User talk:GoodDay/Archive 16

Wild one

You can just call me Wild One. Obviously she took the title of her job too literally, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You can call me Wild One. She took her occupation of Lady of the Bedchamber too literally, eh?

Yep, she was very giving of herself. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How did you like the dream I spun for you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Err, which dream was that? GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Go see your user page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

GD like, GD like. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would, especially the bit about Boom Boom.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A good ole Hab. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Helena.png

What about this little Bozetta the clown?

If she likes to clown around? no prob. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

She looks like she does-and how!.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The fun, the fun. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As circus music plays loudly in the background.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I've an erotic imagination. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting WikiProjects

WP:PORN & WP:SEX, hmmm. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No thanks, I think I'll stick to working on nobility/royalty articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll stay away from those aswell. There's no possible way for me to behave there. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll send them the image of our little erotic clown lady.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Priscilla Barnes

Hi. Please do not add original research or unsourced material to articles, as you did with this edit to Priscilla Barnes. That material was already removed twice before for this reason. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database and AllMovie are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia because their content is user-generated, and they lack a solid editorial policy to vett the material submitted to them.[1][2] Nightscream (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We should have somthing there, perhaps a birthdate/birthplace accompanied by an explanatory [unsourced] tag. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, I'm not disputing that she was born. :-) But such material should not be included if there's no source. WP:NOR and WP:V are clear on this, and since the birth date of a BLP subject is something that many of the subjects find contentious (I've met a few in person who complained to me about their articles when I told them I'm a Wikipedian), it should be left out. (And yeah, I agree a lot of articles need the same type of fix.) I'd suggest, as a compromise, moving it to the Talk Page until someone can source it. That's what was suggested to me when I asked about this sort of thing on Jimmy Wales' talk page, and has been my practice ever since. Is that okay for you? Nightscream (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's parly at Barnes talkpage. I'm getting Wiki whip-lash. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Couteous and Courteous

Excellent catch, GoodDay. You made me laugh. If I am to go about correcting the spelling of others, then I should first be damn sure I have got it right myself. Bielle (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. PS: I'm considering seeking volunteers, to help me 'revert' a harrassing anon's reverts of my edits on Wikipedia (see the above discuss on 166.205.xxx.xxx). GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas where the ip's are located? Jack forbes (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Found one. Bielle (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The administrators are working on 'blocking' the harrasser. It's too bad, he's giving 'Wireless Data Service Provider Coroporation' a bad name. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I had someone doing this to me occasionally for a while; block and ignore until they get bored and wander off is a reasonable approach. If you need admin assistance with them in future (unless it involves a rangeblock, which I've never figured out =P ), feel free to ping me. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TF, I shall do. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought TF, I'm finding the anon entertaining. Though, his performance is getting less creative. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is 166.205.131.82...

And how did this beef start? Lol. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out ANI - Harrassment II. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But why is he harrassing you eh? --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

'Cause, the anon is obsessed with me. Thank goodness, I don't have a self-image on my userpage' or the anon would get 'overly excited' (If ya know what I mean). GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tis’not a Quebec separatist is it eh? I don't know your stance on that…--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're talking politics, which is 'above' the anon's intellect. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You must of done something to upset him in the past. I just cant comprehend why someone would just harass someone on Wikipedia just for the fun of it. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Check my archives. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Did this IP once have a username...?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the anon-in-question, would know how to create one. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

16th century lookalike

Hey doesn't Mary Brandon, Baroness Monteagle look a lot like English actress Keira Knightley?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Keira Knightley of the Tudor court

Reincarnation of Lady Monteagle?

Yeah, the English noblewoman & the British actress do resemble each other. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's uncanny. Perhaps Keira is Mary's descendant?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is quite possible. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mary had loads of descendants, plus remember that the population of England was only about 5 million tops in the 16th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If Knightley's ancestry could be traced back to Brandon, it would be something to add to their respective articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it could be done. I know Mary's granddaughter, Elizabeth Stanley had lots of descendants with the surname of Parker.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't suprise a bit, it they're related. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Talbots were also Mary's descendants. They were an enormous family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A possible descendant Jean-Guy Talbot. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He could very well be one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The possiblities are endless. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Viewing the two pictures side by side really does demonstrate the resemblance they share.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Speaking of ancestries, whatcha think of the Norwegian rumour that King Haakon VII isn't King Olav V's father? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Never heard it, anyroad a DNA test would resolve the issue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a DNA test was requested, but the Norwegian Royal family chose not to go there (prefering to ignore such rumours). GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it took me this long to notice the goddess Keira gracing this page! -Rrius (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I wanna neck with'em all (for starters). GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hornball.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting Jack back

GD, do you think that image of the 16th century erotic clown would encourage Jack to come back to Wikipedia? At least make him realise what fun he'll miss if he stays away. Hmm?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's possible. I know it would work for me. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

So wait, that image is supposed to be erotic? -Rrius (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be over-heated. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rrius, that woman was a sex-symbol at the Elizabethan court. Don't let the clown mask fool you. Bring on the clowns!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

She's got a .7 figure, that's cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And verrry long fingers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

JFK articles

I see that all the JFK articles are busy being edited today, it being the anniversary of his assassination. One of the craziest conspiracy theories I heard was that Elvis did it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Truth is, Officer Tippett fired the fatal shot. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I dare ya to say that on the talk pages of Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK assassination, JFK conspiracy theories, and Officer J. D. Tippit. Oh dear, he's heading over there. Where can I take cover from all the feu de joie that's sure to erupt?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's best I stay away from those articles. The Warren Report is still viewed as gospel, by many. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, it was clearly suicide. -Rrius (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're both wrong. Elvis and a posse of cowboys did it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always been suspicious of cowboy-posse theories; the motives are never quite clear. The explanation always begins, "So there were these Indians (sorry, Native Americans)..." and are hard to follow from there. I supposed I'll keep an open mind, though. -Rrius (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Either we'll never get the hold truth or we'll never accept the whole truth. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The further we move away in time from the assassination, the harder it is to unravel the skein of secrecy and obscurity surrounding the events of that day, and the days following.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's 46-yrs and counting. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and everybody who knew anything is dead by now. I don't see how the truth will ever be uncovered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted talk page history

