarrel over British bio-related infoboxes content 'anymore'. Common-sense is what's behind my stance at the UK infobox-heading. Nobody has yet, shown me that Welsh is an official language across the United Kingdom. I wouldn't be doing accuracy a favour, if I simply roll over & let some of you introduce erroneous additions to that infobox. When/if Welsh is made an official language of the UK, then I'll agree to the Welsh version, but only until then. If you (or others) have me barred from that infobox discussion (via administrator or whatever other choice)? then I will respect that barring (since I don't wanna be blocked). I implore you (and others) end this now & leave the infobox heading as it was for years. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment before I realised that you had edit warred on the article as well. This particular issue aside, as far as I can see your whole edit history is one in which you have encouraged conflict (multiple statements of you view even when a compromise is emerging), tried to get controversial editors to re-engage by dropping notes on their talk page and then generally adding your opinion to ANI and other cases. I have not seen (or do not remember) any occasion on which you worked to resolve conflict. All of that before we talk about your making statements and then going back on them all the time. As I said before this is a community not your personal playpen but I will happily withdraw that comment if you can give me an example anywhere in WIkipedia where you have worked to reach a compromise or reduce conflict.--Snowded ^TALK 06:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head. The Ice hockey articles. I helped bring about a compromise between pro-diarticis & anti-diacritics editors (I was of the former camp) concering how Ice hockey articles were named.

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United Kingdom. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

No consensus has been reached to change the article. Please self-revert --Snowded ^TALK 06:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall not self-revert, on the basis that no consensus was ever reached for inclusion of any non-English versions of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the infobox heading. If I'm to be blocked for this? I shant dispute such a block & will serve it fully. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that the Welsh version received no objections for several weeks. Experienced editors who share your perspective on the content issue have accepted that (James reinstated the welsh version). Since then we have been discussing how to move forward and the community is split. Starting to edit war just when a consensus is starting to emerge on a compromise solution is provocative and stupid.--Snowded ^TALK 06:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You made a slight change to James' temporary addition. I disagreed with it & didn't know how to revert it (which you said was OK to revert, if anybody disagreed with it), without wipeing out 'in between' edits. Therefore, I opted to change to a version which 'was not' challenged for years. I'm dissappointed, that you only seem to object/revert when 'english only' is put in place. I've no desire to open a RfC or anything else on you, but as of now, I've no confidence in your participation at that infobox heading discussion. I do have concerns that your pride is clouding your judgement here Snowded. You're wrong on this issue & must admit it to yourself & move on from it. No one will think less of you & you'll have restored my confidence in you. GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay if you want to revert that addition then all you do is delete the text, its not difficult although I realise that despite your extensive experience on talk pages you have little or no experience in articles. However removing three words in brackets should not be beyond you. If you had any respect for WIkipedia process you would now reinstate the version and make that edit if you really want to. Otherwise have a look at the informal vote, have a look at the discussions, the community of editors is split on this issue. The rules are very very simple, do not change content when its under discussion. Nothing would give me greater pleasure by the way than you raising an RfC on this.

