User talk:GoodDay/Archive 32

Hail the Dark Lord Satan block

I did not make this block because of the username, it is not a username block. This is a disruption block block because nearly every edit this user made was confrontational. When combined with the fact that over 90% of his contributions were to noticeboards, user talk pages, his userpage, and other non-article pages this suggests intentional disruption. Prodego ^talk 21:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(For the benefit of others reading along) Other than that he likely chose the username to cause controversy, I agree with you that it would be an acceptable name. Prodego ^talk 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Numbers as words or numerals

Hi

I find it a little misleading that you are changing from text to numerals on the pretext of "numerals, when above 'tenth'" - this is clearly not the case in MOSNUM:

• "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words"

More importantly GA and FA article review/candidates are often told to put numbers in the same expression, here your edits were not following that simple guideline, as mentioned also in MOSNUM:

• "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs"

Your edit:

• "is the fifth serial of the fourteenth season" -> "is the fifth serial of the 14th season"

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I learned from the F&W Encylopedia that 1st to 10th, should be changed to first to tenth. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Prime Minister of Canada - Ministerial Infoboxes

Hi, Would you like to voice your opinion about this topic? I see you are an experienced editor, so if you want to, please contribute to the discussion. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Skills Competition

Hm.. Saw that. I think I remember seeing somewhere that youtube videos can't be provided as references and I can't find anything else supporting my statement. I'll probably just leave it.. not something I wanna get in an editing conflict over.. I appreciate you letting me know though! Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANADA - A New Discussion About The Infobox

Hey GoodDay. It's me again. I just wanted to let you know that a discussion has been started at WP:CANADA and if you want to (please don't feel as if I am forcing you to) read my response and give your opinion, please do. I hope you read my whole response; I know it's long, but I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, 174.7.90.110 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dash fixes

Just noticed you are supposedly "fixing" a lot of hyphens into n-dashes. However, all of the ones I have looked at already were n-dashes. It is totally unnecessary and time-consuming for you to continue changing those. I think it would actually add more to the system to have the longer n-dash markup text in there than just the symbol. Please note that just because it shows a simple dash in the edit screen doesn't mean it is just a hyphen on the displayed article. The hyphen is much smaller compared to the n-dash and you should be able to easily recognize the difference. If you truly were meaning to make them longer, they should have been changed to m-dashes, not n-dashes. However, that said, m-dashes really weren't needed there anyway. See WP:DASH for some info. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll just change the 'short hyphens' to &ndash. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite what JS says, it is better to have the actual dash than the &ndash. In fact, many of us go around changing the html code to an actual character as a matter of course. The actual advice is to first be sure that hyphens you are changing to dashes should be dashes; then second, using "Show preview", be sure what you are changing to dashes aren't already dashes. -Rrius (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer, but that is exactly what I meant. Originally GoodDay was changing the actual en-dash character into html code. I was saying that that wasn't necessary, that it is better to use the actual symbol, not the html code. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a sec - I may need a visual example. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and date ranges should not be spaced unless one of the elements has a space, so it is "1992–1994" and "Jan–Feb 2001", but "January 3 – March 10" and "2002 – July 2003". -Rrius (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I do dashes as I go along. I suggest you, like me, learn to type the dash symbols. In Windows they are: Alt+0150 – n-dash (common); Alt+0151 — m-dash (rare). After a few years of doing it, it's become second nature to me... :) DBD 23:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's confusing. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually just copy a known en dash or em dash over, instead of having to figure out how to type it. You will see when editing below that I have used the actual symbol, not the &ndash or &mdash codes.

• hyphen: - (just made by typing the hyphen button on the keyboard)
• en dash: – (copied from a known en dash character)
• em dash: — (copied from a known em dash character)

Note: putting in a hyphen and an en dash really looks the same in the edit field. But they will appear different sizes in the actual page. The em-dash looks slightly longer in both the edit field and the actual page. Like Rrius states above, use the "Show preview" button to check to make sure you put in the right character. You could always copy these into Word or something. Or you could simply leave this page up and copy the needed character from here. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I might leave the dashs alone, as it's a tad of a hassle ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikichecker - User:GoodDay

• - Wikichecker - User:GoodDay - this one is the best one around imo at the moment - there is a PIE , hmmm. - also, congratulations and well done, ninety five percent of your last five hundred edits have been to articles. Youreallycan 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I'm reformed for sure. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL - when your fully reformed you can help me reform - best regards to you GoodDay - Youreallycan 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, thanks ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your favorite pie

Users have been working baking feverishly to make your pie available to you.....

• - X!'s Edit counter (with pie) now taken on by TParis - summary for User:GoodDay

note - if you create this page (with any content at all) you will get additional details shown such as top ten articles edited and suchlike.

Enjoy - Youreallycan 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yummy, my 6+ year old pie. Thank you, sir. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hi, GoodDay, and thanks for your recent edits on disambiguation pages. I just wanted to let you know you can save some time, each line only has one blue link on a disambiguation page, and that would be the link to the article if there is one. WP:DDD is a great, concise explanation of the guidelines, which are quite different to articles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking to countries is against WP:OVERLINK

I just reverted your Shea Salinas change where you linked to the country. WP:OVERLINK states "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." We don't even need to link to association football, but I wouldn't take it that far. Just explaining why I reverted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted most of your country changes back to 2012-02-10T05:56:49. Do you mind taking care of the rest? Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wowsers, I didn't think gnoming was gonna be this difficult. Anways, I won't be reverting my edits, but I won't reverse the reverts of any them either. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So you go against an established guideline without knowing about it and then you won't fix your additions against policy afterwards. Why not just not edit then? It will save those of us who actually care about Wikipedia a lot of time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It anybody comes across a bio article that they feel is overlinked, they may undo mine or anybody elses links, to correct that percieved problem. I rarely go back & revert myself, choosing instead to look forward. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

read as: I'll make edits to fix something that I think is broken, but I won't actually fix what I've broken. What a child. Just stop editing if you're going to do it without taking any responsibility for what you're breaking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I won't making anymore links. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Just stop editing until you know what you're doing. If you're going to make wholesale changes like this, find out if you're doing the right thing beforehand if you're not willing to clean the fecal matter that you introduce. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to my mentors. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Have your mentors contact me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I contacted them and pointed them here. Please stop editing until you've been mentored. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll just concentrate on spelling corrections, until they arrive. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, you have read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, yes? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I know a misspelled word, when I see one. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Could I get some diffs here, so I can get an understanding of what's going on? Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You could look at his edit history and search for the word "country" and look at those but since I'm here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Barzel&diff=prev&oldid=476200345
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shea_Salinas&diff=prev&oldid=476192804
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haddock_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=476189355
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoadley&diff=prev&oldid=476185606
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piero_Cappuccilli&diff=prev&oldid=476184234
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lat%C3%A9co%C3%A8re_14&diff=prev&oldid=476184089
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heroine_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=476183577

and the issue is WP:OVERLINK. That's what he did, but the problem is that he refused to undo the more than 100 changes he made to the policy after he was asked to undo the mess he made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And all the edits over linking (GoodDay those indeed are over linking) use the "link to country" edit summary? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've stopped linking to countries & constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure what you're asking, but all of his overlinking include the word "country". Some use "constituent country". However, the issue is not what his edit summary stated, it was his refusal to correct his "fixes".