Hi, GoodDay. Do you know that if you wish you can cut and paste your deleted talk page history and archive it? Jack forbes (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought about doing that too, but never bothered. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Early Xmas gift

GD, go over to Jack Forbes talk page where your early Christmas present is impatiently waiting to be unwrapped.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Medieval bedding ceremony

Well, GD, you're up early after our wild bedding ceremony last night complete with bishop and well-wishers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm 'up early'? giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

With emphasis on the word up!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Room service? Jack forbes (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, why did you summon your page just at this precise moment?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Which one? GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just when we both finally figured out how to do it!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Which page? GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If only I had known I could have explained it all to you kids ages ago. Jack forbes (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack, is that service with a smile?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Always with a smile and often with a chuckle. Jack forbes (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Chuckling Freddie Garrity style? Ha ha ha ha ha.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of knighthood, a discussion brews in the land of Scot. Sir Mais ouit protested 'country', he thus demand 'nation'. I getith my sword. GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, thanks for your comment. I saw Commonwealth and acted on that, but then noticed realm and figured that the Commonwealth Realm is different to the Commonwealth of Nations, thus my subsequent reversal :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. The CoN, is made up of monarchies & republics. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to everyone

I am posting this to everyone who has contributed to the Specific Examples page recently and this message should not be taken as any criticism of your editing. However, following yet more edit-warring today, I think it's needed to make some things very clear. Editors on BI-related articles may be blocked for

• Exceeding 1RR/day on any related article
• Persistent edit-warring/reverting over multiple articles even if not breaking 1RR
• Following other BI editor's contribs and reverting them, even if not related to BI

I will also, as I have today, be blocking obvious sock accounts and/or IPs if they are obviously being used to game the system. Edits by such accounts will be reverted. This issue is now very close to going to RfAR and I suspect the outcome of that would not be one that many editors in this area would welcome. Black Kite 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I too, see things heading towards RfAR. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant actress

I created an article today on a Russian actress who is one of the best performers I have seen in a long time. I watched her yesterday in a popular Italian police series, and she was so convincing in her role as a villainess, that even my 18 year-old son was intimidated by her. Only Jessica Walter was scarier in her role as Evelyn Draper.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed, she & I have the same birthyear. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't she georgeous?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhh yeaahhh. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured you'd like her. She's also 6 feet tall with eyes like blue ice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is spooky, I too am 6ft tall & blue eyes. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So sorry to burst your bubble GD, but Natasha is married.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gorgeous gals are usually un-faithfull. Knowing that alot of men want them, is too overpowering. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest sluts I ever knew was quite ugly to put it bluntly. A beautiful woman doesn't have to prove her attractiveness by screwing everything in sight. It's usually enough of an ego-boost to know that most guys get off on her.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, getting my heart-broken over the years, has made me cynical. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm cynical myself, as I've been burned so many times. I am sure the flames of hellfire will be like swimming in a cool stream by comparison.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just an old pushover for gals. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I always got hung-up on the wrong guys, and rejected the ones who really liked me. Fool that I was- and still am.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

'Tis ok, guys tend to do that too. In the cae of males, we always get attracted to the slim gals 'first', particulary if they've big ducks. I'm not sure how it works the other way with females. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In my case, a guy usually has to have at least one physical trait in common with Keith Richards.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret cities

If you read the article on Natasha, you'll note that her dad worked in a secret, underground city that had no name. I wonder how many secret cities existed and if there were any in the US? Hmm....makes me more curious about Lee H. Oswald and his defection to Russia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oswald's defection to where? GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Russia, when he was a Marine. That's where he met his wife, Marina Prusakova. Now she was another looker.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The pretty gals always fall for the bad guys. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was hinting at Soviet Union. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I always used Russia even during the Cold War era. Man, how long ago that seems now, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, 1989 to 1991 was big times news across Europe. The Counter-Communist revolutions, the end of the USSR & Re-unification of Germany. Phew. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I never thought the Berlin Wall would come down in my lifetime.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was confident it would come down, but not until the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Communism in Russia, the Troubles in Ireland; I always imagined they'd go on long after I was dead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Israel-Palestine disputes will continue forever. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In the 14th century people probably believed the English-French conflict would last forever.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, but Palestinians & Israelis are just a stones throw away from each other. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Circus music

GD, if you want something to cheer you up, go over to YouTube and check out this film clip: Three Dog Night, The Show Must Go On 1974. The clownish thing about the scene is the clothes! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

GoodDay we really need you to think about the use of BI objectively, support it where there is evidence, but please do not support synthesis. --Snowded ^TALK 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's tough, these discussions. But (after my brief break), I'll try to be more open-minded. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Stepwrong

^ This is a bit weird! - dwc lr (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not an open threat, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I had someone who used to undo all my edits they were banned but came back but its really tedious when you have to undo 20 or more edits. Maybe you could get the account blocked. - dwc lr (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Administrator will soon be unto him/her. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on it. I think they need just a wee bit more rope yet, though. Fribbler (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this user and his/her contributions. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's no big deal. He/she didn't even explain where 'down' was. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hanging? Hanged, drawn and quartered may be a more appropriate punishment. Jack forbes (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure where 'down' is. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonder no more! Fribbler (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

e/c Maybe he's the devil and is trying to drag you down into the fiery pit. Alternatively, he's a silly wee boy with no other hobbies than to pester other people. Jack forbes (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He he, if I were tell people in County Down they're all 'British'? it might feel like being in hell. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On a serious note. I would report the user who has obviously used the previous ip's to harass you. The bigger the picture you build up the the quicker you will be rid of this person. Jack forbes (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Fribber's got an eye on him/her (I do hope it's a she). GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you hope it's a she? Have you always wanted to be stalked by a woman? Jack forbes (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Only women that I find attractive & sexually demanding. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hornball.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Closed cities

