User talk:GoodDay/Archive 18

Everything OK with you, GoodDay?

Are you OK? I notice you weren't at Wikipedia yesterday. I hope everything's ok with you. Perhaps you're snowed in and are without electricity. Are you experiencing severely cold weather in PEI?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure, I was at Wikipedia yesterday. Just signed in later then usual, as I was cutting & taking home more wood. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the temperature in PEI, GoodDay? Jack forbes (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's verrrry c-c-c-cold, seeing as you need more wood. Have you got a fireplace?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's -8 Celsius, I've got a wood furnace & oil furnace. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds warmer and cosier than a gas fire. I remember when I was younger my parents had a coal fire. Now, that was warm and cosy, when you got it going that is. The rest of the house was bloody freezing though. No central heating in those days. Jack forbes (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There's time when one is sweating in this house. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of the freezing houses and flats I occupied when I lived in Dublin. I used to sit practically on top of my coal fire in a vain attempt to keep warm!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the winter over the summer, always. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No way, Jose! I love the summer-beaches, sunshine, the sea, lifeguards, blaring music, the whole holiday lazy-ass do-nothing but swim and tan scene.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sun burns, occasional skin-cancer? nope. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

YOU'RE NO FUN!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd take a little bit of sunburn instead of this freeze. Jack forbes (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not this ice burg. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should change your name from GoodDay to GoodDrag!!! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Heheheheh. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

Seems your anonymous fan is back. I can keep reverting and blocking him as long as it takes, no more than a mouse click. Would you like me to semi-protect your talk page to stop him from posting here? Rockpocket 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've semi-protected that page for a time, I can extend it if need be. If he or she goes on another harassment spree, let me know (my email is enabled). Should any new or unregistered editor need to contact GoodDay during this protection period, please post on my talk page and I'll make sure the message is relayed. Rockpocket 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're in for alot of reversing of reverts. Recommend you get help in your task, like setting up a 24hr daily watch. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What's going on with that? Has he been permabanned yet? -Rrius (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia? possibly not. But stay tuned. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Patrick

I just want to say I am impressed with your response there and your respect of the compromise, I think in the past you would have taken it as an opportunity to let you opinion be known again. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dj. Looking back, I certainly did let my emotions overtake me. I'm a born again Wikipedian. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Page moves

We're getting somewhat OT on the article talk page, so I figured that I ought to message you personally about this. When you move pages you leave a redirect behind. Admins have the option of not leaving one behind, but that's a rare thing to do. Note that several pages, not least of which includes Defenseman, currently redirect to "Defenceman". You should probably take a look at WP:MOVE when you get a chance.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I still prefer that the article remain at Defenceman. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone gone to the moon?

Everyone's Gone to the Moon......Where is everyone? Jack and Misortie are both on Wikibreaks, I never wake up to endearing little messages anymore on my talk page. GD, what the 'ell is going on around the joint? It's turned into Drag City. How's the snowfall in PEI? Wasn't that Haitian earthquake terrible? They are saying over 100,000 people have been killed! I cannot believe it. It's as bad as the 2006 tsunami. The year 2010-and 2010s have really started out tragically.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I reckon Jack & Mistorie are suffering from Wiki-fatigue. Now that my talkpage is on semi-protect, I'll be getting less 'orangne bars' aswell. We're getting freezing rain & snow, at the moment. As for the Haiti tragedy, if I were religious, I'd say 'god' has been very cruel these last few days. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

re Connecticut governors

The official listing starts at 16th. This is easily seen at the governor's official webpage, [1] which describes her as the 87th. It would be very confusing to change the numbering. --Golbez (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I get it now, the list is incomplete, the colonial & state governors are listed together. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, every state has its own scheme. Connecticut numbers starting a century and a half in the past; Alabama doesn't include acting or repeat governors; whereas Arkansas does count repeat governors. In fact, the difficulty in numbering Virginia - their numbering makes no sense, and my attempts to ask them through their buggy website have failed - has kept me from even trying to do their list. --Golbez (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Massachusettes threw me for a loop. When the Governor dies, resigned is removed from office, they leave the Governorship vacant, until the next 'elected' Governor takes office. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So the lt gov isn't even considered 'acting'? --Golbez (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In this situation, he/she is the Lieutenant Governor/Acting Governor. The Office of Governor remains vacant. Therefore the state doesn't number them as Governor (since they aint Governor). GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well that's not too unusual, a lot of places only use acting governors. New Jersey didn't even have a lieutenant governor until... about five days from now. For the last two hundred years, whenever the office was vacant, the president of the senate would be acting governor. --Golbez (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's true. However, unlike New Jersey, Massachusettes had a Lieutenant Governor. That's why I was surprised by their method. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And in Arizona, where they don't even have a Lt. Gov, the replacement still becomes actual governor. --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, in fact all the states that don't have a LtG, allow the next-in-line to succeed to their state's Governorship. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Eclipse/earthquake connection?

Have you noticed there's a solar eclipse today? I remember there was a solar eclipse the same day the 1971 San Fernando earthquake occurred. Weird, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but be assured, it's just a coincendences. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not so sure. If the moon affects the tides, and women's monthly cycle, perhaps eclipses can cause earthquakes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nay! It was just the shifing of the tetonic plates. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you're doing fantastic work. Keep it up, GD!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's something kinky about that statement. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can you hear panting and heavy breathing emitting from your screen? "Ooh baby, more, more, more....."!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

PM infobox

GD- Thanks for trying to fix up some of the mess left by that anon user at Prime Minister of Canada, but you've not put the date of Harper's appointment in correctly; it's not in the appropriate field and it's datelinked, which is against the MoS. Could you please put it in the "incumbentsince" field and not bold or italicise it, so that the box appears like the sample I put up at Talk:Prime Minister of Canada#Infobox? Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how, that's why I put the way I did. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hey GD, what's the good word? I see you've been keeping busy with editing political articles. I wont say "keep it up" as you might take it the wrong way. LOL--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much, I'm sorta spinning my wheels on the older US states Governors articles, as the numberings aren't matching. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help you in that area as I haven't a clue about US governors or senators. Have you got an E-mail address?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail address? nope. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're no fun!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, I'm a boring person. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, stop judging yourself so harshly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've lost some of my humour, ever since I reformed. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me you've turned into a 21st century John Knox!? If that's the case, I'll have to put on a red jacket and come flying at ya.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nay! I've still got a funny side. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

I believe the guy you had been edit waring with made another modification. Might want to bring this to the attention of a higher up.