He may not know not to change between English variants as per his response here. He may know a "misspelled" word, but would he correct a "misspelt" word to become a "misspelled" word in violation of MOS:ENGVAR? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me where they changed a word between US and British English? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He may not know not to change between English variants as per his response. I'm not is monitor so I'm not going to watch for ENGVAR issues, I just want you to be aware of this. Now back to his refusal to correct the intentional WP:OVERLINK violations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"intentional WP:OVERLINK violations"? GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I would appreciate if you could show me where he changed spelling from one variant to another, so I can indeed see the problem for myself, and explain it to him. The over link issues I have noted they were indeed over linking, but I don't think they were intentional. GoodDay, if a user comes to you with what they feel is an issue, and you do not feel you were doing the wrong thing, please ask either me or DBD so we can point you in the right direction. Walter was indeed correct here. You should also try and resolve issues yourself where possible. We are here to guide you, but at the same time we are not your babysitters. In short, discuss concerns that users raise with you, when in doubt ask us. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Steven Zhang, I think you addressed the correct issue in part.

The ENGVAR issue that I raised was based on a statement, not a specific action, so I don't know if he has made any edits against ENGVAR. I won't be patrolling his edits as that's parochial and unnecessary at best and wikihounding in the worst case.

The OVERLINK issue was also not the problem either. It was an honest mistake.

The problem, the one where he asked me to "take [my] concerns to [his] mentors", is that GoodDay refused to revert his OVERLINK changes after he was informed that they were against guidelines. I call them intentional because GoodDay intentionally refused to fix a problem that GoodDay created. That's intent and malicious. If GoodDay had written something like, "I didn't know it was a problem at that time. Now that I know, I'll go fix the ones you haven't" it would have been fine. However GoodDay wrote, "I rarely go back & revert myself, choosing instead to look forward." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know all the rules (despite having been on the project for over 6 yrs), it's darn near impossible to memorize all of them. Anyways, I'll continue to avoid linking bios to countries & constituent countries. We must be careful not to over-program a bloke. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to memorize rules, I'm asking you to take responsibility for your actions. If you make a change and someone tells you it's wrong, you offer to go and undo them. When someone tells you that you should undo them you don't say, "I rarely go back & revert myself, choosing instead to look forward." I honestly don't think you understand what sort of an person not reverting your mistakes makes you out to be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

They're neither vandalism or desruptive, so I'm not going to go through them. I can though, go through bio articles that already had links 'country' & 'constituent country' & deletes those. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, they're unconstructive and I would argue that they are actually disruptive. You violated a guideline. You didn't do it knowingly, but you did violate it. As I was fixing your disruptive editing, I saw a handful of articles that were watched where your edits were reverted shortly after you made them. You disrupted those pages for those editors not me. And as for logic, I don't think anyone has a problem with editors who unknowingly making edits against policy, but when they're informed, and refuse to fix the edits against guidelines, they're not being constructive. You made more than 100, and you outright refused to undo them. That simply makes you an unconstructive editor. See template:uw-vandalism1. Wow! Editing in a way that is not constructive is vandalism. And since you can't even spell "disruptive" I suggest that you stay away from fixing the spelling on Wikipedia too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, if you make edits that are against a policy or guideline, you indeed are obligated to fix your mistake. If you have not yet done so, then please do. Walter, you said there were over 100 edits made that overlinked but I could only see a few edits. Mind pointing them out? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, but I don't think all of them are overlinked situations. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy smokers, which ones am I suppose to revert? I check through & Gorlitz's has reverted everyone I've checked. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:GoodDay/Overlinks. 161. There were a few others that may have been hidden along with other edits made around the same time, so I rounded down to 100. I have reverted every last one that other editors didn't get to first. I said so several times. Just goes to show you that I wasted my time writing too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

May I have a list of the articles you 'haven't' reverted? GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think WG is overreacting. Leaving the overlinks in place is not a huge stain on the project, and asking GD to make reverting them a priority is a bit rude, and getting angry when he refuses is worse. It would be different if we were talking about a huge error or something at just a few pages, but getting upset that GD won't do something that could more easily be fixed by using AWB or asking the person who uses the script that eliminates overlinks to take care of it. -Rrius (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rrius. I've tried, but couldn't find the articles-in-question that WG's concerned about. He's basically reverted many of my edits. GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm overreacting? I didn't ask him to make it a priority, I just asked him to do it. When he didn't, I took care of it. And I didn't get angry or upset I simply stated unequivocally that it was wrong to shirk his responsibilities. So now that I've dealt with your hyperbole I'll add that there are no scripts, to my knowledge, that deal with overlinking.

As for the list of articles that have not been reverted (remember I didn't do all of them) I don't have one nor will I make one, but I believe I looked at all of the possibilities.

And no, I didn't revert all of your edits, I reverted the overlinks that were not already done. The rest of your edits I left untouched. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Which ones though, assuming you've reverted all the edits that created over-links? GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hyperbole? You said, "What a child. Just stop editing if you're going to do it without taking any responsibility for what you're breaking." And you have managed to turn this into quite a long conversation just because GD wouldn't do something that wasn't important for anyone to do. You reject "angry" and "upset" as "hyperbole", but you clearly care a great deal and in a way tinged with negative feelings. If that isn't upset, then insert your own adjective. As for scripts, if that's correct then I wonder what those edit summaries with WP:OVERLINK and the word "script" in them are all about. -Rrius (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@GoodDay I've written it several times but so just so you can stop wondering: you do not have any reverts to do. Some other editors reverted some of the overlinks, and I reverted the remaining. I did not revert all of your overlinks though, there are other editors who find following Wikipedia guidelines important and they did it before I got there. Some were done shortly after you applied the edits.

