This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I couldn't help notice you asking after a tally on the Ireland move. I have created one so I might as well leave you a transclusion here. Feel free to remove it or put it elsewhere! :) Best, -- Cameron * 18:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The pages don't have anything like consensus for the moves, though praise to the admin who preformed the moves for closing them. I find it very difficult to see how they can stay where they are if the supporters of the status quo ante bellum become active. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 16:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
He is currently not blocked.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey GoodDay, two more edits and its my 1000th! (one now). Is it too late to go for a place on Arbcom? Titch Tucker ( talk) 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
So yes, it's a bit of a laugh today isn't it. If a coalition government comes in, backed by BQ, we all know it'll last about a month before the Bloc starts demanding something Dion and Layton just aren't willing to grant. It really is politics by the 10 year olds. Canterbury Tail talk 02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, good day GoodDay. I thought you might appreciate this strange bit of vandalism: The Govenor General is a $110,000 random number generator that only outputs zeros, BUT could do something different. Cheers, DoubleBlue ( talk) 13:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been following the drama for a couple of hours now. The news has been so slow that I've started trying to figure out what would happen if Quebec left Canada and joined the US. It's a weird logical progression that involves Harper promising the BQ a referendum. All of this is just in my imagination; like I said, the news has been slow. - Rrius ( talk) 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit I was surprised Harper pulled the trigger; I had put the odds at less than 50%. I guess he usually manages to win the high-stakes stuff, but how is this going to work? - Rrius ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't intend to tar and feather, but I do think this is a pretty big cluster f--k. Frankly, having read some of the debate, I'm the closest I have been to saying, yep, this as a group of moves is a good thing....but the way it was done may have been in good faith, taking it to board etc, but it was certainly not well advised. It smacks of being only a couple of slippery steps away from cabal like behaviour. -- Narson ~ Talk • 21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Honestly? The country would be at RoI or Ireland (Country), Ireland the Island would be at Ireland (island) and the disambig would be at Ireland. I am assumingyou would also bar the plastic paddies. See, policy wise I can see an argument for Ireland (country) and it is the best attempt in a long time for a compromise. The method was just awful though -- Narson ~ Talk • 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I won't make canadian miltiary jokes as I have mates in that service. Anyway, looks like it will end up with the revert and new move. Rest assured, when it comes up, I will go for Ireland (state). -- Narson ~ Talk • 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed your post on Roux's talk page. He clearly stated that he does not want anyone to post there. At this time, I think it may be best just to leave it for now, and wait until Roux is ready to take messages again. Cheers. Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 12:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Some weird shit going on in your Parliament! Is anyone talking about 'constitutional crisis' yet? Has the GG acted well, do you think?-- Gazzster ( talk) 12:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on the comments some people made in response to one of my requests for a change to the article, clearly some think im a sockpuppet. Nimbley seems to be the main trouble maker so id liked to be checked againts him if that is really him and others when they reveal themselves. Perhaps after a process of elimination, there will be no sockpupet characters left for them to suspect me of being. BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You North Americans, always pulling peoples legs. ;) Titch Tucker ( talk) 16:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that, too, but I didn't want to bother figuring out exactly when his last day was and when the vacancy started. I'm starting to think that since he resigned "effective November 16" Does that mean the last time he was a senator was on November 15 and that the vacancy started at midnight on the 16th? - Rrius ( talk) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a weird stat. I wonder if that has to do with it being more desirable these days. - Rrius ( talk) 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the Queen's regnal name is Elizabeth II is irrelevant as she should correctly be Elizabeth I as she is the first Elizabeth to reign over the United Kingdom. Elizabeth II implies that the kingdom of England is synonymous with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.-- Palefire1983 ( talk) 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the article you are referring to. However, you can't compare US presidents to British monarchs. I think you might be one of these people who think that Scotland is nothing more than an English county -- Palefire1983 ( talk) 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. In otherwords, Scotland is not independant (hasn't been since 1707). Again, future UK monarchs will number themselves after either their Scottish or English predecessors (depending on which has the higher regnal number). A future King James, will be James VIII of the United Kingdom (even though England & Wales have only had 2 King James'). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Palefire1983"