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Edit Log Zell Faze (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP means well (IMHO), as he's not making blatant vandalism. He's just new to the place & is likely feeling cornered. You're right though, for the articles & his sake, it's time for administrative intervention. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not new, GD; regard his edit history and you'll see he's been up to this same kind of stuff all over the place for months, making dozens of inane edit tests; dozens of bad edits, and then sometimes reverting himself in the end; and starting edit wars with petulant demands that everyone bow to his personal rules. Frankly, I can't believe he's gotten away with it for so long; I was sure he'd get a forced Wiki-break after what he did at Canada – United States relations. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming he's been using the same IP account, I too am surprised. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This must make you love anon IPs even more! :D --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some IPs are helpful. This fellow seemed more interested in edit warring. PS: I'm not too pleased with his promise of continued disruption. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi GD. A kindly word to the wise - Don't feed the (IP) trolls. RashersTierney (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sneaky vandals

I saw your edit at United States Secretary of Homeland Security, and I wanted to let you know the date was changed by this edit. It appears to be another in a line of edits I've noted where all the editor (vandal, I think) does is change a date or a number. It's very frustrating because it's hard to catch, and it seems to be on the rise. -Rrius (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there's alot of 'date changing' vandals snooping around. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hail to the Chief

I believe you!!! BTW, I'm curious as to who your favourite US president is?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A three-way tie: John Tyler, Millard Fillmore & Andrew Johnson. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting choices. Why those three?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tyler, cause he put into practice the full presidential succession, was independant minded & was the first to face impeachment (the House of Reps defeated the motion). Fillmore, cause he had different views on the proposed 1850 compromise, then his predecessor (Taylor); thus causing a hugh shift in the compromise-debate, upon Taylor's death. Andrew Johnson, 'cuz he was the first to be (wrongfully) impeached & was (rightfully) aquitted (by just one Senate vote). GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your knowledge of US presidents; you know much more than I do-and I'm American! Andrew Johnson always had negative PR. Which are your least favourite presidents?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Each 3 had the bad-sides. Tyler was a slave-owner, while Fillmore signed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 & Johnson had no-sympathy for the freed-slaves. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting enough, had I'd been a delegate or voter during those times, with my beliefs? I wouldn't have supported any of them. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Which are your favourite and least favourite First Ladies?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gardiner Tyler, Lucy Webb Hayes, Frances Cleveland, Edith Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy & Michelle Obama. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tyler, Cleveland, Kennedy, Obama 'cuz of their figures. Hayes 'cuz I'm a teetotaler & Roosevelt, 'cuz she must've had 'energy' to stick with Teddy. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised you left out Elizabeth Monroe. She was georgeous.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The artists back then, were known to be generous. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And today they have instead syntax machines, air-brushing, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe, methods change, but the basics remain the same. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Which 20th century presidents do you like?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt, Gerald R. Ford & George H. W. Bush. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting choices. Explain as I'm curious. My favourites are JFK, Ronald Reagan (with hindsight), and probably yes, Gerald Ford. The Fords were probably the most normal and tyically-American family who ever occupied the White House. I was a little bit disappointed that he always confirmed the Warren Commission's findings into the assassination of JFK.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ford was likely pressured by the other commission members. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

True. But explain your choices.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

'cuz he was thrusted into the top job, just short of age 43 & blundered by promising (after getting elected to a full term) he wouldn't run for re-election (latter he corrected that as re-election to a consecutive term). Ford, 'cuz of the way he made it to the presidency, first test of the 25th amendment. Bush, 'cuz his handling of Iraq, retroactively appears to many to have been the correct way. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bush will be retroactively judged a good president same as Reagan as been, but I remember when he was incumbent the Europeans called him a warmonger and thought he would start a nuclear war against the Soviet Union using Europe as the battleground. Well, none of that happened and now he's been vindicated by history as having been, along with Gorbachev, the man responsible for ending the Cold War. History is strange, no? Why don't you like Kennedy?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

JFK?, I guess 'cuz he's bragged up too much (which tends to occur when one's life is cut short). Besides, LBJ had more women (LBJ claims). GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You believe that s..t? Besides, even if it were true, which I sincerely doubt, quality counts more than quantity. For instance, do you think LBJ had it off with someone like Marilyn Monroe?!!!!!! GD, come on now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe, I'm just not certain where JFK would've been ranked if he had served out his terms (a say terms as I believe he would've been re-elected in '64). GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, allegedly without Lyndie on the VP ticket. Hmm........?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to this Lynddie, BTW

I don't know, if they would've dumped LBJ from the ticket. The last time an elected Vice President wasn't nominated for re-election, was in 1944. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Spiro T. Agnew was Richard Nixon's VP during his first term.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the first nine months of his second term. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'd forgotten that. I forget why Ford replaced him. I know you know the answer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