You still here, GD? I have been reading about these. A wee bit scary, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand the concept. They're ghost towns? GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand now. People were restricted from entering or exiting those cities, for security reasons. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From what the article says they are still around.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Spooky, apparently the old Soviet ways are still in practice. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Things seem to have changed just superficially.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the Putin empire. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Putin is a very enigmatic character. In his case, still waters definitely run deep.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Once a KGB guy, always a KGB guy. Medvedev is merely a figure-head. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what my friend from Prague says. BTW, she witnessed the Soviet invasion of Czechoslavakia first hand in 1968.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A tragic event, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My friend was 25 years old when it happened so she remembers it well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing old footage of the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956. One unseen gunman was firing at a soviet tank from a building, obviously doing no damage. The tank fired it's gun three times or so before the gunman was silenced. Mad or brave, (or both) he certainly left that image with me to this day. It makes me wonder if I would be as brave in the same situation. I'd rather not find out. Jack forbes (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My friend worked for a Prague newspaper in 1968, so she really has lots of stories to tell about that event. She had travelled all over the Iron Curtain countries before the Wall came down.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Iron Curtain. The younger folk of today, must wonder how Eastern Europeans put up with it for so long. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they had much choice in the matter. The Velvet revolution, now that's the way a revolution should be conducted (if possible). Jack forbes (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, alot more civil then the Romaninan revolution. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the execution of the president a little tasteless to say the least. The guys who shot him were the same ones that carried out all his orders. Jack forbes (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The end result was welcomed, though. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow....You know it's gonna be-e-e Alright, Alright, ALRIGHT!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yep, now if only China & Cuba would overthrow their Commies. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked under my bed last night and do you know what! There wasn't a red in sight! There was a blue and green, but no red. Jack forbes (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, the Cold War days. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I never believed it would end in my lifetime, nor would I personally know so many people from former Iron Curtain countries as I do now. It seems incredible really.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gorbachev (unintentionally) started the ball rolling. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the fact that he personally liked Ronald Reagan really did the trick.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gorby must've seen some of Reagan's movies. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, or perhaps Ronnie once saved Gorbachev from drowning.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta

I'm glad you're not mad, and I admire your efforts. I myself have done my share of mediating in disputes and I know how annoying it can be. However, in my opinion it is a mistake to base your position in a mediation only on what the "middle ground" between the two sides is, I believe its the job of a mediator to be the "voice of objectivity" when the two sides can no longer keep their cool. To be the guy that evaluates the sources in an impartial way and assumes a position in the dispute according to them. If that means "taking sides" then so be it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob, good luck with the article. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Its been very frustrating I know. Ive always been willing to make concessions and try and compromise I have made what I hope are basically the final edits to that article (I have made minor additions to the Poglavnik’s version and invited him to add "disputed" tag (To "King of Croatia" ) or whatever he wants as long as he doesn't remove and violate NPOV) and we can all move on. It's been a pleasure take care. - dwc lr (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Take care, good luck with the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Now is the winter of my discontent

I just stepped out onto my balcony. Brr.....it's got really cold. Winter has definitely arrived. "Now is the winter of my discontent......".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The puddles are frozed over on PEI. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, go get your skates on GD!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a spaghetti guy, actually. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't dig. What do ya mean?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you said ..get your stakes on. Sorry. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, ice skates as in Sonja Henie.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It feels as if it could snow outside, it's that cold, so it is.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The more snow, the warmer the winter. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a Christmas carol.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had the control of the computer all day, as my son has gone on a school trip to Siracusa.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My niece hasn't visited for over a week. Also, she's been less interested in the computer, lately. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

She's probably bored with it. BTW, have you noticed the decline in editors at Wikipedia?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't noticed. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To me there seem to be fewer people editing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

'Tis possible: Cameron & Soulscanner has been gone for months. Gazzster & TharkunColl haven't been as prolific. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes and British Watcher, Mooretwin, Pigman, QP10qp, Henry V haven't been hanging around the joint lately.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I belive, Mooretwin has be puttering around Provisional Irish Republican Army & Sinn Fein. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And Henry V? I wonder where he went? BTW, I haven't checked out his article for ages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

University may have taken him away. Also, Wikipedia may have been a passing interest for him. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall not be participating anymore on the Channel Islands discussion. I made my one comment, and it shall have to suffice. IMO, it's part of the British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I made one comment (or word) too many there, apparently. I got roughed up. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what's the story on that one? I cannot figure out what you said to create such an explosion of fireworks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowded explained it to me, that Matt Lewis thought my folks comment was a suggestion to close the discussion, in RA's favour. Matt 'tends' to suspect that I'm a trouble-maker, that I luv creating havoc at discussions. Snowded suspects this too, but to a much lesser degree. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, back to my comment as to why there are fewer editors here, it seems that my former nemeis is back attacking some of my articles and hinting that they should be put up for deletion. F..ing hell, do you realise the time I spend on these articles, GD. HOURS!!!! Why do the deleters always get the right of way? Well, this has put me in a fine good humour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the risk one must face when creating articles. If my memory is accurate, I've only created 'two' articles in my 4yrs at Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's one editor who has a problem with anything relating to genealogy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If this editor has been calling for deletions of only the articles you've created, ya might have a case for WP:STALK. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not just mine. Just articles on English noblewomen. He's not singling me out specifically.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, is he using the AfD thingy, for these articles? GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, but he'll get around to doing it, I have no doubt. He mentioned my articles on another article created by another editor that he's proposed for deletion. Last month he succeeded in getting one of mine deleted, although there was no clear-cut consensus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A deletionist, eh. I suppose, as long he's not blanking or deleting articles entirely by himself, there's not much that can be done. As for Afds? IMHO, deletion shouldn't occur until a 2/3 majority is obtained. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