FWIW, the reason I had been linking bio articles to 'countries' & 'constituent countries', was because it was already done on many other bio articles. I just went by those. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I understand. And as I have written, that's not the problem. I do know that you won't be overlinking any further which is comforting. Thanks for the clarification. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Rrius Yes, hyperbole. If someone being called a child is angry, you should see what I see on Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance‎. Maybe I've become desensitized. Sorry if you thought that I was lashing out. I wasn't. I was being firm. And as for your nonsense about not being important, sorry you don't think Wikipedia guidelines are important. Perhaps you should find something important to do. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if this discussion is still a productive one. Might I suggest that GoodDay takes note to respond to concerns in a timely manner, and correct his mistakes if they are raised to him, and leave it at that? I think GoodDay has gotten "the point". Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 07:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed provided WG looks up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary (hint: regardless of whether he rejects the word "angry", it wasn't meant as exaggeration) and learns not to get nasty with people when they don't want to go back and correct minor, yes minor, violations of guidelines (he wasn't adding OR or NPOV material after all), then we can leave it there. -Rrius (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Hi. Could you indicate exactly where Wikipedia:MOSBD says that dates of births should be removed if the date of death is unknown? I can't see this. In the meantime could you please revert your change and discuss on the Robert Burns talk page, as you have already been requested. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MOSBD says to use (b.YEAR) for people still living & those 2 women-in-question aren't living. Also, one of my mentors already suggested it would likely be better to delete if we had no clues about the death date or estimate death date. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I did. There was very little info about them two women in the article, not enough to ascertain their last known period of activity, so removing the date of birth seems the correct course of action to take here. GoodDay is 100% correct here, putting only the DOB is incorrect, per WP:MOSDB. Put "death date unknown" if you really have to, but really, it seems to me to be common sense to just remove it. If you can find in some reliable sources the years they were last active, put that in (DOB - after year of last activity), but otherwise, just remove itl. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I was reverted (again) by Mais oui!. I'll just leave those errors in the article-in-question, since it's causing so much hassle. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC

Link me. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I still do not see where Wikipedia:MOSBD says that dates of births should not be used if the dates of death are unknown. I see the style specified for those that are living, but nowhere does it say that this style should not be used for those where the date of death is unknown. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Common sense? While unlikely, the prescience of the date of birth only is confusing, it leads one to believe they may be alive. Go with (year - date of death unknown) if you must. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Common sense would suggest that someone born in 1762 is not alive, so I doubt it is likely to confuse. Adding "date of death unknown" seems pointless clutter unless this is particularly significant. Wikipedia doesn't generally point out what isn't known, unless that it is notable that it isn't known. In these cases, I doubt their date of deaths matter much, which isn't the case for their births. But of course, this would all be better discussed on the talk page.... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If it'll help settle things, sure. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

note

Hi GoodDay - I saw it getting a little heated here - and I have asked user Mais oui to rather contact your mentors with his problem. diff - Youreallycan 17:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not his mentors' behaviour I have a problem with. It is GoodDay's.--Mais oui! (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No Mais, you're the problem. You're deliberately trying to antagonize & bait me into a fight, with the hope of getting me topic-banned or indef blocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Tell him immediately to stay off your talk page GoodDay. Youreallycan 17:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Per agreement at my Rfc/U, I shouldn't ban anybody from here. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, I am inclined to agree. I can see no real purpose behind your recent postings here, Mais oui!. They certainly added nothing to the discussion that had already been taking place. I find even less purpose trying to re-link to what GoodDay removed. You made your point, now move on. Resolute 18:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

These last 2 days, isn't the first incident of him harassing me. If I recall, he annoyed some 'bout 2-3 months ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree here. Mais oui is not acting in a productive way, and isn't even reading policy, just blindly calling GoodDay's edits bad. I'd suggest they raise any legitimate concerns with us, and do so without the sarcasm and cheek. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment left at British, English, United Kingdom, England

Your comment "Oh boy, did you ever step into a hornet's nest. " is not helpful and does nothing other than to make the editor (and others) suspect (wrongly) that they may be flamed for having raised a question in the first place. Please refrain from cluttering talk pages with such. Thank you. Endrick Shellycoat 10:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment was quite accurate, concerning the devolutionist PoV tilt to all those articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The nationalist POV tilt is your nonsense GoodDay, you have never been able to back it up. continuing to sling it around without evidence is yet another failure to assume good faith. Adding comments such as those mentioned is disruptive behaviour. it's one of the things you promised to change but you are lapsing back into bad habits----Snowded ^TALK 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mention nationlist or devolutionist PoV, in my post. Best you take your paranoia elswhere. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, that last sentence is beyond the pale. I suggest you strike it-immediately.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Which do you rather? Have the newbie get into endless argument that he can't win (and thus get himself into alot of drama) or would you rather have the newbie 'walk away' from it entirely. I rather the newbie 'walk away'. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, again. My request was merely that you refrain from making 'drive-by' one-liners of a witty/snide, depending on one's PoV, nature, on article talk pages. Instead, and only if you really can't help yourself, might I suggest you confine such hit'n'runs to the talk pages of individual editors, as you did here. I'm sure that editors will be happy to advise if such are regarded as welcome additions, or otherwise, to their talk pages. If you should feel the need to warn-off an editor from a particular article/subject on the basis of your own past experiences, please do so on their talk page; although your experience re. matters concerning the Northwest European Archipeligo are as much the product of your own opinions/behaviour, as they are of those whose opinions run to the contrary. Thank you.Endrick Shellycoat 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's alright. Your advise is welcomed here. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Spelling: advice. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom

Please withdraw this comment, which is highly provocative. If not, I would ask your mentors to take appropriate action. I assume they watch this page; otherwise I would contact them direct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll withdraw, but only at your request. PS: I'm appalled at the censurship though. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Graçias. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this forced censurship of my post, only strengthens my view on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with censorship; you are being provocative to other editors, and unhelpful to a new editor in particular. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The post is scratched, let's move on. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How was it provocative? — JonC^ॐ 15:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Best to walk away from it, Jonchapple. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just read it as you being honest, and telling the lad that he's outnumbered so may as well nip it in the bud. Useful advice to save him the hassle you put yourself through. — JonC^ॐ 15:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that's how I meant it. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

DownBoy!