VP Agnew resigned (Oct 10, 1973), Prez Nixon nominated Ford for VP (Oct 12, 1973). Senate confirms Ford as VP (Nov 27, 1973 -I think) & House of Reps confirm Ford as VP (Dec 6, 1973), he's sworn in as VP that day. This transition occured under the US Constitiution's 25th Amendment (section 2). GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agnew was corrupt, now I remember. My parents never liked him. What do you honestly think of Obama?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Prez Obama? I don't think he's corrupt. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said he was corrupt, I just wonder what you think of him as president so far.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Too early to tell. So far things haven't been going too good for his political party. In 2009, they've lost the Virginia & New Jersey gubernatorial elections & yesterday the Massachusetts US Senate election. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Think he'll run in 2012 and win a second term?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, he'll win the Democratic presidential nomination. I'm not certain if he'll be re-elected, though; it's too early to predict. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What about Hillary? She might run against him again. Or Caroline Kennedy could run. It'll be interesting to see who the Republicans will put forward as their candidates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama's popularity would have to be extremely low in 2012, for anybody to challenge him for the Dems prez nomination. It's rare that an incumbent President looses his party's re-nomination. Who'll be the GOP's prez nominee? depends, if Obama's re-election seems certain, alot of Republicans won't run. My guesses are, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty or (a long shot) Dick Cheney; PS: I just can't see Sarah Palin getting the prez nomination. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody takes Palin seriously.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

She's suffered the same fate as Dan Quayle. A few mistaken political statements & you're labeled for life. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

They're both geeks, and once a geek, always a geek.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehehehe, there's always a risk when picking the veep nominee. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, look who JFK was stuck with.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

JFK, needed the electoral votes of Texas. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

True, as well as the Southern Protestant votes, such as West Virginia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, I believe Nixon/Lodge won the 1960 election, There's was corruption going on somewhere at the polls. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are right. Remember the US was very conservative back then. It did seem unbelievable that a Catholic senator could beat the ticket that had Eisenhower's VP together with a Bostonian aristocrat. Joe Kennedy did whatever it took to make his son prez. Anyroad, Nixon went into severe depression after he lost the 1960 election. BTW, I am really impressed with your extensive knowledge of American politics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne. I believe GW Bush won the 2000 election, despite the stealing accusations. IMHO, the people in Florida who 'accidently' voted for Pat Buchanan (instead of Al Gore) cost Gore the big prize. I'm not sure, but I believe the votes were later counted up (after Bush's inauguration) & Bush actually had a wider lead, then the official tally. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Gore had a bad record in his home state of Tennessee for raising the taxes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers, I forgot about Tennessee. If Gore had gotten their electoral votes, Florida's problems would've been irrelevant (to Gore). GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your opinion of Jimmy Carter (Remember him?)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Carter? a poor politician. From what I've read, he was a tad stubborn in his relations with Congress (which at the time, had Democratic majorities in both Houses). GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

Carter's lacklustre performance in the White House made it a cinch for Ronald Reagan to win the 1980 election.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Reagan kept stinging Carter in the prez debates with the response "there you go again". GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Reagan had a lot of charisma. I remember when he visited Ireland in June 1984.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I got a laugh out of his response to Mondale's remarks about Reagan's age, at their second prez debate of 1984. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I watched those debates. Did you ever see a clip of the Nixon/Kennedy debates?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Nixon was on medication for an injured knee & Kennedy was pumped up with corisone. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy followed Peter Lawford's advice about how to preen before the television cameras.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Had people known about JFK's addison's disease, Nixon certainly would've won. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention his collection of female friends.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Governors

I appreciate the effort you're putting into these, but the vast majority of the non-featured lists are in a very rudimentary state. Try not to get involved in too many at once, they require a lot of detailed work and you'll just burn yourself out on it. :) I mean, heck, New Jersey was already at a pretty good state and I still took a week or so to tidy it up. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Golbez. I believe I've figured out the Tennessee list, but Mississppi's got me stumped, there's apparently no 57th Governor. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Facebook

Are you on Facebook? If so, feel free to E-mail me with the info.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, never been on facebook. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You should get on it. GD. It's a hell of a lot of fun. I joined myself about a month ago. I'm finding loads of people from High School, work, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nay, I'm already strapped up with my Wikipedia addiction. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll enjoy it.........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nay, I've been asked for years by others (to go on facebook) & turned them all down. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can be verrrrry persuasive. It's fun, and you can contact old friends (male-and female)!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nay, not interested. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, enough said on the subject.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob, it's nice to be wanted. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is being sought

GoodDay, I'd like your opinion at this discussion here as to Anne of Cleve's death. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

George Harrison

Have you ever seen the YouTube video of George Harrison singing I Need You? It's really good. There was always something so poignant about George, and he was certainly underrated as a guitarist and singer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The cool thing about George's time as a Beatle, was that he wrote his own songs with little to no collaboration. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and they were so melodic, with his clear voice not bothering to hide his Liverpudlian accent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My Harrison fav was 'If I needed someone to love'. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I like (love) While My Guitar Gently Weeps and I Need You.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I got the movie Help!, which includes 'I Need You'. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a great film, but I prefer A Hard Day's Night with its not-so-suble satire against the British Establishment, such as Lennon's contemptuous line "Seeing as they reckon dogs more then people in England, you'd think these quarters (the luggage compartment on the train, where animals were also kept in cages) would be more palatial". Or "You can't win with people like him, after all it's his train".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a cool movie, though it's overly obvious they're lip-sychning their own song "If I fell". GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just had a listen to George singing your fav IF I Needed Someone. The music reflects his developing interest in Indian culture and religion. The lyrics are more cynical than his plaintive lament from the previous year I Need You.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a more me first tone, in that song. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And the nonchalant, cool, offhand maybe you will get a call from me instead of the cringing please come on back to me, I'm lonely as can be, I NEED YOU...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A fella's gotta be a little tough sometimes. Alot of gals don't like guys whole do anything for'em. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Patti Boyd left George for Eric Clapton, who might have been a better guitar player, but George certainly beat him in the looks department. George should never have dedicated Something to Patti. Had he been more like Mick Jagger with his Under My Thumb, Heart of Stone, Play With Fire stance, she'd have never gone for Clapton. Trust me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, gals take too much romance as being a sign of 'I only wantcha for sex'. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Women like the cool James Bond Love 'em and leave 'em guys, as it provides a challenge and sparks their competitive streak with other women.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be so much easier, if the gal merely stripped off for the guy who's attracted to her. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and he'd just s..ew her, tell his friends all about it, forget to call, and go after the girl who played hard-to-get! I'm 51, GD, believe me, I know MEN, and how they operate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It was the opposite for me. I was used by my first 'cuz I wasn't finiancially secured. She would've wanted a relationship, if I had the dough. Believe me I know WOMEN. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ever see the 1980 moive, Raging Bull? Wowsers, talk about intense relationships. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Ever see Fatal Attraction? I do realise many, many wowen only go out with men who possess fat wallets and fatter bank accounts. IMO, behind every male chauvinist and misogynist there's a stupid bitch who messed with his head. Speaking of stupid females, Tatiana's friend just phoned here-it's 9 AM on a Sunday morning!!!! Don't parents ever teach their kids that one never calls anybody at home before 10.30 AM on weekends. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Get out your fig leaf