All it does is put me off reating new articles. I think I'll take a break from article-creating at the moment. I'm tired of getting red eyes and a sore neck for nothing but criticism and threatened deletions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to withdraw from the Rfc concenring Northern Ireland's lead sentence & now the British Isles/Channel Islands thing. IMHO, I've been labeled un-fairly (with the trouble-maker thing) & it's left a bitter taste in my mouth. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame you GD. I didn't see where you were stirring up trouble. Have you got a microscope handy?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, indeed. Calm editors & high strung editors rarely mix well. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The deletionists are going to be the ruin of Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fear not, they can't get all their AfDs passed. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone in? Jack forbes (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And how are you and Jeanne doing tonight? Not the best of days it appears. Jack forbes (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I got a big letter T (for trouble-maker), slapped on my forehead. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's alright. You can just peel it off. Jack forbes (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider it, removed. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. Poor Jeanne must be pissed off if she has articles that someone wants to delete. Obviously there's a shortage of paper on wikipedia and it shouldn't be wasted on people working their backsides off to write the articles. Must be such good fun deleting peoples articles. Jack forbes (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the risk one takes, creating articles. The moment ya press the 'save' button, the article becomes public prey. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I know. And of course it's quite right they become public property, but in my time here I've noticed a tendency to delete articles without a proper debate over it. I'm sure there are many that deserve it, but when a decent article is deleted after a handful of editors {among thousands on wiki) make the decision it seems a little rash. Jack forbes (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It stinks for sure. IMO, a 2/3 majority should be required for deletions. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing, I shall not be creating anymore articles for Wikipedia until it changes it's policy on deletions. IMO, an editor must have a required number of edits before he or she is allowed to put up an article for deletion. And in case of not gaining a 2/3 majority, it should automatically default to keep. I find it appalling that an editor (such as myself) with over 30,000 edits has to be subjected to seeing her hours spent working undone by one editor who just doesn't happen to like the articles, and uses Wikipedia policy as a cat o' nine tails whip to punish me for having dared create pages that do not meet with his personal approval. And to add poison to the brew, he/she has the temerity to call my articles cookie-cutters. I have a lovely four-letter word (can you guess what it is Jack?) at my pretty little fingertips, so I had better stop before it flies onto the page and I'm blocked for (shock, horror) incivility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've got a few four letter words in mind that you could use. If you need any more give me a shout, my use of profanities can make a tourette's sufferer blush. I can't say I've heard of the term "cookie-cutter" though. Jack forbes (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was once told that I could outcurse an Irish soldier. BTW, a cookie-cutter is a mould for making biscuits. Strange metaphor to use, but then again, this is Wikipedia not reality.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's the editor that's getting under your skin, by the way? GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Troll magnet.

And they all gathered as GoodDay sat in the middle, shining his light to repel them...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehehe, that's quite creative. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I can find myself amongst this delightful coven of ghouls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're the pretty fairy, in the middle. Your'e certainly not one of those ghouls. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but am I a good fairy or a wicked fairy? Hmm, as Lee H. Oswald said upon his arrest "You figure it out" (accompanied by a sexy smirk).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

When you're good, you're good. But, when you're bad, you're great. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yum, those fellers look like potatoes! -Rrius (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You say potatoe, I say patatoe. Ya know somethin, they do look like potatoes. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, troll hash browns! -Rrius (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Chop 'em up into french fries. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2 accounts

It's a long story :). Indeed i have 4 accounts: i am AndreaFox on it.wiki and en.wiki and AndreaFox2 on it.wiki and en.wiki. I created AndreaFox on it.wiki in 2007. Then i decided to write on en.wiki and i tried to register on en.wiki, being logged as AndreaFox. So, when i chose AndreaFox as the name of the new account, it appered that account already existed and so i created AndreaFox2. Then, being logged as AndreaFox2 on en.wiki, i began writing on it.wiki thus creating AndreaFox2 there too. Recently i discovered what i have done so i decided to unify the Sul of all my accounts, because i couldn't delete them. Finally, i created AndreaFox on en.wiki, like i originally wanted, because i didn't want anyone to register with my name on en.wiki. Are you italian? --AndreaFox (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A tad confusing. Which user-talkpage is the correct one for me to contact you on? GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just seen the message at AndreaFox; I contacted you, at the correct account. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see your home page. My question wasn't a clever one :). --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: British Isles Terminology task force/Channel Islands

[3]. You do it too many times GoodDay. People sometimes say your humour benefits this encyclopedia, but I've seen you make edits like the above too many times now. I can only be to inflame. You had no evidence for doing that, only an oportunity to kick a man who has spent his free time building up QUALITY sources which you previously said you would wait for. Your typically bipolar voting habits are too-often badly timed, and extremely hard to take sometimes. I don't have the time or the patience for it than I once did (yes, the patience - it's different to being forthright), because time and again I've let it pass. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've withdrawn from the Taskforce/Channel Island & I've no intentions of re-visiting it. I'm quite disappointed with your ABF of me. My "more then enough" comment was pointing out that RA had 20 sources, nothing more & nothing less. PS: I'll forgive you for your assumptions, Matt. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See you back at Taskforce/CI, GoodDay, when you change your mind, again. Cheers, :) Daicaregos (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My returning there, would be counter-productive. PS: I forgive Matt, for his ABF of me. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user (other than routinely watching this page for vandalism,) I'm going to opine that it is patently obvious that the Channel Islands are British Islands. Any other description would seem to be a PPoV, rather than any kind of acceptable, or less than marginally held connotation. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I too, think that Channel Islands should be included. But, inclusion/exclusion of CI within British Isles, shall be up to others to decide, now. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies Hamster Sandwich. I thought you said 'British Isles'. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

He said British Islands, not British Isles. If you want to see why I (at least in part) got so narked - go through all my arguments again. I've been doing the classic thing of repeating the same sense over and over again, to fight against the real danger of people following the piper. It's one of those cases where he would only have got anywhere if people sat back and let him. He's played a merry tune alright, but I have him now with solid refs, including the OED. I've also deconstructed many of his own (see through the debate). The main thing is that I have proved that an archipelago definition is widely used, and supported by dictionaries and encyclopedia'a. Perhaps I shouldn't have asked for the weekend to stack up on more sources - as a boxing fan I'm sure you know that sometimes it's folly not to end the fight. You get a dodgy judge and lose on points. The killer blow, eh? We are almost polar opposites sometimes - I stick to my guns (providing I am right of course - and lets be honest, when am I not?), and you tend to fluctuate quite a bit during a discussion. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I think it's best that I avoid main-space discussions with you, in future. Regretfully, my presence has a negative effect on you & I don't want you getting blocked because of me. PS: I'm not peeved, just discouraged with what happened. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: You're always welcomed on my talkpage, of course. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009(UTC)

I noticed that you removed my "Warning" heading, calling it "provocative". Why on earth would I provoke you (of all people)? I can't even imagine what would come from that! I do not go around provoking people - all my comments come with sold points, and always have done, despite any feeling they might contain. I'm not going to replace my heading ( when something's read it's read), but I feel you are not commenting wisely at the moment.