Incidentally the temporary addition was by me, not James. Shows how much attention you were paying --Snowded ^TALK 07:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking of James' temporoary re-addition of the Welsh version added November 17, 2010. Anyways, I've asked those at the discussion to request my stepping aside from it. If they wish it? I'll comply. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You wanted to reinstate the drop down box with all the languages? Sorry GoodDay don't buy it, you made specific reference to a deletion that had been OKed on the talk page, that was my addition (per the emerging consensus) of "{official in Wales)" --Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus for "{official in Wales}". What of the 2-questions to be presented to the community? a commnity who's decision I would've respected? apparently abandoned. I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, but I'm no fool. Nobody has 'yet' shown me where Welsh is an official language across the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And it was OKed to remove that addition (although why you would I don't understand) not to delete everything. If you both to check you will see that editors on both sides of the debate started to work on a compromise, good editors do that, bad ones edit war. --Snowded ^TALK 08:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Your view isn't shared by me, on this discussion. I think we've both made that quite clear to each other, in these last few weeks. Overall, I havn't panicked 'too much' (revert speaking) when the Welsh version or other langauges version was put in place (to see how it looked). Where's you've shown zero tolerence for having 'english only' in there (to see how it looks) - even for a few hours-. You've shown more anxious behaviour in having the infobox heading your way. GoodDay (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You want my revert undone? then undo it. If anybody accuses you of edit warring? I'll defend you, cause it wouldn't be edit warring on your part. Heck, ask Daicaregos or whoever you wish, to undo it. GoodDay (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See how it looks? Panicked? Anxious? GoodDay this is really simple, its the application of WP:BRD which is very very clear. Its bad enough to break WP:BRD at the best of times, but to do it when a new compromise is being discussed it to compound the error. You really, really should self-revert. --Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Continue to discuss this new compromise proposal, which is yet to have a consensus. I shall not self-revert. You're free to ask other to revert me, if you'd rather not do it yourself. It's 4:23 AM in my area, certainly it must be obvious to you, that I haven't changed my stance. GoodDay (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Making a mistake is one thing GoodDay, refusing to correct that mistake is another regardless of the time --Snowded ^TALK 08:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no doubt, within 24hrs somebody will revert me. It's happened before, with generally positive 'edit summaries' tagged on. Anyways, in the past you & Dai (plus others) have brow-beated me over providing sources for this or that. Well, you've yet to provide a source of the Welsh languge being official across the United Kingdom & yet in this situation, again I'm being brow-beated, sweet-talked, character assassinated, medically examined. I won't self-revert, so it's best you request another to revert me. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here's a fair idea: Delete everything from the infobox heading, until a consensus on something is reached. Let the infobox top be the 'map', for now. GoodDay (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, there should be 'no' infobox headings at all. Something for us all to consider across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You may have missed this, although it has been explained many times. The discussion is about whether a language which is official within the UK is an official language of the UK. The current proposed compromise makes it clear that Welsh is official within Wales. You are asking for a source for something which is not being asserted. You then break wikipedia rules by edit warring. If you do that sort of thing you must expect some comment. You description of that comment seems a little over the top, even for you. As to deleting everything - how long have you been an editor? That is comical--Snowded ^TALK 08:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been a registered editor for over 5-yrs, nothing comical about that. The content of the Infobox heading was the issue, therefore I removed the content 'til a consensus is reached for what the content should be. One has to think outside the 'info'box (sorry, couldn't resist). GoodDay (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be charitable and assume thats sleep deprivation talking --Snowded ^TALK 09:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully awake & functional. GoodDay (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, the infobox actually looks better that way. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In the academic world we often make a distinction between ostensive and subjective behaviour, put it back to the version which has been in place throughout the discussion and demonstrate that the two are not in conflict --Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

An emotional response, interesting. Meanwhile, I've made suggestions to Template:Infobox & Template:Infobox country. -- GoodDay (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Analytical really, can't see anything especially emotional there. There is a broad gap between what you say and what you do. Bill gave you some sensible feedback on his talk page which I doubt you have taken on board. The suggestions to the template pages are (to use his words) silly. You are painting yourself into a corner here. Simply following WP:BRD when your deletion was reverted, and/or self reverting after you broke WP:BRD would have been the proper way to behave and I suspect you know that. No one will gloat if you do the right thing. --Snowded ^TALK 11:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill pointed out that blanking the infobox heading was silly (which I've now acknowledged), not reverting to 'English version' only, which BTW he's changed the infobox heading to. GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That answer confirms that you either did not read, did not understand or did not want to hear what Bill was telling you. --Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why again, did Bill revert to the version you disliked? GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Read his comments again GoodDay, in particular those that relate to your editing style. I find it difficult that you could be that stupid as to miss them, so I will assume you just trying to avoid paying attention to them--Snowded ^TALK 17:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You're being emotional again. Please control your passions. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