According to some editors at Wikipedia, we're all walking around naked until 2011; seeing as the 2010s in fashion article was deleted. I wonder if the deletionists realise that as we are officially in the 2010s, it's not crystal-ball gazing to start an article now, describe what people are wearing at the moment, then add as the seasons and years progress. Instead we are seemingly in our birthday suits until the new year 2011 is rung in. No wonder good editors are leaving in droves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got nothing on, but my cloth. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheeky devil.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Input is needed

GoodDay, seeing as you contribute to political articles, perhaps you'd care to comment about the inclusion of JD Tippit in the infobox at the article on the JFK assassination. I have raised the issue here: Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination. Another pair of eyes is useful. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Off topic on Wikipedia

Hey man, I've obviously been following your input on the Prime Minister of Canada page, and I thought I smelled a Republican! :P

I'd love to go toe to toe with you on the subject sometime as I am a staunch Monarchist. I don't mean here on Wikipedia of course, but I wonder if you might be interested in doing a "Back and forth" Blog of some sort? Could be useful for both of us to hone our arguments as well as be of general use? Dphilp75 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcomed to a monarchy/republic, which is better debate anytime, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Did you want to set something specific up so you aren't stuck with pages and pages of correspondence here?Dphilp75 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got a Bot that archives my 'talkpage', whenever a 'discussion section' is dormant for over a week (I believe). GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's any fear of it getting too long, you could always make a subpage for it, such as User talk:GoodDay/Monarchy v. Republic. -Rrius (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder though, would such a subpage get deleted by administrators as a blogging breach. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but this monarchist–republican divide comes up a lot, and discussing it serves the Wikipedia purpose of helping you (and by extension, those who agree with each of you) understand where the other one is coming from as you edit throughout Commonwealth realm articles. Also, since you could just as easily have the discussion here and then archive to the subpage, what would be the difference having there in the first place. Then again, I don't think you ever cared about having long threads on your talk page, so it probably doesn't matter anyway. -Rrius (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Great idea about the debate as I'm a staunch monarchist. GoodDay, why not ask Rockpocket how to set it up so that it doesn't get deleted or reported to AN/I as blogging? I myself would love to participate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead & asked Rock for his advice. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Has he responded? I'm excited about the prospect of a debate. It could be just the thing to jazz up Wikipedia and drag it out of its doldrums.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't yet. But, my gut feeling tells me it'll be considered a bad idea. It has the potential to reactive my alter-ego (though, it would be restricted to that proposed sub-page, I guess). GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment GD have a read of WP:TALKPAGE they are for the improvement of an article and not for general discussion on the pros and cons of republicanism, also see WP:NOT#WEBHOST. BigDunc 17:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BigDunc. Sorry folks, the proposed discussions would be a breach of those rules, whether here or on a subpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could always go with my original idea and set it up somewhere else...?Dphilp75 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to pass. It's too tempting for my alter-ego. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! But..... Alter-ego?Dphilp75 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Check my last Archive, Jan 7-8, concerning my past talkpage conduct on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. I guess it would be too tempting for others to set up similar debates on User Talkpages which would turn Wikipedia into a forum, therefore detracting from its original, main purpose which is to build an encyclopedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to being builders. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Republicanism is the only way to go. Well, that was the last word on it so, as GoodDay says, back to building. Jack forbes (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye aye sir. LOL. BTW, Jack thanks for your input on the JFK assassination. Hopefully Tippit's name won't be inserted again. A classic case of POV-pushing and OR.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm with BigDunc, here. Such a debate is not really suitable for Wikipedia. That said if the debate was sufficiently erudite (and I'm sure it would be), it could make a very interesting resource and learning tool for Wikiversity. I would recommend you have the debate there. Rockpocket 20:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to pass. If I ever got into Wikiversity, I'd likely never get out of it. If anything, I'd manage to get myself booted out of it. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A very tempting place though, for a feller like me, a type who thinks he knows it all, hehehe. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:TALKPAGE is an irrelevant help: page. I think Dunc meant to link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages, which 'bans' myspacery. This is in practice though, only directed at people exclusively using the site for such activity. Established convention is that on your talk page, as an established editor who otherwise contributes to the project, you are free within the normal boundaries to use it to host whatever discussion you like. If any established editor has ever even been warned, let alone blocked, for such activity, it's news to me. MickMacNee (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. As I said above, this is related to many pages that you, GoodDay, and (I assume) Dphilip75 edit. I've seen discussions there, and they seem to feature a lot of talking around each other and assumptions about where the other side is coming from. A discussion like the one we're talking about is not only calculated to improve the quality discussion in the regular talkspace, which in turn would improve articles, but the discussion would also be more related to the project than quite a lot of discussions that I'm sure many of us have had on our talk pages. Ultimately, I'm convinced that if Dphilip had simply said, "I'm interested in discussing monarchism versus republicanism, here's what I think...", no one would have said a word against it. In fact, many would have watched with interest or even participated. If no one is going to chide you and Jeanne for discussing your favourite presidents and first ladies, no one is going to question this. The use of the word "blog" is part of the problem here, but I doubt the discussion would in anyway resemble a blog. -Rrius (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, the key part of WP:NOTBLOG is that "the focus" of the userspace should be "providing a foundation for effective collaboration". As I've said, the discussion would fit into the rubric of a "foundation for effective collaboration". What's more, there is no way it could be seen as making the focus of your userspace less about doing that. -Rrius (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just not certain. An administrator (Rockpocket) has already turned down the 'sub-page' route. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The subpage idea was just about clutter. I say just go to Dphilip's page and start the discussion there, and see what happens. I can't imagine anyone would get blocked over it, so what's the harm? -Rrius (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I better not, such a discussion has the potential to unleash my alter ego. Other's are free to do so, of course. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations for List of suicides