Mate, please don't poke the bears! ;) DBD 15:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's alright DBD. They've won their little battle. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Fyi, [1] Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So noted. PS: I'll accept a topic-ban, for your & DBD's sake. It's my worry, that had such a topic-ban not been advised by both of you? attacks would've came both your ways. I don't want you guys to face the incivility, that I've faced. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey GD, hope you don't mind some genuine well-meaning observations for you. First, it's great you acknowledge that there is a problem. But. I don't think you actually understand what the problem really is. Not once have you admitted that anything you have done was wrong and/or stupid. Instead, most of the time you're trying to pass it off as other people's problems and nothing really to do with any of your own behaviour. Even your (martyr-like) comments above that you'll accept the topic-ban to save your mentors from grief is simply a demonstration of the inability on your part to acknowledge where your own behaviour causes the problem. Sometimes editors don't want to change their ways. It would be great to see a statement from you somewhere acknowledging what you believe the problem to be, and why you have been unable to work within the site policies to date, and what changes you believe are necessary within your own behaviour. That would go a long way to resolving these problems. Good luck. --HighKing (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Righty/wrongly, there's an un-friendly atmosphere around those artcles, not to mention other concerns (which I won't elaborate on). That un-friendly atmosphere was there before I arrived & will be there after my topic ban takes effect. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, those articles happen to be controversial ones and as such the debates can get rather intense over there. But I wouldn't say the atmosphere was "unfriendly". There are other areas where there is far more hostility manifested, such as this page (as you must have observed yourself): Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. If one dares to disagree with the party line of Oswald-acted-alone-the-Warren-Report-says-so, that person swiftly is dressed in a blue boiler suit and hooded!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Ownership/Civility breaches are common. IMHO, some of the editors hanging around the British & Irish articles, are just too emotionally involved. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That comment shows the continuing depth of your misunderstanding. The bottom line is that WP - specifically, the writing of WP articles - is not a forum or chatroom in which being "friendly" is important. (Being "civil" is quite important, however.) It's an opportunity to build an encyclopedia based, not on "opinions", but on reliable sources. If you, or any editor, were to bring reliable sources to an article talk page, with an open mind and without any personal opinions evident, they will be welcomed with open arms by serious editors, as contributors towards making a better encyclopedia. People who only bring their opinions to the talk pages - repeatedly, over and over and over again - are simply not welcome, because they have nothing to contribute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources, that meet the approval of the owners. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Any Reliable Source. Can you mention just one single occasion where you brought a reliable source to a Talk page but it didn't meet the "approval" of other editors? --HighKing (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There was one situation, but I can't remember which article or discussion (per it being quite some time ago). I do remember Daicaregos immediately rejecting it. But, that's my super-memory for you. Oh well, like I said, I've been basically topice banned from those articles for years. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've been checking the User-pages of the editors who are eagerly supporting my topic-ban. Let's just call my findings 'coincidences'. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if you can only remember one use of a source (or rather can't remember it) out of the thousands of posting of opinions it kinda says it all doesn't it? If you don't learn from this then the issue will come up again and I sense the leniency of the community it not infinite. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The community hasn't given my topic-ban a ringing endorsement, possible out of indifference. I don't vandalize articles, nor tamper with others posts, nor engage in continous edit-wars, nor do I have sock-puppets or engage in meat-puppetry. There are a few editors around the British & Irish articles (who are from those areas), that are too emotionally involved with those articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. Hope you enjoyed my user-page. Unlike some, I make no secret of my politics; they're there for all to see. However, if you were to place words on your user-page to the effect that you were a fully paid-up member of the SNP, (as I am - shock-horror, moi, a nationalist, whatever next!), I'd still support your remaining clear of Brirish articles. It is your contributions to these articles which is at issue - not the fact that you're a republican Canuk; which is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. If you placed on the Scotland article information suggesting that the entire country's inhabitants toasted the Union Flag with a large G&T at 8pm every evening to the skirl of the pipes, then that'd be fine by me; just so long as you placed a WP:RS along with it. This is the means by which all your contributions are judged; nothing more, nothing less. Endrick Shellycoat 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said - "too emotionally involved". GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume from that statement that living in this country and taking an active interest in how both it and I, as a resident, are governed, makes me "too emotionally involved" to contribute to this project. Perhaps I should start editing Canada instead; about which I know nothing other than what was gleaned from a few days spent in Victoria. Having taken both the Flag of Scotland and Royal Standard of Scotland articles to WP:GA status, and achieved my only Barnstar via contributions to Royal Observer Corps, can you point out to me which edits I made to any of these articles would suggested I'm "too emotionally involved"? I look forward to seeing the evidence in support of your previous assertion. Endrick Shellycoat 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You're free to edit Canadian political articles, obviously. It wouldn't surprise if there are Canadian editors who might have clashes with you. It's not just the British & Irish editors that are protective of their domains. FWIW, I don't have Canada or any Canadian related articles on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question... Endrick Shellycoat 00:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You've answerd the question for me, by meerly being upset over my "too emotionally involved" observation & expressing your upsetness 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay...step away from the dead horse. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking countries and constituent countries

You are leaving edit summaries that say "We're not suppos to link to geography. Thus deleting link to country". Where, in WP:MOSLINK, does it say that? Major countries like United States or England, yes, but not minor ones like Wales or Uruguay. Unless you're just trying to be provocative, please try to avoid getting into more trouble on another issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter Gorlentz said we can't linke to geography in bio intros. Example: this is wrong [Wales|Welsh] is wrong; but this [Welsh people|Welsh] is right. [Canada|Canadian] is wrong; [Canadians|Canadian] is right. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Who? Where? In that case, you need to change the pipelinks, not delete them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna do that latter (as I like doing such gnome edits), but I'm not certain if I'll be allowed to on the British & Irish bios, if I'm topic banned (thus my request for clarification at ANI). Anways, Walter Gorlintz brought up his concerns about WP:OVERLINK. He growled me for linking to countries & constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." So Ghmyrtle defines major locations as United States and England but not Wales or Uruguay. Care to elaborate so there's a bright line. At what point is a geographic area major and when is it minor. I take that to be linking to cities, provinces or states is acceptable while countries are major and not to be linked-to. So for me, all of those locations are fairly major. Also, I tend to remove links to countries if a city or province is already linked. So Montevideo, Uruguay is the way I would list a subject's birth place or the location of an event.