I finally went to the BI Specific Examples page (as I promised HighKing I would), and the latest comments were by you opening the Afro-Eurasia Conclusion by stating clearly to all who are reading (in very much your own idiosyncratic style) that you want to see one particular preference, and then (after being questioned) how you don't in fact mind either way, you just want to see a conclusion! Now anyone is entitled to wonder why you frequent these articles if you really are this ambivalent. I'm sure in reality you are not - you just find it difficult at times, as do most of us I'm sure. But you must understand how others, who are often deep in the edit, can be variously effected by these type of comments, whether you yourself are intentionally being provocative or not. It people are on the verge of being blocked (and blocks should not really be happening to longstanding editors anyway, inc me!), this kind of commenting hardly helps them through. If the "bickering" really gets to you (and often it is still useful debate, despite the tone), simply either avoid the article, or read it between your fingers. In the relatively few comments on Afro-Eurasia, you were part of the discussion anyway, which contained a sockpuppetry accusation from an edit note that you brought up yourself, and not any particular bickering that I could see. It's better not to comment at all than to make conclusions out of pure frustration.

It is surely the case that after x years on the subject, bickering is hardly going to suddenly stop anyway - at least not without a proper guideline!

And I will also say, (and this perhaps just a little sardonic - not provocative) that it's no good responding to good advice by declaring your forgiveness for the lack of good faith shown to you! (as you did above and somewhere else to on this matter). You'll never get the actual message (or stop any future ones) by turning things around that way. Just give it some thought instead! Matt Lewis (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I've 'changed' the section heading, so others wouldn't see it as provocation on your part. If you're going to be at the Specifics Example page, that's acceptable. If you can help bring about some measure of peace to the British Isles inclusion/exclusion disputes? that too is great. If my presence is only hurting the BI disputes, then'll I'll withdraw from them. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is only the way you comment sometimes - you shouldn't always take it as your 'presence'. Nobody rejects your actual presense! You can do what you want (I've never told you to leave anything), I only offer advice (and maybe the one 'warning', when I was really peeved). Regarding how anyone 'watching' might have read that warning - yes people can see me in a bad light - but don't underestimate how people might actually see that I had/have a point! And a talk section like this should really be between me and you, despite the attention this page no-doubt gets. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not peeved at you. If I had been? we might've been locking horns at ANI, or at some Wikiquette, etc etc, days ago. One or both of us getting blocked, would've been counter-productive. My undecisiveness on such articles, stems from my being flexible on those topics. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if the administrators had to make a choice between us? I'd be the one who'd get indef-blocked, easily. Why? You're far more productive on this Project, a far more prolific editor. For the most part, I'd be seen as not a drag on the project, but not a benefit either. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We've hardly been curdling soup! Most of the admins who patrol/are involved in the subject know us both pretty well I would say, though some around last year do appear to be editing less (or have gone) it seems. It only really gets unpredictable I think when you upset the admins in some fashion (ie upset them directly), although I suppose some bad feelings/preconceptions can carry on from the past. I've certainly stuck my neck out nearer harm's way - not a good insurence policy for the future. Wikipedia still has a primative cave-man legal system - admin tend to count up the previous blocks, and punish with a bigger one each time. It simply brands and defines. I just wish you took criticism a little better GD, whether peeved at me or not. You hardly get much coming your way. Warnings like these should really just be used to get people's attention, not to forecast a block. The block tool should be nowhere near either of us. I always write my own warnings, as I really resent the "or you will be blocked" auto-crap - often given in bold. No editor (esp normally good ones) should be blocked unless it is absolutely essential. I suppose 'warning' has to be the word to use - maybe not, I don't know. It's 'Wikpedia's fault anyway, not mine. If things need to go to 'admin space' or whatever (I never rememeber what they're called) they usually get there.

RE British Isles (the term), when there is more than just the one workable option (where the flexibility - which I share - comes into play), that is where the guideline would be especially useful. A lot of the time, a definitive answer is potentially there too. The is no point where a guidelines won't be useful in my eyes. It's only not been done yet because of disagreement as to what goes in it - which is reflected of course on the edit table in article space, so it's got to be dealt with sometime or other. Admin like to refer to guidelines, and clearly it makes their job a lot easier. The BI guideline only got postponed because of Ireland IDISAM, but that (I would guess) was won in a single blow by Deacon of Pandemic (or whatever his name is) and is now boxed and shelved after Arbcom carried on unheeded elsewhere - through countless wasted hours, no-doubt. The only thing Arbcom should have done was reverse an involved admin who clearly played his hand and threatened a wheel war. I don't know if anyone went after that or not - but it was real mistake if people just let it go. It was a 'legal' matter, and people should have taken these people on, made them buck up, or brought them to task. As the internet becomes more integrated into society, so will Wikipedia be more subject to international laws, and human rights esp. All internet communications will be like that. I give the current AGF policy perhaps two years before it is correctly seen as a rights abuse, maybe three. People love to hate 'censorship' of course (inc the most disagreeable people of any society), but personally I welcome global society regulating the internet. If we get things right from the top of societal structures (which is the place to aim), all regulation should help us, not threaten us. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall be watching the Specifics Page, but it's likely that the BI stuff is heading towards Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Troll repellent

GoodDay, this should do the trick.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Eek, that picture will end up repelling me. I had to delete it. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't blame you! If it had been kept you wouldn't have seen me around here till it was archived. Jack forbes (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Where has the thong swimsuit gone? What have you done with it, GD? I hope you're not wearing it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not as it ''suits you purrfectly?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nope, nope. I don't like being out on sunny days, I prefer it overcast. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if you don't like the sun, wear it when there's a full moon.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nope, nope. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh black thong swimsuit keep on wearing, Canadian moon won't you keep on shining on me--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard that tune. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Doobie Brothers 1975. Black Water.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