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to my most recent post in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

'editor in good standing' at CDA

Please think really hard about the meaning of "editor in good standing" in CDA. Read the FAQ etc. Making it too stringent will just break the whole thing, believe me. There are 8 very strong safeguards already - if we disallow people with recent block records etc, from making a CdA, we will create something so exclusive Wales himself could stand up and object to it. I think if you ever had the total indignity (and embarrassment too) of getting a block you would think differently about this. Think of all the editors you know and have worked with: myself, Jack, Snowded, Sarah, HighKing, almost everyone at BI.. A block (or any variant) is the punishment - nothing more. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are good points, Matt. OK, the 8 proposed safeguards will suffice. Afterall, blocks aren't meant to be punishment. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical birthday-28 January

GD, do you know whose birthday it is today? Henry VII, born on this date in 1457 to his 13 year old mother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's also the anniversary of his second son's (Henry VIII) death in 1547. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Very good, GD. My talk page will post famous birthdays everyday henceforth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's 3 more: Pope Clement IX in 1600, Alexander Mackenzie in 1822 & Jackson Pollock in 1912. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,GD. You can add them to my talk page if you'd like.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh the sheer hypocracy

Go over to AN/I and check out the latest complaint. A username contains probably one of the most offensive words in the English language, yet is not blocked, yet a seasoned editor happens to lose his temper and tell someone to f--- off and receives a two-week block!!! This is really rich.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Which case exactly & who got blocked? GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the account has finally been blocked. But it should have been immediately blocked!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Who got blocked for 2 weeks? GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember who exactly, all I know is that veteran editors are often blocked for using profanity, yet the abusive username was allowed to remain until it was brought up before AN/I.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Profanity must be used as little as possible & only then, in a non-threatening way. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember an editor once said b..locks to me, and I didn't even bother to respond.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ya did the correct thing. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds familiar Jeanne, I was blocked for 2 weeks for claiming an admin was a f--king fantasist after they told lies about me. And the admin was told to chalk it down as a bad day. BigDunc 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-restraint is required. No matter how frustrating the situation, hold back on the foul language. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was you, Dunc. And weren't you once blocked for calling someone-wait until I fetch my smelling salts-a jumped-up pr--k?!!!The word pr--k is also a verb, not in itself a profane word, so I don't see how a block could have been justified. The editor who said b..locks to me, and which happens to be an extremely vulgar word (which is why The Sex Pistols chose it for their LP title), and he didn't get so much as a reprimand.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like me :) But that is a major difference between the Irish and the Yanks, don't know if the Canadians have the same sensibilities but the F word is prevalent in our language and it's use is not seen as a such a bad thing. reminds me of a saying Politeness. The most acceptable hypocrisy. by Ambrose Bierce BigDunc 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Politeness in response to profanity, has a way of frustrating the offender even more, heheheh. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't like profanity, yet I use it all he time, both in English and Italian. The Italians pretend to be shocked when I use it, yet it's commonly used on TV and at the dinner table, so.... Oh, the other day-GoodDay, you'll love this story-my daughter was almost physically attacked by her 27 year-old cousin because Tatiana who's only 14, called her a whore!!!!!! This cousin (aged 27), arrived like a dervish at my front door shrieking hysterically, threatening my daughter, and she was accompanied by her mother who demanded of me "Jenny, if someone called you a whore, what would you do?" I replied laconically "Ask her if she wanted lessons".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, that'll straighten her out. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It didn't. I had to pull her off my daughter. Honestly. If I went after everyone who called me a whore.......The funny thing is that a 27 year-old woman had to be accompanied by her mother to complain that a 14 year-old called her a whore. LOL LOL LOL LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the 27-yr old needed her mom, to hold her hand. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This same 27 year-old woman has her mother call up her boyfriends after they break up with her, demanding to know why they no longer want her daughter?!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they tell her that it's because her daughter still hangs on to her apron strings and that the mother is a bit of a loon? Jack forbes (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also possibly that just maybe she is a whore? Sounds like she goes through boyfriends like a bag of Skittles. HalfShadow 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A guy doesn't like the prospect of 'meddling mother-in-law'. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You wanted examples

This illustrates what can frustrate other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, Snowded. Thanks for keeping me on even keel. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it, with explanation in 'edit summit'. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey hey hey

There was a fire in school today!!! Coincidentally, we had a fire-drill this morning. LOL. And, speaking of whores, my poor English teacher had a wardrobe malfunction today, too, exposing a black g-string to the entire class!!!! It was sooooo funny. -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What do these 2 women (27yr-old & teacher) look like? PS: Luv the young teachers, 'cuz they'll make you do it over & over again, until you get it right. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Was the teacher and her g-string part of the fire drill? LOL--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

thumb|Ms. O' Brien, is that you?