I know this already. Can you explain your analogy with regards to Alaska and Hawaii?-- Palefire1983 ( talk) 17:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I mention the fact that there has never been a Queen Elizabeth I of Great Britain in my first message to yourself, sir. That is the very point of our discussion, no? I understand that monarchs will now be numbered by the method you mention, however, this is a new development and I am quite confident that without the complaints of Scottish nationlaists in the mid 20th century, all future UK monrachs would follow the English tradition and be numbered accordingly. I have also never suggested that Scotland is independant or that Scotland has its own head of state or monarch. All I am saying is that a great deal of offence would have beem avoided if we had started from a blank slate in 1707 in relation to regnal numbers.-- Palefire1983 ( talk) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Your Alaska/ Hawaii analogy does not work. In 1707, Scotland did not merely join England. As I have already mentioned, a new country was formed via an act of union. In 1959 (?) Alaska and Hawaii joined the United States; a new country was not created. If a new country was created, like in 1707 in Britain, then Eisenhower would indeed have been the first president of that new country.-- Palefire1983 ( talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
you may want to read "about me". -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 03:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Got it done. He seemed to have a problem with the GG too. - Royalguard11( T) 22:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean Ignatieff is creating a situation where everyone saves face, and a constitutional crisis is avoided? I seem to remember Harper offering the opposition a seat at the table in constructing a budget, so this would allow everyone to call a truce, right? Someone acted like an ass about it, but I think it was Rae or Layton. What do you think? - Rrius ( talk) 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
He'll take a hit for that, but it is easy to get around. "You can't leave the Senate a quarter empty waiting for the opposition to take seriously measures meant to reform that body. What's more, there is little support among the current Senators for reforming their chamber. We need to more Senators, Canadians who reflect the broad support in our country for reforming the second chamber." There, I should have been a speech writer or a PR guy. - Rrius ( talk) 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi GoodDay:
Thanks for your note. I replied on my talk page. CBHA ( talk) 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i can see why it would be useful to add them to list of population / area but the trouble is there are dozens of other examples that belong on the list when exceptions like that are made. Thats why i would rather see one article listing all comparable data on the UK countries which could be linked to instead of having to include the info on international lists where places like England really do not belong. UK belongs on the lists, then someone can click a link next to it taking them to a table on the data article which breaks down the UK countries on the issue.
On another issue i was watching some Canadian news last week on the political crisis there after talking with a friend of mine who lives in Canada. What was very interesting to me was harper and the medias use of the term separatist to describe the Quebec bloc. Here in the UK people with similiar intentions always get called nationalists, never heard em called separatists in the media or by political leaders. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
GD, I notice you always say that Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland have a devolution bend. You do know they are already devolved don't you? Titch Tucker ( talk) 00:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I gave you a ribbing over your state's relatively minor scandal of having, what, a quarter of its Senate vacant; as a result, it is only fair that I admit that my governor was just indicted for trying to sell a seat our country's Senate. Frankly, it's embarrassing, but it's also thrilling (in a finally sort of way). - Rrius ( talk) 04:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've read the pleadings now, and Madigan has a reasonable argument. Were the judges appointed, I'd say there was a better chance than not that they would deny the request. The fact that our judges are elected could drive it the other way. They have a different perspective because they are elected officials, thus they may be even more outraged than they would be otherwise. Also, they face the prospect of losing a retention vote (we vote yes or no whether to keep incumbent judges). They also know the already dysfunctional political processes has ground to a halt.
It's also worth noting that if we had a Westminster system in Illinois, the General Assembly would have voted no confidence ages ago. Even if they hadn't, the head of state would have sacked him by now. - Rrius ( talk) 19:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, what I forgot in predicting what the supreme court would do is that it is very literal. Many states have anti-logrolling provisions in their constitutions that say a bill can only legislate on one topic, but the Illinois Supreme Court is the only high court to hold that a bill, with only a few exceptions, cannot amend multiple titles of the state code. We had a crime bill that included, among other things, a three-strikes law and funding for midnight basketball, which is supposed to prevent crime. The supreme court struck the law down saying you can't amend the criminal code and the education laws at the same time.