'bout the only music from the 1970's I liked, were CCR. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

They had some good songs. Now they sound a bit dated though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit dated? that's blasphemy. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course: 737 comin out of the sky. A bit like Back in the USSR. However, the latter wears better than the former. OH, I've got a great Canadian band from the mid-1970s, Bachman-Turner Overdrive Y-y-you ain't seen nothin' yet....You better have somethin' waitin' for me when I get home, and it better be good. Ooh, nothing like a little sexual authority, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Canandian bands: I sorta like Blue Rodeo's music. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Irish state

Your message to me sounded threatening. Am I in trouble? DaliBama (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Domer has told me that I will get in trouble for "reverting" but the only reverting I have done was his reverts to my work.....I have discussed them. He even accepted my comment (that his section was unsourced and he undertook to insert sources but has not done so and has reverted the page back to the article with no sources). I am au fait with WP procedures, so you don't need to think in terms of old WP editor v new WP editor. DaliBama (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I left this message with Domer.

You admit that your Section is entyirely unsourced (the Section around there being no Sources....Yet you insist I revert the Article to the version which you fully agree has a section with no sources......You are not being consistent....I am not edit warring. I am taking your advice....You agreed you need to insert the sources so please do so.DaliBama (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Recommend reverting back to before the 'dispute' started. Then, bring your proposed changes to the article's talkpage. If you get a consensus for their inclusion, then include. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Rick DiPietro

Rick is (or was) with Bridgeport on a conditioning loan. For some some strange reason the NHL lists players that are on conditioning loans on the active rosters eventhough they are in the minors. Raul17 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, he's on the Roster article, just hidden. I don't have to do any changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My boots are made for walking

So you like my boots? I confess, when I bought them yesterday, I felt so uplifted that I was almost tempted to write an article today. But, alas, no articles for now. I'll work on the ones I've already created.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

With my gumb boots, we'd make a good dancing couple. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I bought a pair of these with my first ever wage. Best buy I ever made. It felt like a bereavement when they eventually expired. Jack forbes (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cute little boots. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be around my age, Jack. I love Doc Martens. Do you remember that early 1980s group Bad Manners?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

They still sell them. I have a new pair of DMs (shoes) coming my way for Christmas. Can't wait. Daicaregos (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Weren't those boots worn by 'Grannie' from the Beverly Hillbillies series? GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Buster Bloodvessel? Sure do. GoodDay, the boots I had weren't the cute kind. Dai, I too still have a pair, but your first ones are always your favourite. Jack forbes (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I adored Buster Bloodvessel. I love you yes I do, cos I know that you love me too..... That song brings back lots of memories. I was living in Sussex, England at the time. First Lewes, then Brighton. Ah youth.......I wish we could stay young forever. Do you know the pub The Hope and Anchor in Islington? I went there and it was full of guys and girls in DMs listening to ska music on the juke box.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's some memory you have there Jeanne. I don't remember too much of the London pubs I've frequented, and there have been a few. I think the last London pub I was in was the Red Lion in Ealing. I first visited Brighton in 77 or thereabouts, falling out of a few pubs and throwing a frizbee around on the beach, if you can call it a beach (no sand). My last visit was in 95 when I watched the Chris Eubank, Steve Collins fight in one of the pubs on the pier. Hmm, I read this over before saving and noticed a running theme going through my post, pubs! I really should start visiting more museums, art galleries, etc. Jack forbes (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jack when one gets older, we have to fall back on our memories to confirm that we were once young and free. Jack, I must confess. Today I broke down and wrote another article. I couldn't help it when I came across this interesting lady. No willpower, I guess. Hmm...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I did notice, Jeanne. Your quite right to continue article writing. You obviously enjoy it immensely so why should you allow the deletionists stop you from doing something that gives you so much pleasure. Jack forbes (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Those were exactly my sentiments. I do enjoy creating articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Never fear to create articles, accept the risks. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Many people here at Wikipedia have articles put up for deletion. I must obey my motto and go with the flow. I will, however, challenge the deletionists! One should never back away from a challenge.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead". GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Conradh na Gaeilge

GD I despair sometimes at some of your comments because you cant read Conradh na Gaeilge or find it hard to pronounce it should be moved to something that you can read. I cant read this Ångström will you support me moving it or Bundestag cant read German will you back me on that move also. BigDunc 18:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would back moving that to 'Bundestag'. However, your requesting this of me might be viewed as canvassing, by others. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, Angstrom and Bundestag are two different things. I think BigDunc is asking if you would back a change for both articles. Jack forbes (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, there ya see, I get mixed up with foreign spellings. I'm in favour of moving articles to an English language version (my past disputes at WP:HOCKEY, will attest to that). GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So GD will we make up names for things what about bloody Croissant can we not just call pastry or Champagne sparkling wine all theses bloody foreign words should be gone this is English wikipedia, and better clarify I am being sarcastic but it appears to have went over your head. BigDunc 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I merely place my 'vote/opinon' at Page movement requests. If the RM results goes against me? so be it; the Earth continues to revolve around the Sun. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me please so if you can't pronounce the name of an article we should make a simpler name for you to read, is that the basis for your vote? BigDunc 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's reasonalbe to assume that other english-speaking 'laymen', would have similiar difficulty with such words. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty yes but it is an encyclopedia were you come to learn so instead of teaching we make up words so sparkling wine and pastry it is!!!! BigDunc 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The non-english version can be kept in the intro of the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with BigDunc on this. Just because we can't pronounce it doesn't mean we have to translate it into English, especially when the Gaelic name is the one always used. Believe it or not, there are some English words out there I can't pronounce correctly, that shouldn't mean we should change them. There is a festival in shetland called Up Helly Aa which by your criteria should be renamed. There are a ton of articles that should be renamed by that criteria. Jack forbes (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, I don't mind anybody disagreeing with me. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I also prefer to have Taoiseach & Tanaiste moved to Prime Minister of Ireland & Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland. But, I'll let somebody else nominate those. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So is it just Irish words you have a bias against or is it any language you cant speak? There is no Prime minister of ireland so whay call an article that?? BigDunc 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He's been called 'Prime Minister of Ireland' on my TV, when he's mentioned. I've trouble with Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Russian, French words, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