All these proposed compromises are merely smokescreens to get the Welsh version included. I've no clue as to the reason behind this drive to include it. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia as GoodDay's playpen: an example

This edit illustrates a point I have made several times about you being disruptive in your edit patterns. Here we have you encouraging an editor with a block log as long as his or her arm, and a similar record under a previous ID. I've seen you do this several times, finding a known disruptive editor and trying to encourage them to get back into the fray. The pattern seems to indicate that you like to see conflict, like your provocative deletion and then "silly" deletion yesterday. I wonder if the resolution on United Kingdom led you to go seeking out the next conflict? Please reconsider this sort of action, its very visible for one thing and the body of evidence is growing. I've reached the end of my patience with this (as have other editors if the emails I received yesterday are an indication) having put up with it for several years now. So expect more notices on your talk page if you continue and a possible RfC or ANI report--Snowded ^TALK 05:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've known AvD for over a year & have tried to help him put aside his quarreling ways (but to no avail) & happened to get along with him quite well on a User:talkpage to User:talkpage basis. AVD's days on Wikipedia are over (as far as I can tell). I checked up on the discussion at Kingdom of Great Britain & having seen his posts there, decided to say hello to him. I wasn't aware until now, that he was under a 6-month ban (placed November 15). I'm allowed to update him on my RL, even if he's barred from his own talkpage aswell. He's a human being, not a piece of sh-t. If I had posted to him something like "Gee AVD, betcha can't wait to get back & have your revenge on Snowded" then your 'current' rant would be justified, but I didn't say such a thing. Honestly, aren't you bordering on WP:HARASSMENT, right now? GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File your RFC or ANI report on me or cut out the threats, make a choice. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No GoodDay, I am pointing out an example and telling you that after two years of putting up with this I am now starting to keep a record of examples. I could just have done that but I thought it fairer to let you know. My view is that you are exhibiting signs of long term low level disruption, but I'm not making a final call on that until I have assembled a body of evidence and have a chance to review it. I'm hoping that I will find no more examples--Snowded ^TALK 05:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you and/or others (including those on them e-mails) provide me a list of editors, whom I can no longer contact on the whole project. PS: I do not wish to know the identities of the e-mailers. E-mailing off Wikipedia is something I've never belived in or supported. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, forget that request. I've imposed a gag rule on myself, for your convenience. Other user-talkpages are off limits to me. GoodDay (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted my hospitality post at AVD's talkpage, per my Rule #9. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You have always been a bit of a stirrer GoodDay. I've told you that myself on more than one occasion. You did back off for a while and I thought you had screwed the head. You have now taken it to a different level were you are actually trying to wind people up with almost every post you make. Realise one thing here. Snowded has defended you on numerous occasions when others have accused you of trolling, by saying you are not doing that, you just enjoy stirring things up a little. If Snowded is now taking it serious that should be a message to you, one you should take seriously. As I said, I've accused you of trolling in the past and yet I still have a certain affection for you. At this exact moment you are unlikely to be blocked but if you continue in the same vein it will surely come. Take my advice and calm it down a little, or even a lot. I know you would be gutted if you were blocked from this place. Don't allow yourself to be. Scot Jfore (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One edit just for this , GoodDay isn't even close to any kind of block, so move along with all the worthless empty threats. GoodDay, don't speak to these people, leave them alone in their nationalistic dream. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just tired of being brow-beated, Off2riorob. Many get sore at me 'cuz I bring commonsense to those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making any threats you silly person. I'm giving him some good advice. Now, I'll wait for GoodDay to reply and hope you don't step in again with your silly statements. Scot Jfore (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice that would be good to take. I have also seen this tendency in him. He is forever bringing up old debates that have long since been settled, and often just to try and trigger them again because he then takes almost no part in them once they have started. Atleast that is how it often appears on hockey related matters. I don't take part in the British Isles topic area. I would listen to these users GoodDay, they have very valid points. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The newbie editor should stay away, as I suspect it's a block evading User. I've already placed a gag rule on myself, concerning other User's talkpages. As for Snowded's motives (which I still don't understand) at the UK infobox heading? I've no more comment. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The newbie editor is Jack forbes who has only popped in to give you a bit of advice. Scot Jfore (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain of that. It's best you use the Jf account, when next you post here. Also, many are sore at me 'cuz I won't bend to their devolutionist favoured descriptive countries for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't be posting again. Take the advice or not. Your choice. Scot Jfore (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, you're an imposter of Jack forbes. I no longer post at other Users talkpages & I won't be bending to devolutionsist wishes. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Even now, at the United Kingdom article, concerning the infobox heading and literature section (which I've chosen to avoid), there's a continued & growing concern with the push of Welsh related topics. Snowded & Daicaregos made a mistake when they self-proclaimed themselves Welsh nationalist at their Userpages; Why? because now, there'll always be suspicion over their motives at UK related articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Its basic honesty GoodDay, If you declare your position then you have to be very careful not to take a POV position as everyone knows what you believe. I don't see any growing concern with pushing welsh related topics, perhaps you would oblige us with a few diffs by way of evidence? Given that you are making the POV accusation against two named editors you need another set of diffs to substantiate the statement or should withdraw it--Snowded ^TALK 20:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Open your eyes Snowded & read carefully. I haven't accused both of you of NPoV violation, but rather that others might suspect it of both of you. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha hilarious, we know your pov but you need cites to mention mine. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Be careful Off2riorob, you might get influenced by me. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be my pleasure. Shut the conversation down and take them off your watchlist is my advice. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep the United Kingdom article on my watchlist for now. The efforts to have the Welsh version included in the infobox heading (though misguided, IMHO), is quite entertaining to observe. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had a quick look, hilarious, the welsh language is a tourist attraction with some children learning it as a second language for a few years. They do surveys and ask them , do you speak welsh and even if they only can say hello and goodbye they tick the yes box to inflate the figures, its a dying language. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been told aswell, that my home province has 2 official languages. I tell ya, it's very difficult to AGF, when such things are forced on articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, if you make statements expect to be asked for diffs to establish them. Consistent failure to do that is another pattern and record. You have another editor on this page saying that you behave in a similar way on Hockey sites (raking up old problems) to your behaviour on UK sites. Bill Reid told you very clearly you were just making assertions not producing arguments. You can listen to those comments, or you can choose to be comforted by ignorance (Off2riorob 21:25, 3 January 2011). Its your call but from my perspective you have have moved from being an occasionally irritating eccentric to being a low level disruptive editor. That means if you make assertions about other editors etc. then I will ask you for diffs to support those assertions and note either the response or the lack thereof. --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm no longer posting on other User-talkpages. Editing Wikipedia is a privillage, not a right & you're threatening to seek removal of my privillages. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm primarily seeking to get you to change your behaviour GoodDay. --Snowded ^TALK 05:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems you've succeeded, as far as user-talkpages are concerned. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, ya wanna go after a troublemaker, Snowded? Then track down Cashkid121 & demand why he hasn't answered for the edit he made (without consensus or accompanying source) to the United Kingdom article on November 17, 2010. The very edit which has caused a monthly long continuious discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? He made an edit in good faith as far as any of us know and no one challenged it for a month. If someone had reverted it then he would have had to justify it but no one did. The vast bulk of edits in wikipedia happen that way. You on the other hand failed to abide by WP:BRD just when a consensus was emerging on the talk page --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean he made an edit that you agree with. I don't know if you'll be successful in getting the Welsh-version back into the UK infobox heading. But atleast that'll be up to the Wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No GoodDay, I meant that he did nothing wrong. If I had disagreed I would have reverted and he would still have done nothing wrong unless of course he had reverted the revert and failed to follow WP:BRD. --Snowded ^TALK 07:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of disruptive editing can I ask you GoodDay what brought you to the Belfast article and your first edit there? Bjmullan (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I forget how I came across that article. Anyways, my edit was merely to clarify the intro, it was proceduarally BRD & I haven't reverted since. PS: I admire your concerns, but AFAIK, I'm not barred from Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, how'd you know I was at the Belfast article? GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has been on my watchlist for over a year. Bjmullan (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Sorry Bj, I've become a tad paranoid these last few days. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Been watching the discussion at Tom Pryce & enjoying every minute of it. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidential books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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