With Blagojevich today confirming he won't resign, it looks like we're stuck with him (and a vacant Senate seat) for some time. - Rrius ( talk) 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I should have seen it earlier. I just heard reports on local Chicago media that Blago will either resign or declare himself disabled (or some equivalent). Madigan's move was absolutely brilliant. Her pleadings recited the allegations Pat Fitzgerald made. He would have to either admit or deny what she alleged as part of the supreme court case on oath. If the allegations were later proven, he could also be tried for perjury. Moreover, it complicates plea negotiations and sentencing. He has to step out of the way for his own sake now. - Rrius ( talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
My initial reaction was to be inclined to believe him, but he is quickly losing the benefit of the doubt. If he can't explain himself fully and soon, he may end up out of office. The bombshell that a friend of his through Blago a $1 mil. fundraiser last Saturday is a bad sign. Short of the middleman rolling on him, it may be difficult to prove he did anything illegal, that there was any quid pro quo, but it could be enough to ruin him. About the only good result at this point would be Jesse Jr. or Jesse Jackson, Sr., coming out and saying the fundraiser was thrown to remind Blagojevich that the Black community was his last base of support and that he needs them if he has any hope of being elected to anything ever again. It is not clean and will not get him a statewide office ever, but it could save his congressional career. - Rrius ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Neither one has really ever gotten along with Blago, but not for the same reasons. Mike was the top Democrat in Springfield from the early 80s until 2003. That in itself was enough to get his back up, but then when you add to it the fact that Blagojevich treated the Democratic General Assembly like the opposition, there is more than enough reason for him to want Blagojevich gone even before you get to the fact that he could bring down the Illinois Democratic Party. Lisa seems to actually be a good-government reformer and to absolutely hate the way Rod does business. Blago is also disrespectful to the other executive officials, who are each elected state-wide on their own (except for the lt. governor, who shares a ticket with the governor). The national, and I suppose international, media are trying to imply there is a nepotism problem with Mike and Lisa Madigan, but Illinois have gone through that already. The issue was there when we elected her. We hoped she would deliver on her promises, and she has. She is one of the few clean politicians around, she has criticized her father when necessary, and, as a result, she is probably the most popular politician in the state (barring Obama). In the end, I don't think this will be a problem for either of them. - Rrius ( talk) 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my amendement - it was poorly thought out and obviously won't get support. I thought I was simplifying aspects of Mooretwin's proposal that were inhibiting discussion - the last thing I want to do is create more division. Scolaire ( talk) 14:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've integrated the list into List of Calgary Flames players. Each captain is noted, and there is a paragraph in the lead discussing the team captains. Otherwise, you'll have to delve into page history to get it. Cheers, Reso lute 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Please cease referring to me as "Loner". If you wish to shorten my handle, use "LW". Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC ( talk) 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Titch Tucker is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas and a
Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Have a great holiday, and an eventful new year!
Yes i seem to recall seeing it as nation some time ago, then for some time it was constitiuent country, then when i next looked it had turned into just a country. I just wonder what would of been next, wikipedia might of ended up declaring Scotland an independent sovereign State :) BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't get this Caroline Kennedy talk. I don't get how she's qualified or how she is supposed to win election in 2010 and re-election in 2012. I thought they would give her some attention, then move on to the real candidates. I have a problem with appointing someone to elective office who has never been elected to anything before. I don't normally have a problem with relatives of politicians getting elected, or even appointed, to something because it is more unfair to deny them that because of their family than to give it to them because their family. In this case, there really does not seem to be any reason other than her name. - Rrius ( talk) 00:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Good day, GoodDay. I'm a bit confused by your comment on the ArbCom feedback. I thought you'd put the comment in the wrong section but then I saw that you moved your comment from my "Confidence" section to my "No confidence" section. Could you perhaps explain how you have no problem with Arbitrators but have no confidence in me? It's confused me a bit. Thanks. -- Deskana (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well the vast majority of the lists on wikipedia already dont include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and rightfully so. Theres probably about a dozen or 2 out of over 150 country lists that mention them. Im not totally opposed to their inclusion on everything, but it has to be justified and not just for the sake of it. otherwise others want German states or american states added as well which would be crazy. England etc have been removed from a couple of lists over the past month, something im glad about although cant claim credit for :) BritishWatcher ( talk) 00:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Actually, it's a campaign to put out the truth. England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not independant countries & therefore shouldn't be made to appear as such on thoses lists. GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