Nope! She's in her late 40s, GoodDay. I find the younger teachers particularly vicious! LOL. She "dropped" a white-board marker on the floor, so she bent over to pick it up, .... I think you can guess what happened next! -- 109.76.21.151 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

With a teacher like that, who'd mind spending detention with her. PS: Janet 'I like showing my breasts' Jackson having a wardrobe malfunction? not. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the teacher did it on purpose. Why would a teacher wear a g-string to a Christian Brothers School. Sigh... Ireland has certainly altered since I lived there in the 1980s. I remember Dublin in the rare ould times........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It might've been Mrs Laternaeu. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Or Mrs. Robinson. Whoa whoa whoa.....Hey hey hey....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Count von Count

I believe I'm turning into that vampire fellow from Sesame Street. Lately, I've been adding numberings to government heads. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you like your stake, Herr Count? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"...20, 21, 22 Prime Ministers of Canada, ah ah ahhhh". GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

British monarchs

Why do you feel so strongly about this that you break your own much touted 2RR? Why didn't you comment when you had the chance? ðarkuncoll 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I only made 2 reverts. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So far a 'majority' of editors agree with me, to change the Template back to it's previous version. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

Have you been following MMN's block at ANI? -Rrius (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Was just about to. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears he may have struck out. A breach of WP:CIVIL has definitely occured there. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he's gonna be blocked for 'atleast' the next 6 months. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure telling some one to f--k off after telling them to leave you alone really justifies an indefinite block, but he's pissed a lot of people off, so I guess I'm not surprised. -Rrius (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

When the community says 'stop it', one should head the advice. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Evelyn

GoodDay, did you know that today's the birthday of Evelyn Draper? Are you going to buy her a new whore suit or just a bottle of coke?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely the suit, as I've a navel-fetish for gals. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love a coke, Dave. Wait a minute, you haven't said how nice I look.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Luv that kinky gal. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of films, last night I watched for the second time a really dramatic film Blood Diamond (film) Have you ever seen it? If not do, as it's powerful, disturbing, and is that rarity in the the cinema-an action film with a profound message.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I loved it! Oh, how Leo di Caprio lost his baby-face! -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Before Blood Diamond andd the Departed I never took Di Caprio seriously, but he was superb in both. He made a very convincing Rhodesian mercenary in Blood Diamond. His African co-star was also good. I forget his name, but he was also convincing in his role.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I never seen those movies. Leonard Capachino (the coffee type drink), did he grow his five facial hairs? or were they fakes. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, GD you should see both films. I thought Leo was ridiculous in Titanic, but he redeems himself as an actor in Blood Diamond. Trust me!!!!! Go and see it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I shall consider it. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I heard he was good as Howard Hughes in The Aviator. -Rrius (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I never saw that one. I recall a lot people didn't take Johnny Depp seriously when he first started his acting career.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've yet to see Aviator. My fav actors are James Earl Jones, Jack Nickolson, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington & Matthew Broderick. Pratically all the actresses are my favs, I tend to judge them on their physical appearance. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While I was just about to complement you on your eclectic choice of actors, I was disappointed to read that you judged an actress by her physical attributes rather than ability. I suppose Angelina Jolie is a good actress then?! Not to mention Pamela Anderson and Anna Nicole Smith!!!!!!!!! One of my favourite actresses is not conventionally beautiful but when she smiles, a million suns explode. I'm referring to Whoopi Goldberg.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I see Goldberg as being attractive aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

An excellent actress whom one instinctively likes and feels at home with. You feel as if she's present in your living room when she appears on the screen. If I were to judge an actress on looks alone, I'd choose Megan Fox, Eva Green, Sharon Stone, Keira Knightley, Selma Hayek, Mischa Barton.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I left out German actress Xenia Seeberg.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to bite them all, hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think you watch too much Discovery Channel!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, if all those actresses had a map tatooed all over their bodies, I'd want them to give me a geography lesson I'd never forget. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully some of them are now reading your talk page. We never know who's eavesdropping on our pages here--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I must confess, I do rate actresses on their talents. I'm just being bad. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Brother is closer than we think

Actually one time I discovered our conversation we had a while back about our fave Beatles LPs was put on somebody's personal blog!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's personal blog? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Someone writing down what modern mothers discuss these days. It was probably made by a Wikipedia editor, but I didn't notice what name was used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever googled your name? I do all the time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Never have, but I know Google has copies of Wikipedia articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just googled jeanne Boleyn and my name came up at least 40 times. mostly in media outsets as they credit my images--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope good things are being said about me. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, nobody's talking behind your back. Oh, Jack Forbes has gone away until summer. What a drag.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

He's a brave fellow, climbing mountains. I get neverous standing on my toes. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll have fun. The Highlands are beautiful-magnificent scenery!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt there'll be alot of yodeling. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't yodel in Scotland, GD, it's Switzerland where they yoooooooooodelayyyyoooohhhoooooooooo!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope he doesn't have the trouble that Disraeli had (with John Brown) in the movie Mrs. Brown. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see that film.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's on YouTube. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of post

GoodDay, I'm wondering why you removed your post from Rockpockets talk page. Seems to me if you feel that strongly about it and have good reason to argue your point you should leave it. Your shout of course. Jack forbes (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I figured I'd let Rock review the Template page & decide for himself if there was a consensus for DrK's change. I reckon, I didn't wanna take my & Tharky's argument to his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but remember to fight your corner when Rockpocket comes on line. Jack forbes (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I Shall, as IMHO the template-in-question was hijacked. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this is a good idea? Best to leave it I would say GoodDay. Jack forbes (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I weren't looking to cause a disturbance. Just concerned that since they're discussiong Elonka, perhaps she'd be annoyed they were posting in gaelic. I'll delete though, as you're correct, they might mis-read my concerns. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not saying you were wrong, but a misreading of it is a good possibility. Jack forbes (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as Rash already responded, I'll let BigDunc decide if it's disruptive & certainly won't protest if he deletes. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you start thinking I'm being a pest let me know. Just trying to give some good (hopefully) advice. Jack forbes (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you're doing exactly what I want ya to do. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there GoodDay, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:GoodDay. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add them, but no prob. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