I wouldn't link to a people group either (Welsh People or Canadians), but I don't know if that's advisable for others. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll hold off from linking/delinking the countries/people & constituent countries people, until you both can decide on how I should proceed. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to link to groups of people rather than the countries themselves, that's no problem for me. But that's not what you were doing. You were removing all the pipelinks, wholesale, apparently on the basis of another editor's interpretation of guidelines, and without any proper explanation. That's not advisable, particularly when you know that your editing behaviour is under very close scrutiny. If you want to start a discussion on trying to get consistency over this, why not raise it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking? If it's important, it's a matter for community discussion, not some bilateral or trilateral discussion between editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'll seek clarification there. GoodDay (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• GoodDay, the general practice is not to link country-names or denonyms that English-speakers are generally expected to recognise—unless there's some particular reason to do so. In almost every case, a section-link or a link to a (more specific) article is superior in terms of reader utility; however, that raises the problem of deceptive pipes. To fit the grammar of a sentence, one might consider "is an [[American_immigration#Demographics|American]] actor", but no one will click on it, sadly. That's why we ration links, applying our editorial experience and knowledge of the topic-networks to display only what we believe is probably the most useful set of links. There's also the "See also" section at the bottom, which doesn't need to pipe, of course. Thanks for your good work! Tony (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then de-linking is best, from both country/constituent country & people articles? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Different editors will continue to disagree over how the guidelines should be interpreted. It seems to me that any changes made without a very clear and specific justification in each case may well become contentious, and are best avoided. Without such a clear and specific justification, leaving well alone would be best, in current circumstances. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No prob. I'll wait until & if there's an agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a clutch of editors who will never agree with the guidelines; don't be concerned about this, since there's wide community support for not linking, for example, "United States", "American", "UK", "British", "English", "Australia", "Australian", and the well-known countries of Europe. Included in the list are probably India, China, Russia et al. and their denonyms. Now, these links might be retained in highly related articles: "List of X in the United States", "History of race relations in the UK", etc. But in normal circumstances, no. Many editors have been unlinking these unhelpful links for some years and will continue to do so. Any 10 year old child anywhere in the world who is on the internet knows what "American" means, and linking for the sake of linking weakens the linking system; please do not be intimidated by arguments to the contrary—others take no notice. As I said above, specific section and daughter-article links are acceptable where relevant. Links to continents (Europe, Asia, etc) are generally not useful. Please note the first PILLAR of WP, which says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Last time I looked, "United States", "Canada", and "Australia, for example, are prominently dealt with at wiktionary. [2]. End of issue. I'm sorry you've been exposed to this matter in such a way. Please keep up your good work. You might also be interested to look briefly at the gnoming of User:Colonies Chris, who is one of our most skilled, meticulous gnomes. Contribs page. Kind regards. Tony (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to decide which course to take. Ghmyrtle figures I should completely drop the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, since you gnome (the essence of wikis, I believe), could I pass by you the possibility of installing Greg U's superb dash script? It fixes a number of issues, including the troublesome use of hyphens to indicate ranged numbers (1981–84, not 1980-84). Many articles benefit from the quick click as you gnome, especially as Windows keyboards don't have easy access to the en dash (although it's a button underneath the edit-box on WP). The script is one of our most successful and is uncontroversial. Very occasional false positives have been fixed by the script's author over the years. Cheers, Tony (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find the button on my keyboard, for the extended hyphen. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

I have just closed the ANI thread on the topic ban proposed by your mentors and agreed to by you. You are banned from pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed. This topic ban will be lifted when you have demonstrated to your mentors that such a restriction is no longer necessary, and can be re-applied by them if necessary. This topic ban has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. T. Canens (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Titch Tucker

It's hard to realise our friend Titch has been gone for three years already. The anniversary of his death was 20 February. I still miss him, he was a jewel.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I miss him aswell. Hopefully, his children have taken up Wiki-editing. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Lengthened"

Hi. When you give the edit summary "lengthened", it appears as if you're saying that you lengthened the article in some way. To use this when, in fact, what you are lengthening is a hyphen to an n-dash, as in this edit, seems a bit misleading. Please use a more descriptive edit summary, such as "changed hyphen to n-dash." Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Howabout "Lengthened hyphen"? GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The hyphen only has one length, what you've done is change a hyphen for another character. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

My changes make the hyphen longer. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, they do not. They change the short horizontal mark between things from a short character, the hyphen, to a longer character, the &ndash. That's not lenthening the hyphen, because the hyphen is no longer there. Please use another edit summary which accurately represents what you've done, and please do so at all times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What would be the proper wording for what I'm doing? GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Fixed hyphen" is sufficient, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary I use for those cases is just "dashes". (I'm not suggesting it's perfect.) DBD 10:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessary to elaborate on the edit summary. Dashes, fixed hyphens, etc. are pretty self-explanatory IMO.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Numbers

I notice that you are making a lot of edits changing numbers over ten from words to numerals. Please be advised that this is not necessary. The MOS guideline says:

As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred) (emphasis added)

Please note the "or" which I've underlined, and keep in mind the general convention on Wikipedia that changing something for the sake of changing it when it is not necessary to do so is not encouraged. The words that you changed to numbers were perfectly accetable as words, and therefor your changes were not an improvement. Please make edits that improve the encycylopedia, and not edits for the sake of making edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

May I plead WP:IAR? GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's probably best to not make edits like those, GoodDay. It may fall under WikiGnoming, but there's lots more in WP:BACKLOG that could use your help. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 10:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

March 3 vs 4

The sources say that the term ended on March 3. Sometimes the actual session ended on March 2, if March 3 was a Sunday. Sometimes the actual session had a late session lasting until the early motning of March 4, if there was a lot of business to be finished. Both things are irrelevant to the legal length of the term as stated by the sources. Nevertheless, some people (who thaught they had found out some secret real truth) have argued about the issue, I've read long archived discussions on this, with neither side budging. It comes down to what the sources say, and so far as I'm aware of, it is that the term ends on March 3, see here, for example. Kraxler (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The pre-1935 terms ended at Noon EST March 4, every 2yrs for Representatives & every 6yrs for Senators. Just like the pre-1937 terms of Presidents & Vice Presidents ended at Noon EST March 4, evry 4yrs. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say. The term ended on March 3. The session was adjourned sometimes on March 2, sometimes in the early hours on March 4, as stated above. So, all members who completed a legal term, are recorded as serving from March 4 to March 3. After 1935, this changed, as to be seen here, for example, now the term is January 3 to January 3, independent of if there really was a session on January 3, as there are still no regular sessions on Sunday. Everything else is WP:Original research, sorry. Kraxler (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are in error. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Kraxler, but you are wrong. It was settled as 12:00 on March 4 to 12:00 on March 4 for most of the period preceding the 20th Amendment, and often the practice for rest of the time.[3] -Rrius (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We have to be careful. From 1851 to 1935, it was March 4 at noon to March 4 at noon. Before then, it was hotly debated, with Congress sometimes going past midnight and sometimes refusing to. -Rrius (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There's alot of inconsistencies on those pre-1935 Congressional bio articles, which were there 'before' I began my changes. Some used March 4, while others use March 3. We may have to visit this topic again, at the related WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