⬅ to suggest that the national anthem of Wales should be confined to a sports article Goody is either a nonsense or an insult or both! Its played when the Queen is in Wales at national events for example. BW - I agree the articles are a mess and they need to be sorted. If you have an article called "anthems of UN recognised countries" then fine, but if its called national anthems (well you know the answer I am really tired of repeating it. As to a new article I don;t see the point. The English don't have an anthem, cause they have always seen their identity as UK, The Scots have a couple they use and have not made up their mind. There are none for Northern Ireland although there are sectarian alternatives. Ironically only Wales really has one! -- Snowded TALK 08:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
e/c Hehe. I know, not very adult of me. But if that came to pass I would do more than laugh, I'd do a naked jig in George Square. ps, it wouldn't be for the squeemish. :) Titch Tucker ( talk) 15:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I walk around, with nothing on but my clothes. GoodDay ( talk) 15:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
⬅ Ok my god the Dawkins straw man trots out again. I thought better of your logic -- Snowded TALK 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdate) Hmmm, sounds like an entertaining honest read. GoodDay ( talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I like Judaism better than Christianity or Islam because its adherents aren't duty bound to try to make me see their invisible friend. - Rrius ( talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've the advantage, indeed. In the former, I'd have no way of knowing the result. In the latter, I'd get a nice surprise. GoodDay ( talk) 19:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll pass, on his sermons. My way, is best. GoodDay ( talk) 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi GD ...
Merry Christmas. Looks like you've been busy on constitutional issues. Wish I had time to do the same. -- soulscanner ( talk) 12:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Giggle giggle. GoodDay ( talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi GoodDay, I noticed a comment on my talk page, and then it vanished. My point really is that EU laws are delegated legislation made by statutory instrument, like local authority by-laws. The assertion that the UK delegates sovereignty, rather than legislative responsibilities, is factually inaccurate. -- Lo2u ( T • C) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Holidays kept me away, along with the sleep-overs of my nephew & nieces (in otherwords, they controlled the computer). GoodDay ( talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You've a gorgeous daugther, by the way. GoodDay ( talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
They look very clerical. My athiest opinon: they look like con-artists. GoodDay ( talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)OK, saw it. It had a very disco appearance to it. GoodDay ( talk) 17:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've often felt that Travolta never fully recovered his image, after Grease. -- GoodDay ( talk) 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Has there been any change on the constitutional crisis front? Is it still looking as though we were right to believe Harper will continue on as PM after Parliament comes back? - Rrius ( talk) 02:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It gets worse. C-SPAN had a woman from the Washington Examiner on who did not now that only 32 (not 98) get sworn in. She also thought the Senate votes on its rules at the beginning of each Congress—it doesn't. Also, C-SPAN2's graphics suggest there will be an election for President pro tempore. A President pro tempore serves until he or she resigns as PPT, is replaced as PPT by the Senate, or ceases to be a senator. C-SPAN should at least have its facts right. - Rrius ( talk) 18:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've always wondered why a large population of British folk sing God Save The Queen. Why do they particulary want to save her, and do they really think God is going to save her due to their singing it. Most countries anthems would ask God to save their country or their people, although personaly I'd leave God out of it, he's got enough trouble around the world at the moment without having to bow to the demands of people who think a woman (and her family) living in luxury off our taxes is better than the rest of us. Titch Tucker ( talk) 12:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm an American, and I hate our national anthem. Hate. It. It's only redeeming quality is that it is about just barely winning a defensive battle rather than about taking over the world. The music is awful, the words are hard for most people to remember, and the voice part requires a wide vocal range, making it hard for most people to sing. But then why would they want to? It is such an ugly, ugly piece of music. I'd rather have God Bless America; I don't even care about all the "God" stuff. At least is sounds good and is accessible.