GD, I have just replied on talk English, Scottish and British royalty templates, that I have never been canvassed by anyone. I wish I had seen those comments the other day. You have never, ever canvassed me. I explained that on the page. It just so happens that I do agree with you that British monarchs did not exist until 1707, but I have always believed that prior to my becoming an editor at Wikipedia!!! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob, as a solution was achieved at that template page. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. It's rare when a solution is found at Wikipedia!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Myself & Tharky tend to bump heads concerning the British Isles monarchial histories, but it's sure cool when we finally reach an agreement. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol. It's funny though, all those people at British Isles claiming it was a political term when introduced by Dee in 1577 - how could it possibly be so, when there was no British state until 1707? ðarkuncoll 16:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some people complain about the term British Isles, but not the term Irish Sea, go figure. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What annoys me is when some people refer to Dee as a British?! imperialist when he was an occultist who was seeking a mystical union of the northwestern islands. He was not a statesman such as Cecil or Walsingham.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, the arguments over British Isles will never end. Thankfully, I no longer hang around the Specifics Examples page (fear of insanity). One thing's for certain, I'll alway oppose any attempts to move the article British Isles to another name, cuz that name is (atleast) historical. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some VP questions

GD before I go out I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. OK, was it true that JFK was going to drop LBJ from the ticket for the 1964 election as soon as he returned from Texas? If so, who do historians believe he would have chosen? A third question. Had Kennedy not chosen Johnson in 1960, do you think he'd have chosen Adlai Stephenson?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer #1 - there's no reliable proof, just heresay. I know that AG Bobby Kennedy, wanted LBJ dumped (RFK didn't want LBJ in '60). Answer#2 - I'm not sure, perhaps Al Gore's father. Answer#3 - Nope, Stevenson wouldn't have accpeted (IMHO), since he'd been the prez nominee in 1952 & 1956. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I believe that JFK relied heavily on Bobby's opinions and advice. If Bobby suggested John should drop Johnson from the ticket, John would probably have done so. His re-election in '64 was a sure thing, therefore he wouldn't have needed Johnson to garner the white southern vote. It was common knowledge back then that there was no love lost between RFK and LBJ. Their mutual antipathy glowed like atomic radiation; one can see it in photos and film clips. Oh BTW, today Adlai would be 110 years old. Check for daily birthdays at the top of my talk page, below my advert for WikiBlitz!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Had JFK lived & Stevenson joined the '64 ticket (and they were elected), he wouldn't have been Veep very long. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you reckon that? When did he die?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson suffered a fatal heart attack in July '65. Indeed, the stress of being a heart-beat away from the presidency, may have brought that heart-attack on sooner. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm convinced that JFK would have dropped Johnson and that he would have gone on to win the 1964 election. Whether or not voters would have become disillusioned by him would have largely depended on how he handled the war in Vietnam. Perhaps his womanising habits would have become public knowledge, thus angering the conservatives in the Democratic party. Who knows how world history might have turned out had he remained in office til 1968!!! The idea is mindboggling.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Err, ya mean 'til January 20, 1969. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Jan. 1969, then he might have been followed by his brother, depending on the Kennedy popularity ratings by that time. What do you reckon?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Back-to-back brother Presidents? I can't picture the USA going along those lines. Had JFK lived, I'm not even certain RFK would've gone into elective politics. If my theory is correct, RFK never seeking the presidency, would've meant Ted not getting into the Chappaquidick trouble. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh now this is getting verrrryy interesting. Do explain your theory about Ted and Chappaquidick.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary-Joe Kepechnie worked for RFK's '68 presidential campaign. Had she not, it's quite possible she wouldn't have been at that party in 1969, that she & Ted left together. It's strange when one considers how a moment can change stuff. Had JFK lived? LBJ may never have been Prez. If the American had left Vietnam sooner, the Democrats would've won in '68, thus Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford wouldn't have been Prez. No Watergate scandal, no Jimmy Carter to follow. No Carter & Iran hostage crises? no Reagan. No Reagan, then no Bush (elder). No Bush (elder) with economy in bad shape in '92, then no Clinton. Again, no Bush (elder) then no Bush (younger) in 2000. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have ya ever seen the 'Star Trek, Next Generation' episode Tapestry? Wowsers, it dives right into what ifs theories. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy definitely had problems in the South, and would probably not have ditched Johnson. If he had, picking a Yankee like Stevenson would have been a terrible idea. Also, if Kennedy were going to pick someone else, he probably wouldn't have made a decision until much later—perhaps not until most or all of the delegates were chosen. Keep in mind that conventions mattered back then more than they do now; presidential candidates often ran with the person the convention stuck them with, who was not necessarily their first choice.

Thinking about RFK in 1968 if JFK hadn't died requires assuming JFK would still be popular. It also assumes that the party would have been willing to nominate a second Kennedy in a row. It is interesting to wonder whether Kennedy would have been able to get the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Medicaid passed. LBJ was able to get the fist ones through in part because he was able to use Kennedy's death. All of them took LBJ's considerable skills to get through the Senate. If Kennedy were still alive, I have to wonder whether LBJ would have put anything like that effort into something that would give the Kennedys credit. I have serious doubts that Kennedy would have gotten it done himself. -Rrius (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Due the to status of the Vice Presidency (during the 1960's), JFK getting LBJ to push through the Civil Rights, Voting Rights Acts & Medicaid, for the administration would've been highly unlikely. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative history