To declare the sources in error is not only OR, but outrageous. This has been debated for a long time, as I stated above I've seen some giga bytes of archived discussion here. The website you cite has a copy-edited essay, not really a what I would call a "source". Ok, in 1851 the Senate passed a resolution, binding on no-one but the then present senators. What about the House? Federal laws must pass both Houses to become a law. Besides, as I said, there is a difference between term and session. I'm with the Government Printing Office here. No reason to start an edit war about this, or would you like to have it arbitrated? I'm ready to argue before the Arbitration Committee. Kraxler (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no source more reliable then the US Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, please give me a link to where the US Constitution says that the term ends on March 4. Kraxler (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Article I, deals with Congressional terms of office. It states a Representatives term is 2 yrs & a Senators term is 6 yrs. Mid-night would seem a strange time for the ending of one term & commencing of another, particularly in the days of candle-light. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kraxler, you are acting as though there is just one uniform position held by all sources, and that GD and I are just willy-nilly going along and fighting it. The fact is, actual sessions for Congresses lasted beyond midnight of March 3/4 in various years. Sometimes the sitting members of Congress believed their terms ended at midnight, sometimes at the following noon. At least before 1851. That was more than just a resolution affecting a single group of senators. From that point forward, there was no longer any real question as to whether it was midnight or noon. The source you point to is absolutely useless. It looks at the fact that in the early years the practice was to end at midnight and carries that forward for the entire March-4 era. It uses March 3 as the end date even when it is demonstrable from the Congressional Globe, the Congressional Record or, indeed, a specific resolution of the Senate. An article from the Senate Historical Office is of higher quality than the sources you link to above, which are not meant to settle, or even discuss, the issue. They are also not contemporary documents. Again, they are totally useless as a guide. For Congresses beginning with the 1849–51 one, March 4 at noon is the end point because that Senate resolution set a precedent that was followed thereafter. Bills that were passed after midnight were not declared unconstitutional, so legally we have to take it that those post-midnight periods were valid. For Congresses before then, it as to be taken case by case. Where a Congress demonstrably ended after midnight, it is a noon on March 4; for the others, March 3 is okay. For consistency, though, where lists use dates, they should use March 4 since, again, there were Congresses that demonstrably ended after midnight. I realize there is a desire to just have a clear answer, but the actual members of the two houses did not have one, so we aren't going to have one either. -Rrius (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You still do not understand the difference between "term" and "session". You aslo do not know to correctly evaluate the force of the Constitution (which in Article I does not state any date, I've looked it up), a federal law (must pass both Houses in three readings) and a resolution (an ad-hoc decision of the majority, bending the law either way). A resolution does not change the past, and is at best a precedent, bot not binding, for the future. I trust the government knows about it's own affairs. As it stands, the listings of the GPO are the accepted truth. The session, if going beyond midnight was recorded as having been held entirely on the legislative day of March 3, and your own "Source" blatantly misstates the facts (it's really laughable what people offer as a "source" here). Read the original Journal of the Senate! Kraxler (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And in a related issue . . .

Since there's a gathering of experts here, could someone explain to me what happened in the 1990s to all this start of Congress stuff? For all of my life, until 1995, Congress started a new term on January 3, unless the 3rd was a Sunday, in which case they began on Monday the 4th. Then, in 1995, They began on Wednesday, January 5th. Since then, it seems they have begun on the 5th or even the 6th almost every term. What's going on? Do any of you know? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The US Constitution says that a Representatives term in 2yrs & a Senators term in 6yrs, therefore it must be the 3rd to the 3rd. These are fixed terms. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of that. But why, ca. 15 years ago, did they change the day on which they opened the term and swore in the members? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, but I know the Constitution allows the House & Senate to decide when to have the swearing-ins, as long as it's not before 'January 3'. PS: exceptions being those elected/appointed to fill in vacancies. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly because of the Christmas and New Year vacation travel rush. To be in Washington on January 2 to caucus for Speaker and President pro tem, they would have to go with the thickest crowd, and couln't even sleep off the New Year hangover, but that's just a guess... Kraxler (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The caucus decisions on their respective leadership teams are made in December, so that is irrelevant. And yes, it seems to be about travel (keep in mind that families show up for the swearing-in, and there are numerous parties). -Rrius (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment?

Hi. Would you like to comment here about a requested move? It involves ".com" in the article title and WP:COMMONNAME. Dan56 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these edits please?

See 2.27.169.170 (talk · contribs) - is this correct (and come to think of it, any chance it's a banned user, ie PMAnderson?). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's a banned editor, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For openers ...

		The Hockey Barnstar
		For your work on hockey articles over the years, you're part of the original Hockey Barnstar class! Ravenswing 01:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ravenswing. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations GoodDay!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Man, so many will be so upset! Congrats!! Raul17 (talk)17:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of diacritics put you over the top! Raul17 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, I was gonna remove dios from the List of NHL retired numbers article, but myself & Djsasso already agreed to leave dios alone. He won't add them anywheres & I won't delete them. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What?!! Damn I better get a tutor! Raul17 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

He & I are also interaction banned from each other. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada

Hello. Regarding the discussion at Template talk:Music of Canada, in which you have been involved, a MedCab case has been opened and User:Lord Roem has kindly volunteered to mediate. Please indicate at the MedCab page (here, specifically) if you accept Lord Roem as an intercessor. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, he's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation case update

Hello! I am Lord Roem, the mediator for a mediation cabal case you are involved in. Please take the time to post an opening statement per the guidelines listed on the talk page here. A short, but focused summary of the issues at hand, and your position on them would aid my ability to guide the mediation to success. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Leaders of the Opposition (Canada)

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/mgm/#fN_3_

Kndimov (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you showing me this link? GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Replication Lag

Blasted all, my edit-pie chart hasn't worked in nearly 2 weeks -- GRRRR. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Banned

GoodDay, I have the unfortunate task of informing you that you are permanently banned from Wikipedia for gross incivility, personal attacks and offensive profanity bordering on the obscene. I'm sorry to be the bearer of evil tidings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy April Fools' Day, Jeanne ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha!! Raul17 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello GoodDay. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to pass, Steven. Farm work, is giving me little time or energy, these days. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Stubborn editors"

It is rather interesting, and somewhat amusing, to note that you complained at WP:Baseball about "STUBBORN editors with personal preferences", then proceed to add nothing to the discussion by stubbornly repeating your personal preference over and over again even though most others are moving on to other aspects of the discussion. Please, just stop trying to create drama for no purpose. This is the exact behaviour that led to your being hauled before ANI and RFC. Resolute 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your response confirms my observation. Now stop pushing WP:CANADA, accept that the Expos are now the Nationals & support the merging of the articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Banda

We shold just warn him, and if he continues report him. Seems hes quite clearly against consensus.Lihaas (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, as he's becoming disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Another Banda thought

I have placed this on the Joyce Banda talk page, but thought it might be useful here as well. Let's discuss it further on the Banda talk page. This is just FYI.