Oh, and I agree with BritishWatcher about the problem with one person as head of state and head of government. Having the trappings of a head of state give the head of government too much power. I don't know that a monarchy is the necessary answer, figurehead presidents seem to do well enough, but the US-style presidential system is flawed. - Rrius ( talk) 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This January 20, Americans will watch (again) as their President slaps athiest in the face, by ending his oath of office (unconstitutionally) with 'so help me god'. So much for seperation of Church & State. GoodDay ( talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I couldn't help notice you asking after a tally on the Ireland move. I have created one so I might as well leave you a transclusion here. Feel free to remove it or put it elsewhere! :) Best, -- Cameron * 18:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The pages don't have anything like consensus for the moves, though praise to the admin who preformed the moves for closing them. I find it very difficult to see how they can stay where they are if the supporters of the status quo ante bellum become active. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 16:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
He is currently not blocked.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey GoodDay, two more edits and its my 1000th! (one now). Is it too late to go for a place on Arbcom? Titch Tucker ( talk) 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
So yes, it's a bit of a laugh today isn't it. If a coalition government comes in, backed by BQ, we all know it'll last about a month before the Bloc starts demanding something Dion and Layton just aren't willing to grant. It really is politics by the 10 year olds. Canterbury Tail talk 02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, good day GoodDay. I thought you might appreciate this strange bit of vandalism: The Govenor General is a $110,000 random number generator that only outputs zeros, BUT could do something different. Cheers, DoubleBlue ( talk) 13:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been following the drama for a couple of hours now. The news has been so slow that I've started trying to figure out what would happen if Quebec left Canada and joined the US. It's a weird logical progression that involves Harper promising the BQ a referendum. All of this is just in my imagination; like I said, the news has been slow. - Rrius ( talk) 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit I was surprised Harper pulled the trigger; I had put the odds at less than 50%. I guess he usually manages to win the high-stakes stuff, but how is this going to work? - Rrius ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't intend to tar and feather, but I do think this is a pretty big cluster f--k. Frankly, having read some of the debate, I'm the closest I have been to saying, yep, this as a group of moves is a good thing....but the way it was done may have been in good faith, taking it to board etc, but it was certainly not well advised. It smacks of being only a couple of slippery steps away from cabal like behaviour. -- Narson ~ Talk • 21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Honestly? The country would be at RoI or Ireland (Country), Ireland the Island would be at Ireland (island) and the disambig would be at Ireland. I am assumingyou would also bar the plastic paddies. See, policy wise I can see an argument for Ireland (country) and it is the best attempt in a long time for a compromise. The method was just awful though -- Narson ~ Talk • 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I won't make canadian miltiary jokes as I have mates in that service. Anyway, looks like it will end up with the revert and new move. Rest assured, when it comes up, I will go for Ireland (state). -- Narson ~ Talk • 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed your post on Roux's talk page. He clearly stated that he does not want anyone to post there. At this time, I think it may be best just to leave it for now, and wait until Roux is ready to take messages again. Cheers. Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 12:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Some weird shit going on in your Parliament! Is anyone talking about 'constitutional crisis' yet? Has the GG acted well, do you think?-- Gazzster ( talk) 12:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on the comments some people made in response to one of my requests for a change to the article, clearly some think im a sockpuppet. Nimbley seems to be the main trouble maker so id liked to be checked againts him if that is really him and others when they reveal themselves. Perhaps after a process of elimination, there will be no sockpupet characters left for them to suspect me of being. BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You North Americans, always pulling peoples legs. ;) Titch Tucker ( talk) 16:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that, too, but I didn't want to bother figuring out exactly when his last day was and when the vacancy started. I'm starting to think that since he resigned "effective November 16" Does that mean the last time he was a senator was on November 15 and that the vacancy started at midnight on the 16th? - Rrius ( talk) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a weird stat. I wonder if that has to do with it being more desirable these days. - Rrius ( talk) 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the Queen's regnal name is Elizabeth II is irrelevant as she should correctly be Elizabeth I as she is the first Elizabeth to reign over the United Kingdom. Elizabeth II implies that the kingdom of England is synonymous with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.-- Palefire1983 ( talk) 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the article you are referring to. However, you can't compare US presidents to British monarchs. I think you might be one of these people who think that Scotland is nothing more than an English county -- Palefire1983 ( talk) 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. In otherwords, Scotland is not independant (hasn't been since 1707). Again, future UK monarchs will number themselves after either their Scottish or English predecessors (depending on which has the higher regnal number). A future King James, will be James VIII of the United Kingdom (even though England & Wales have only had 2 King James'). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Palefire1983"