List of suicides

Perhaps it's just me but, I find this article to be distasteful to say the least. It just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia as far as I'm concerned. Who wants to know about those notable people that committed suicide other than the morbidly curious. If a person is interested in any of those people listed they can discover everything they need to know reading their articles. Jack forbes (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were nominated for deletion, I wouldn't oppose. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am morbidly curious, but I find lists that link to various articles to be - generally speaking - really, really helpful. I usually end up going through most of those kinds of lists and reading all the linking articles. So, "Strong keep" over here.... Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This much I know, having 'Bobby Sands' added to the list, is inviting trouble. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I lean toward "delete", but it would be an interesting AfD. -Rrius (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it would be a dramatic happening. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I like lists. Irvine22 (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

God, there is even a category on suicides by method! Sorry Hamster, I don't see the point. Jack forbes (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

United States Geographical MOS

A while back ago, you were involved in a discussion about how to refer to the United States Geographical locations on wikipedia. A similar discussion is taking place here. Any comments on this topic would be helpful.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember, but I'll stick my nose in. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate

GoodDay, did you ever see the Al Pacino film The Devil's Advocate? I watched it the other night. It was great; a really well-done, scary thriller without all the ghoulish, Stephen King frills. Keanu Reeves and Charlize Theron also starred in it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I never seen it. The only Stephen King character I recall seeing, is Pennywise. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony Manero

Another great line from Tony Manero in Saturday Night Fever is this :"You make it with some of these chicks, they think you gotta dance with them".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An early XMAS present

Merry Christmas from your favourite troll

Thanks Jeanne. Hmm, Domer48 probably sees me in that form. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Snide, sarcastic mocking

Would you please stop mocking every suicide threat? It doesn't make you seem cool, edgy, wise, or sophisticated; quite the opposite. Just don't engage if you don't think the threats are real. --NellieBly (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I find those suicide threats (at ANI) to be mocking. Having said that, I don't appreciate your tone with me. Calm down. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not upset or angry in the least, and I wasn't "emotional". I was simply trying to stop you from spreading factual inaccuracy, and I felt a bit like I was knocking heads.

I am a professional counsellor (MSW '88) who works with victims of suicide - family members, friends, co-workers and the like. I have been doing this for twenty years; I retired in June. I am not talking from emotion or conjecture but from hard-gained experience.

Almost all successful suicides make numerous calls for help beforehand, especially in ways just like this: the idea that "real" suicides don't ask for help is a pseudo-scientific and melodramatic belief spread by the media, which are more interested in good ratings than in good science. The only suicides I know of where numerous unheeded calls for help weren't made before the fact are those of people suffering from terminal disease. What most suicides don't do is leave a note.

Suicide threats on Wikipedia are likely vandalism, but not taking them seriously helps nobody. It doesn't help when the threat is fake, it doesn't help when the threat is real, and it makes editors uncomfortable about asking for guidance. It may even make survivors wary of Wikipedia, as they may wonder if their loved one's call for help was ignored in the same fashion. The police I work with would rather be bothered by 10,000 fake calls than miss the one real call. The idea that they would mind being bothered is simply inaccurate.

Anyway, long enough essay already. Cheers. --NellieBly (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgotten 1970s bands

GD, your mention of CCR the other day, made me think of these 1970s bands who had hit songs: Black Oak Arkansas, J. Geils Band, Three Dog Night, and Steely Dan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The late '70's, was the dreaded Disco era. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Do it, do it do The Hustle.... T'was the era of the Bee Gees, Van McCoy, Chic, KC and the Sunshine Band, Patrick Hernandez, Andrea True Connection.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a huge anti-disco thing in 1979 (at a baseball stadium), which turned into a riot. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect some of it was pretty good, for example Van McCoy and Chic; however, I preferred punk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bee Gees were annoying, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess that Saturday Night Fever is one of my all-time favourite films. It really captures that late 70s era.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. I get a kick out of Airplane's comic version of it. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My favourite lines from Saturday Night Fever are :"The Pope ain't got no ass, that's why he's the Pope", and "You a..holes almost broke my pu..y finger".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume Pope Paul VI wasn't a fan of the movie. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He probably never heard of it. He wasn't a cool Pope like John Paul II.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The kids often yelled out "John Paul 2, we love you". GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here in Italy the young people adored him. When he died there were messages of sympathy written in chalk on the pavement and streets by teens and kids!! Viva la Papa was everywhere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

His one major fault, the attempted cover-up of clergy sex scandals. Running down material wealth, while living in material wealth, was also a bit hypocritical. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention his rigid stance against contraception , especially in poor countries.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how'd we go from Disco to Popes? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Double J's famous line in Saturday Night Fever!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically the actor who played Double J is named Paul Pape!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, reverse & tweak, ya get Pope Paul. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but what does tweak mean at Wikipedia?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's another word for 'minor edit'. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, BTW, in Italian Pape is the plural for Pope.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, Paul Pope. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this discussion has been the inspiration for my latest article: Jim "Dandy" Mangrum. Thanks GoodDay for being my muse.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Watch out for the deletionist. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the article and see if it looks OK. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine, there'll be no AfD on that one. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You should go and check them out on YouTube. They were wild. David Lee Roth blatantly ripped off his image. A couple of other good 70s groups were Mott The Hoople, The Allman Brothers Band, and Lynyrd Skynyrd.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Allman Bros, they're the band that had two drummers. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and their song Ramblin' Man can be heard in The Exorcist. My brother saw them in concert a while back and met Greg Allman. I saw Dickey Betts live in 1978.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Duane Allman checked out, the same year I checked in. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you like the image I added to the article: Jim "Dandy" Mangrum?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's definitley '70's style. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting your edits

No problem. Mistakes happen to all of us. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I gotta remember 'next time' to check with WP:HOCKEY first. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

I have made a proposal to establish a WikiProject for British-Irish Collaboration. A number of proposals are currently being made around initiates to improve collaboration between British and Irish editors on topics of mutual interest. A number of initiates have been adapted in the past, with varying degrees of success, but all positive in their intent to resolve these issues. A centralised WikiProject for British-Irish collaboration could act as a focus for initiatives to improve collaboration on these topics.