• @GoodDay, look over other infoboxes and see if the infobox ever includes an ordinal number before the office. I have done a quick search and have not found any yet. If there are no other heads of state who have such a number included in the infobox office, then it seems more in keeping with Wikipedia's practice not to include the ordinal number. Any thoughts?

• Look these over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Current_national_leaders drs (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Some have them, some don't. The most prominant to have them, are the American Presidents, Canadian Prime Ministers, Australian Prime Ministers, New Zealand Prime Ministers, Russian Presidents (to name a few). Monarchs aren't numbered. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

French Presidents

Howdy, I agree that Sarkozy is still in office, but shouldn't you still show the day he leaves office, unless for some reason he gets asassinated between then? Then the article can be re-edited, but I'm just curious to know why you'd wait. Lastly, I come in peace, and have good intentions. Sincerely, Supafreak9999

His departure date is already shown via the inauguration date of Hollande. We must remember, Sarkozy could die or choose to resign, before his term expires. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, and I agree, and speaking of leaders I also think that so far the best prime minister we have had, is Robert Borden, what about you, because it also seems like you are in to politics as well.

Yeah, Borden ranks up there at the top. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad someone agrees, because it seems even though our Prime Minister is Conservative, most of the people have Liberal views, which seems to be a reason why most people don't rank the Conservatives high, also, don't get me wrong, I like William Lyon Mackenzie King too, even though I'm moderate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supafreak9999 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

King lost pts with, when he tried to get the UK involved with events in 1926. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You sure know your politics, but compared to John Turner and Paul Martin, he's one of the better liberals, and also, our first ever prime minister was Conservative, so we should be getting a little more praise from the liberals. Conservatism rocks!

Not the same Conservative party, but there's a link. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, true, same with the United States president Franklin Pierce, he was considered a conservative at his time, but had very liberal beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supafreak9999 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A Democrat. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, around there, they have Independents, Republicans, and Democrats. The Democrats run on a liberal agenda, while the Republican have a conservative belief, one of my favorite Republican presidents around there is Ronald Reagan, and even though I'm not a left wing, I must say that Harry S. Truman, is one of the better Democrats they've had, and in the U.K., it's mainly the Labour and Conservative parties, sorry if I'm confusing you a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supafreak9999 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not confused. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being sincere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supafreak9999 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

This is to notify you that, though you have not been named, a matter to which you are related has been raised at WP:ANI. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Calling someone a "... monarchist POV-pusher," as you did here seems contrary to WP:CIV. Would you please strike out, or remove this comment? Sunray (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've complied, but my concerns are growing about the Canadian monarchist PoV pushing. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool. POV pushing is always annoying. The only course, IMO is to refer them to WP:WEIGHT and WP:VER. Sunray (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Fame

You're in with the In-Crowd baby! I just saw a blog where you were being discussed. Remember what Andy Warhol predicted?!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Was I given a bad review? GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No. A group of people were discussing the British Isles dispute here and you were brought up as being a Canadian Republican who'd joined the fray.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Betcha they were surprised that I supported the article's title. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

They were, actually.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, it shows that I'm a NPoV editor. Thus my ban from British & Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oi, mate.

Don't feed the trolls, yeah? Good man. DBD 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I read ya ;) GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Behave :-) Steven Zhang ^Talk 23:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thelus Lero

Hello. Firstly, who are you, why are you following my edits, and why are you on my Talk Page? As regards your question about WP:Moving a page, take Thélus Léro as an example. The only sources in the article are in French, not surprising given that he was a Martiniquais communist politician. The source in the article is Dictionnaire des parlementaires français. And what is your question exactly? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm an editor who believe english should be used on English language Wikipedia - imagine that. You shouldn't be unilaterally moving articles to diacritical titles, particularly when this is English language Wikipedia. I'm quite concerned with these moves as they come across as arrogant in nature & they disregard the 'dispute' over the topic diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to your view, but I'm not aware that there is a dispute about French politicians where the only source is www.senat.fr (for example http://www.senat.fr/senateur-4eme-republique/lero_thelus0126r4.html etc). This is the first time I have ever come across anyone objecting to editing an article in accordance with the only available sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You're making mass page moves without benefit of RMs & so you're bound to get somebody's attention. As for diacritics in a French person's name? leave those for the French language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Again you are welcome to your view but perhaps you may not have seen the following guideline:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) "If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers,..."

Likewise you may also wish to browse around Category:French politicians. Cheers and take care :). In ictu oculi (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't policies (i.e the 5 pillars). Leave the diacritics for the non-English Wikipedias & please stop unilaterally moving pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps it's better if you talk to someone else about this, yes. For example you seem to be on some kind of mentor programme, am I right? You are totally free to discuss, object, or even revert edits or moves you don't agree with, but the recent edits I'm assuming you're referring to, Mohamadou Djibrilla Maïga, Thélus Léro, Victor Sablé, Camille Darsières, etc. are completely within the frame of normal wp editing and sourcing guidelines, as I said, please look at the sources and the category. Best wishes :) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Those shouldn't have been moved without benefit of an RM. It wouldn't have been too much trouble to have gone that route, even if the end result was 'to move'. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If you wish there are a couple of other Martiniquais politicians that I was working on which were also stubbed incorrectly, the http://www.senat.fr/senateur-4eme-republique/etifier_raphael0458r4.html for example, if you wish I could the remaining 5 or 6 through RM if you wish to see how people view them: Raphael Etifier, Rene Jadfard, Frederic Jalton, Jose Moustache Edouard Chammougon, if that would make you feel more comfortable? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC) ‎