I know this already. Can you explain your analogy with regards to Alaska and Hawaii?-- Palefire1983 ( talk) 17:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I mention the fact that there has never been a Queen Elizabeth I of Great Britain in my first message to yourself, sir. That is the very point of our discussion, no? I understand that monarchs will now be numbered by the method you mention, however, this is a new development and I am quite confident that without the complaints of Scottish nationlaists in the mid 20th century, all future UK monrachs would follow the English tradition and be numbered accordingly. I have also never suggested that Scotland is independant or that Scotland has its own head of state or monarch. All I am saying is that a great deal of offence would have beem avoided if we had started from a blank slate in 1707 in relation to regnal numbers.-- Palefire1983 ( talk) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Your Alaska/ Hawaii analogy does not work. In 1707, Scotland did not merely join England. As I have already mentioned, a new country was formed via an act of union. In 1959 (?) Alaska and Hawaii joined the United States; a new country was not created. If a new country was created, like in 1707 in Britain, then Eisenhower would indeed have been the first president of that new country.-- Palefire1983 ( talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
you may want to read "about me". -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 03:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Got it done. He seemed to have a problem with the GG too. - Royalguard11( T) 22:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean Ignatieff is creating a situation where everyone saves face, and a constitutional crisis is avoided? I seem to remember Harper offering the opposition a seat at the table in constructing a budget, so this would allow everyone to call a truce, right? Someone acted like an ass about it, but I think it was Rae or Layton. What do you think? - Rrius ( talk) 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
He'll take a hit for that, but it is easy to get around. "You can't leave the Senate a quarter empty waiting for the opposition to take seriously measures meant to reform that body. What's more, there is little support among the current Senators for reforming their chamber. We need to more Senators, Canadians who reflect the broad support in our country for reforming the second chamber." There, I should have been a speech writer or a PR guy. - Rrius ( talk) 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi GoodDay:
Thanks for your note. I replied on my talk page. CBHA ( talk) 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i can see why it would be useful to add them to list of population / area but the trouble is there are dozens of other examples that belong on the list when exceptions like that are made. Thats why i would rather see one article listing all comparable data on the UK countries which could be linked to instead of having to include the info on international lists where places like England really do not belong. UK belongs on the lists, then someone can click a link next to it taking them to a table on the data article which breaks down the UK countries on the issue.
On another issue i was watching some Canadian news last week on the political crisis there after talking with a friend of mine who lives in Canada. What was very interesting to me was harper and the medias use of the term separatist to describe the Quebec bloc. Here in the UK people with similiar intentions always get called nationalists, never heard em called separatists in the media or by political leaders. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
GD, I notice you always say that Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland have a devolution bend. You do know they are already devolved don't you? Titch Tucker ( talk) 00:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I gave you a ribbing over your state's relatively minor scandal of having, what, a quarter of its Senate vacant; as a result, it is only fair that I admit that my governor was just indicted for trying to sell a seat our country's Senate. Frankly, it's embarrassing, but it's also thrilling (in a finally sort of way). - Rrius ( talk) 04:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've read the pleadings now, and Madigan has a reasonable argument. Were the judges appointed, I'd say there was a better chance than not that they would deny the request. The fact that our judges are elected could drive it the other way. They have a different perspective because they are elected officials, thus they may be even more outraged than they would be otherwise. Also, they face the prospect of losing a retention vote (we vote yes or no whether to keep incumbent judges). They also know the already dysfunctional political processes has ground to a halt.
It's also worth noting that if we had a Westminster system in Illinois, the General Assembly would have voted no confidence ages ago. Even if they hadn't, the head of state would have sacked him by now. - Rrius ( talk) 19:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, what I forgot in predicting what the supreme court would do is that it is very literal. Many states have anti-logrolling provisions in their constitutions that say a bill can only legislate on one topic, but the Illinois Supreme Court is the only high court to hold that a bill, with only a few exceptions, cannot amend multiple titles of the state code. We had a crime bill that included, among other things, a three-strikes law and funding for midnight basketball, which is supposed to prevent crime. The supreme court struck the law down saying you can't amend the criminal code and the education laws at the same time.