As an editor that has recently taken part in discussions around initiates like these, please comment on the proposal to establish a WikiProject for this purpose. Please also circulate this notice to other editors you feel may be interested. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

British/Irish collaboration? Is that possible? GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness can sit down together and share a joke, anything's possible! Anyroad, it's worth a try, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It can't hurt, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created a basic page at Wikipedia:WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration with some starting ideas and marked the page with a brainstorming template. As someone who replied to the proposal, please contribute some ideas or comments on the page. Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

SE page

GoodDay, frankly I'm stunned. You stated We need some heavy handed action at the Specifics page. Perhaps, HK, MF, LB and myself, should limit ourselves to 1-day a week at that page. Can you explain why you believe that I should be limited on that page? Or you? Or why you've put my behaviour, and yours, in the same sentence/breath as MF and LB? What, exactly, do you see wrong with our behaviour? --HighKing (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's why - Limit GoodDay: he's no concerns for where British Isles should/shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Merely wishes to stop the bickering over it.

Limit HighKing: rightly/wrongly, he's been painted as a SPA (by his opponents) & that's a difficult image to shake.

Limit Mister Flash: rightly/wrongly, he's been painted as a SPA (by his opponets) & that's a difficult image to shake.

Limit LevenBoy: for same reason as Mister Flash.

Basically, IMHO we 4 have to step back & allow 'new' faces to work things out at the Specifics page. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you're happy to punish editors wrongly? It's OK to punish an editor for remaining civil, always willing to discuss with logic and reasoning, always AGF, etc. But you're happy to block based on that? I'm shocked/stunned/disappointed/sad. --HighKing (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with HighKing, GoodDay. I fail to see why any editor should be discouraged from contributing to the project, including yourself. It's not in the spirit of Wikipedia to suggest that only new faces be allowed to resolve the British-Irish dispute. I think you should elaborate on your reasons for this rather bizarre proposal of yours. I am very perplexed at the moment, and yes, to be completely honest, rather disappointed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll voluntarily step away from the Specifics page, as it's driving me bonkers. Evidence of my bonkerness is in my HK,GD,MF,LB proposal. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be such a drama queen. Your participation was very useful and good from a neutral POV, and withdrawing merely hands victory to the disrupters because the count on editors having no stomach for their antics and namecalling and bullying. Stand up and be counted. --HighKing (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's best I stay away, as I'm not overly concerned with where British Isles should/shouldn't be used. Matt Lewis is correct, my wishy-washy comments aren't helping. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, whether your comments are wishy-washy or not isn't the issue; the point HighKing and I are trying to make is that your participation is needed there, and what's more, nobody has the right to drive you or anybody else away from the project. I'm not trying to press gang you into joining, but you should be around to add your two cents worth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll continue to pop in, now & then. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You've a right to edit and contribute same as anybody else.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that Mister Flash is taking a break from it, there might be less bickering. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe in miracles

I believe in miracles, you sexy thing you

Another early Christmas gift for you, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe in miracles. The sex stuff, I believe, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And how do you like my tavern wench? A hot number, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm drooling, what a figure. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You wouldnt believe where I bought it-a religious shop where priests get their holy gear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither was I. Where has everybody gone around here? This month has been drag city, hardly any editors hanging around the joint.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They may all be at that religious shop. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee hee hee hee. Maybe I've seen you there, GD. In the relics section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite possible. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just when you thought you were safe

Just when we thought we were safe. Guess who are back vandalising articles? The We Love Poo brigade. I saw now where they vandalised Nicholas II of Russia. Read the history, it's there. Oh dear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

He/she needs a range block. At least he/she reverts his/her own vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you remember when that gang went around vandalising loads of articles with that silly jargon?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MIA for the Day

I live yet. I just re-read my talk page, boy did I give them hell! Good times we had!--ShieldDane (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember you. Weren't you once wrongfully accused of being a Tharky sock? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah then I had a puppet attack me on my page and and whole posse of folk show up to defend them. lots of fun!--ShieldDane (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to the land of Wikia. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservative Party of Canada leadership convention, 2004‎

I disagree with your undiscussed move of this article. Please see Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership convention, 2004‎. I am proposing to move the article back to its previous name. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think anybody would object. If there was no 'convention', who was Harper delivering his acceptance speech to? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

President Obama or President H. Clinton?

Is it me or does Hillary appear to be running the show in Washington instead of Obama?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, Obama's running the show. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems like she wields a lot of power, like a female Henry Kissinger.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That might be, but it's only as much power as Obama will allow. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, no politician is "running the show". Its the people who employ them that get what they want (and I don't mean the American state :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a figure of speech. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Politicians

Is there a policy somewhere stating that the infobox is only meant to contain House of Commons offices? Because in my understanding (and obviously many other users as well) it's allowed to contain any political role that's significant enough to merit note, including party leaderships. Gary Doer's infobox, in fact, even contains a labour union leadership role. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only deleted them at the Federal level (for starters). My argument is that Leader of Political Party is not a House of Commons office. Likwise, it's not a Provincial Assembly office. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely my question: is there a policy somewhere stating that the infobox is only meant to contain House of Commons offices? Is there a policy somewhere stating that Leader of Political Party isn't supposed to be in the infobox? Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

None that I know of, but there should be. I found inconsistancies on those infoboxes & potential for bloatedness. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but you should probably propose such a policy for discussion before applying it to articles as if it already existed — because without a clear policy one way or the other something like this can turn into a pointless revert war if somebody else feels strongly enough that it should be there. As an administrator, I've seen that kind of thing happen far more often than I care to remember. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Where can I make such a policy proposal? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome this discussion of proposing this new policy to determine consensus before making these changes to these articles as you have done. As to where it should be placed i dont know (edit conflict)Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder would be a logical place to start. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, gents. I've made the proposal at the Template-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)