Please do, put those up for RMs & revert the unilateral page moves, you've already made. I don't have the freedom to unilaterally 'move' pages to non-diacritics titles or to revert your page moves. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the 5-6 new French politicians will achieve the same result, and if they don't pass I'll revert the others myself, but I'm less sure it sends the right message to be preemptively reverting perfectly legitimate sourced edits, even as good faith to you when 1 person objects. These aren't controversial areas like tennis or hockey players after all. Let me think about that. I have to go offline for a time now, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just not a fan of 'mass page' moving, particularly in the diacritics area. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. That's understandable. FWIW I'm not sure there are 'masses' left undiacritic (outside hockey and tennis of course) anyway, in fact surprisingly most of the recent corrections I've made have actually been corrections of bungled diacritics, where only 1 accent was present, and turning 1 accent into 2 accents, they weren't actually moves from zero to diacritics. The exceptions are the Martiniquais politicians on http://www.senat.fr since evidently the original editor Gazelle actually tried to create them with French orthography, he just missed some, presumably because of the user-unfriendly way the www.senat.fr website is formatted. I will leave your North American hockey players well alone :) Okay, I'm turning in for the evening, Good night. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember, no more unilateral moves from 'no dios' to 'dios'. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I wish you hadn't said that, I am being nice here. If I choose to do what I said above it's because I choose and because you may find it helpful. Which means, I'm sorry, but you don't get to say what you just said. That's fair isn't it :), now Good night. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who's concerned about your actions. If you don't start going about the RM route, more editors will complain & some of them aren't as nice as me. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(Re: your edit summary) I wasn't trying to provoke anyone, I was trying to get a clarification on whether your statement immediately above is intended as a disguised threat. Because it could be perceived like one. It would have been – and still would be – very easy for you to clarify that it isn't intended that way. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a threat, as I can't accurately predict the future posts of other editors. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain, briefly, exactly what restrictions, voluntary or otherwise you are under in regard to your opposition to accents on foreign names. You say you cannot make/revert page moves on your own, is that a technical issue or a voluntary restriction? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not restricted to unilaterally moving pages from dios to non-dios. I choose not to, as I prefer the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wind your neck in!

Seriously, fella, can't you just relax and not worry about diacritics? I really, really think you just need to give up on this – you are not going to win. Your time is much better used on other pursuits. I am pretty seriously fed up of this particular issue showing you up, because you are, by and large, a fine editor otherwise. DBD 23:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What happened? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I finally caught up on some reading – particularly that whopping section above... DBD 00:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, things have cooled down since then. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone has a concern with you, I'd advise you at least discuss the issue with them. The last comment you removed looked to be in good faith in my view. Steven Zhang ^Talk 03:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the other editor, that keeps 'complaining' to you, as though I were breeching some kinda 'interaction' ban between he/she & I. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you're not under an interaction ban between them, but there's a fine line to be followed, and the editor feels you're watching their edits a bit closely, which is something to avoid. Might be time to work on M*A*S*H or gnoming for a while? Steven Zhang ^Talk 09:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He's just paranoid, 'cause we're on opposite sides of diacritics usage. Anyways, I'll try to avoid him in the future. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, what was the reason for this edit?. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear, and if the common name of the article is indeed Zoë Baird, then doing what you did is really just disrupting an article to make your point. I think you should cease and desist. This is approaching the stage where arbitration may be necessary, imo. Don't let it get to that. Steven Zhang ^Talk 06:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, why is English Wikipedia being forced to accept over-usage of non-English accents. This is NOT suppose to be MULTIPLE LANGUAGE Wikipedia. BTW, why is a certain editor being allowed to continue unilateral page moves to diacritics? GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. A strength of the English language is that it takes in other language conventions, spelling, etc. This is one of the reasons why English has become a prominent language of the world. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get that? The strength of English is that is that it takes in other language words and eventually spells them using the English alphabet. Rarely does it do otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a strength, but merely editors promoting their Swedish, Finnish, Czech, Serbian, French, etc pride. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, putting diacritics where they're meant to be put isn't patriotism, it's proper spelling. Furthermore, removing diacritics from fremd words doesn't make them English, it just makes them misspelt. ~Asarlaí 17:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not proper English spelling. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not English to begin with. Taking a French word with diacritics and removing the diacritics doesn't make it "proper English spelling", it just makes it a misspelt French word. ~Asarlaí 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no diacritics in the English alphabet. You want the dios on Frencho bios? put them in the French Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

They are also informative which is what an encyclopedia is meant to be. If a word or name contains a diacritic we need to use it. Honestly, I don't see why you've taken up a personal crusade on this issue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

They're not informative, as they're of no value to English-only readers. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

They are of value to me and English happens to be my first language so that dog won't bark, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Woof, woof. GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The main thing is using English sources as wikipedia tells us to do. If a foreign person has the entire English press, professional organizations, and even their own personal websites spelling their name differently than in their homeland then by common English sourcing that's what we should be using as a title. Of course in the first line we must also include all the common spellings per wiki guidelines so our readers understand that multiple versions exist. We wouldn't want to censor out anything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to add the 'english' version in the first line of such non-english titled articles & got reverted. GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style re: the use of diacritics

"The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines. Provide redirects from alternative forms that use or exclude diacritics."

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms

Since there is no final word on diacritics, some level of consensus should be sought before making changes in a controversial context. In such context, the reaching for consensus should depend on how the term is spelled in verifiable reliable sources, IMO.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A MoS, made up mostly by pro-dios editors, no doubt. Meanwhile, alternate spelling should be allowed in the intros. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not allow the titles to reflect the common usage in verifiable, reliable sources? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do non-diacritic sources get passed over for diacritics sources? Why is it being ignored, that the English alphabet has no diacritics? GoodDay (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• The WP counsel seems simple enough. If reliable verifiable sources use diacritical marks than the use of such marks has WP's support. If similar sources drop the use of diacritics, as they often do, then those sources have WP support. Wikipedia reports data on a topic. It does not, or should not, provide original research or personal views. You, or I, have personal views on the use of diacritics, but the WP advice is to support the use, or non-use, of diacritics with reliable verifiable sources. The issue is not the English alphabet but documented English usage. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• GoodDay, your troubles are completely avoidable is you read and accept what Donald says above. There's 3 things to remember. Reliable sources. Reliable sources. Reliable sources. In most cases I've come across, once it can be established what it is that reliable sources show, debate over. I've seen cases where there is debate over the reasons why some reliable sources might exclude diacritics, but that is a policy issue, and not an article issue. You need to *stop* putting the same "But it's the English Alphabet" point into *every* discussion, and instead *find* a list of reliable sources and use them to make your point. In fact, I would ban you from contributing from any diacritics discussion until you adopt that approach :-) and I believe that inside a week, you'd see the light. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do 'non-diacritics' sources, tend to get pushed aside for diacritics sources? GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not listening. I'm trying to help. --HighKing (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll start using sources in my RM comments & additions to intros. Meanwhile, page moves concerncing diacrtics should be frozen for now. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)