With Blagojevich today confirming he won't resign, it looks like we're stuck with him (and a vacant Senate seat) for some time. - Rrius ( talk) 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I should have seen it earlier. I just heard reports on local Chicago media that Blago will either resign or declare himself disabled (or some equivalent). Madigan's move was absolutely brilliant. Her pleadings recited the allegations Pat Fitzgerald made. He would have to either admit or deny what she alleged as part of the supreme court case on oath. If the allegations were later proven, he could also be tried for perjury. Moreover, it complicates plea negotiations and sentencing. He has to step out of the way for his own sake now. - Rrius ( talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
My initial reaction was to be inclined to believe him, but he is quickly losing the benefit of the doubt. If he can't explain himself fully and soon, he may end up out of office. The bombshell that a friend of his through Blago a $1 mil. fundraiser last Saturday is a bad sign. Short of the middleman rolling on him, it may be difficult to prove he did anything illegal, that there was any quid pro quo, but it could be enough to ruin him. About the only good result at this point would be Jesse Jr. or Jesse Jackson, Sr., coming out and saying the fundraiser was thrown to remind Blagojevich that the Black community was his last base of support and that he needs them if he has any hope of being elected to anything ever again. It is not clean and will not get him a statewide office ever, but it could save his congressional career. - Rrius ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Neither one has really ever gotten along with Blago, but not for the same reasons. Mike was the top Democrat in Springfield from the early 80s until 2003. That in itself was enough to get his back up, but then when you add to it the fact that Blagojevich treated the Democratic General Assembly like the opposition, there is more than enough reason for him to want Blagojevich gone even before you get to the fact that he could bring down the Illinois Democratic Party. Lisa seems to actually be a good-government reformer and to absolutely hate the way Rod does business. Blago is also disrespectful to the other executive officials, who are each elected state-wide on their own (except for the lt. governor, who shares a ticket with the governor). The national, and I suppose international, media are trying to imply there is a nepotism problem with Mike and Lisa Madigan, but Illinois have gone through that already. The issue was there when we elected her. We hoped she would deliver on her promises, and she has. She is one of the few clean politicians around, she has criticized her father when necessary, and, as a result, she is probably the most popular politician in the state (barring Obama). In the end, I don't think this will be a problem for either of them. - Rrius ( talk) 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my amendement - it was poorly thought out and obviously won't get support. I thought I was simplifying aspects of Mooretwin's proposal that were inhibiting discussion - the last thing I want to do is create more division. Scolaire ( talk) 14:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've integrated the list into List of Calgary Flames players. Each captain is noted, and there is a paragraph in the lead discussing the team captains. Otherwise, you'll have to delve into page history to get it. Cheers, Reso lute 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Please cease referring to me as "Loner". If you wish to shorten my handle, use "LW". Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC ( talk) 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Titch Tucker is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas and a
Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Have a great holiday, and an eventful new year!
Yes i seem to recall seeing it as nation some time ago, then for some time it was constitiuent country, then when i next looked it had turned into just a country. I just wonder what would of been next, wikipedia might of ended up declaring Scotland an independent sovereign State :) BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't get this Caroline Kennedy talk. I don't get how she's qualified or how she is supposed to win election in 2010 and re-election in 2012. I thought they would give her some attention, then move on to the real candidates. I have a problem with appointing someone to elective office who has never been elected to anything before. I don't normally have a problem with relatives of politicians getting elected, or even appointed, to something because it is more unfair to deny them that because of their family than to give it to them because their family. In this case, there really does not seem to be any reason other than her name. - Rrius ( talk) 00:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Good day, GoodDay. I'm a bit confused by your comment on the ArbCom feedback. I thought you'd put the comment in the wrong section but then I saw that you moved your comment from my "Confidence" section to my "No confidence" section. Could you perhaps explain how you have no problem with Arbitrators but have no confidence in me? It's confused me a bit. Thanks. -- Deskana (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well the vast majority of the lists on wikipedia already dont include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and rightfully so. Theres probably about a dozen or 2 out of over 150 country lists that mention them. Im not totally opposed to their inclusion on everything, but it has to be justified and not just for the sake of it. otherwise others want German states or american states added as well which would be crazy. England etc have been removed from a couple of lists over the past month, something im glad about although cant claim credit for :) BritishWatcher ( talk) 00:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Actually, it's a campaign to put out the truth. England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not independant countries & therefore shouldn't be made to appear as such on thoses lists. GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
⬅ to suggest that the national anthem of Wales should be confined to a sports article Goody is either a nonsense or an insult or both! Its played when the Queen is in Wales at national events for example. BW - I agree the articles are a mess and they need to be sorted. If you have an article called "anthems of UN recognised countries" then fine, but if its called national anthems (well you know the answer I am really tired of repeating it. As to a new article I don;t see the point. The English don't have an anthem, cause they have always seen their identity as UK, The Scots have a couple they use and have not made up their mind. There are none for Northern Ireland although there are sectarian alternatives. Ironically only Wales really has one! -- Snowded TALK 08:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
e/c Hehe. I know, not very adult of me. But if that came to pass I would do more than laugh, I'd do a naked jig in George Square. ps, it wouldn't be for the squeemish. :) Titch Tucker ( talk) 15:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I walk around, with nothing on but my clothes. GoodDay ( talk) 15:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
⬅ Ok my god the Dawkins straw man trots out again. I thought better of your logic -- Snowded TALK 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdate) Hmmm, sounds like an entertaining honest read. GoodDay ( talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I like Judaism better than Christianity or Islam because its adherents aren't duty bound to try to make me see their invisible friend. - Rrius ( talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've the advantage, indeed. In the former, I'd have no way of knowing the result. In the latter, I'd get a nice surprise. GoodDay ( talk) 19:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll pass, on his sermons. My way, is best. GoodDay ( talk) 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi GD ...
Merry Christmas. Looks like you've been busy on constitutional issues. Wish I had time to do the same. -- soulscanner ( talk) 12:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Giggle giggle. GoodDay ( talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi GoodDay, I noticed a comment on my talk page, and then it vanished. My point really is that EU laws are delegated legislation made by statutory instrument, like local authority by-laws. The assertion that the UK delegates sovereignty, rather than legislative responsibilities, is factually inaccurate. -- Lo2u ( T • C) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Holidays kept me away, along with the sleep-overs of my nephew & nieces (in otherwords, they controlled the computer). GoodDay ( talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You've a gorgeous daugther, by the way. GoodDay ( talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
They look very clerical. My athiest opinon: they look like con-artists. GoodDay ( talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)OK, saw it. It had a very disco appearance to it. GoodDay ( talk) 17:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've often felt that Travolta never fully recovered his image, after Grease. -- GoodDay ( talk) 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Has there been any change on the constitutional crisis front? Is it still looking as though we were right to believe Harper will continue on as PM after Parliament comes back? - Rrius ( talk) 02:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It gets worse. C-SPAN had a woman from the Washington Examiner on who did not now that only 32 (not 98) get sworn in. She also thought the Senate votes on its rules at the beginning of each Congress—it doesn't. Also, C-SPAN2's graphics suggest there will be an election for President pro tempore. A President pro tempore serves until he or she resigns as PPT, is replaced as PPT by the Senate, or ceases to be a senator. C-SPAN should at least have its facts right. - Rrius ( talk) 18:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've always wondered why a large population of British folk sing God Save The Queen. Why do they particulary want to save her, and do they really think God is going to save her due to their singing it. Most countries anthems would ask God to save their country or their people, although personaly I'd leave God out of it, he's got enough trouble around the world at the moment without having to bow to the demands of people who think a woman (and her family) living in luxury off our taxes is better than the rest of us. Titch Tucker ( talk) 12:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm an American, and I hate our national anthem. Hate. It. It's only redeeming quality is that it is about just barely winning a defensive battle rather than about taking over the world. The music is awful, the words are hard for most people to remember, and the voice part requires a wide vocal range, making it hard for most people to sing. But then why would they want to? It is such an ugly, ugly piece of music. I'd rather have God Bless America; I don't even care about all the "God" stuff. At least is sounds good and is accessible.
Oh, and I agree with BritishWatcher about the problem with one person as head of state and head of government. Having the trappings of a head of state give the head of government too much power. I don't know that a monarchy is the necessary answer, figurehead presidents seem to do well enough, but the US-style presidential system is flawed. - Rrius ( talk) 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This January 20, Americans will watch (again) as their President slaps athiest in the face, by ending his oath of office (unconstitutionally) with 'so help me god'. So much for seperation of Church & State. GoodDay ( talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)