Another fascinating what if is what if Barry Goldwater had won the 64 election instead of LBJ?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All kinds of possibilites abound. Could Goldwater have beatend an scandaled JFK in '64? If so, would a Prez Goldwater run again (most likely) in '68? If he & Miller were re-elected, would VP Miller run for prez in '72? Indeed, alternative history can be fascinating. I can't quite remember it, but there was a book out once, asking the question, what if the South (Confederate States) had won the American Civil War. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How's this for alternative history: What if the Spanish Armada had succeeded in invading England?!!!! Think how the course of world history would have changed? Philip annexing England as a Spanish possession, no English colonisation in the New World, the Protestant church banned forever, the Spanish as the supreme European and global power.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, had things happend that way, we'd still be asking ourselves 'what if'. Though, we'd be asking it in Spanish. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Oh do you want to hear something incredible? My cat sent my son's friend an e-mail with his paw on the keyboard!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's purrrfect. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that wild? This AM, my son and I went out to the shops, he left the PC open, when he returned, his friend sent him a message asking him why he had sent the message:PPPPPPOOOOOOOBBBB.........LLLLLA and other weird characters that made no sense at all. LOL. The cat did it as he was the only living creature in the house at the time the message was sent. Mad, bad, Tony!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I read an article about what would have happened if Harold had won at Hastings. One conclusion was that Germanic/Scandinavian Europe would have dominated the Middle Ages because England would have provided the warm-weather ports lost by the period of global cooling that cut short their power. It was also put forward that they would have continued colonizing in the Americas, and likely come to an accommodation with the Indians because they were technologically better matched (i.e., no guns). Interesting stuff. -Rrius (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One moment changed, can set off a chain reaction in many directions throughout history. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And none of us would ever had been born. I always have to remember that when I feel sympathy for history's losers. -Rrius (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Having tried to change the past a number of times, I've found it's only really possible to a limited degree. ðarkuncoll 00:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps things are set in stone. Maybe one (via time machine) can't change history, at least not the big parts of it - See the Twilight Zone's episode Back There. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago me and some friends made a determined effort to change the date of the Battle of Hastings from Friday 13th (an unlucky day) to Saturday 14th of October (to give us a better chance of winning). I never bothered checking if it ever worked, though. ðarkuncoll 00:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the calender date could be changed from Julian to Gregorian. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Friday the 13th in a year with Halley's Comet is just bad mojo. Harold should have tried to avoid that. -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

He certainly should have. That's why we sent a message back to him to feel a bit off, that day, and postpone it to the next. ðarkuncoll 00:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember in the M*A*S*H episode (Crises), Frank growled about their complaining of lack of supplies. Frank said, "what if the minutemen had complained about no toilet paper?", Hawkeye responded "so we would've had independance 20 minutes later". GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I like to imagine how history would have changed had Anne Boleyn carried her son full-term in 1536?! Henry wouldn't have bothered getting rid of Anne (providing the boy survived infancy), there would have been no King Edward VI; Mary and Elizabeth would have most likely married foreign princes, and the Tudor dynasty might have gone on for centuries! Another alternative historical scene is what if Richard III had heeded the warning pinned to Norfolk's tent and challenged Henry Tudor to single combat at the Battle of Bosworth instead of falsely relying on Lord Stanley with his force of 3,000 men which turned the tide against Richard when they treacherously went over to Henry's side after Richard had slain most of Tudor's body-shields. It's a foregone conclusion that Richard would have killed Henry and retained his crown. He'd have remarried quickly, fathered an heir or two and the magnificent Plantagenet dynasty could have lasted forever!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Had that Edward lived to be King, Mary I never would've ascended the throne & Elizabeth might've if her full brother had no children & predeceased her. After Edward V & Richard, duke of York were deposed, the throne should've went to George, Duke of Clarenece's son, Edward. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it rightfully should have passed to Elizabeth of York. Anyroad, had Richard III emerged the victor, he would have wasted no time in marrying and siring an heir to secure the throne from further attemps to usurp it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about 'Liz. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tragically, Richard III (who was married) had a son & heir-apparent, who predeceased him. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

His wife Anne Neville had died in March 1485, 5 months before Bosworth. There had been rumours that he hoped to wed his niece Elizabeth!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Had Richard's son lived, would Henry still have attacked? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. One can readily understand Henry VIII's preoccupation in 1525 with his lack of a male heir, and one rather unhealthy daughter to succeed him. Had Prince Edwrad (Richard's son) lived, there would have been a rallying point for the English against the Tudor invader.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed in those days (and for centuries after), it was believed that females would be weak/controlled monarchs & therefore their successions were usually opposed. Also, men didn't like the idea of being ruled by a woman. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Although a monarch had to be a warlord, history has shown that men often followed women leaders in battle such as Margaret of Anjou, Joan of Arc and even back in the 12th century, men supported Matilda of England against her cousin Stephen. The two major objections to female sovereigns were the risk, as was proven in the case of Mary I and Mary Stuart, that she would be dominated by her husband, also there was the high risk that she would die in childbirth along with her heir, leaving the kingdom in turmoil. That was Henry VIII's fear. He saw Mary being incapable of holding onto her throne and the realm plunged back into the civil strife of the previous century with all the Yorkist claimants brandishing swords and their Plantagenet coat-of-arms.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If only Henry VIII, could've seen the future (Elizabeth I of England). -- GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she was probably England's greatest monarch, yet Henry's line died with her, and his enemies, the Scots inherited the throne, despite his will which explicitly debarred them from the succession. He wouldn't have been too pleased to see that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It can't be all bad, James I/VI was a great-grandnephew of Henry VIII's. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In his will, Henry expressly debarred his eldest sister, Margaret's descendants from the throne, in favour of his younger sister, Mary's descendants. That was how Jane Grey was catapulted onto the throne by the machinations of her father-in-law.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It was the wrong thing for Henry to do, as far as succession go. But, I suppose he'd have preferred an English monarchs succeeded to the Scottish throne, then visa-versa. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he tried many times to invade Scotland in an attempt to capture the infant Mary, Queen of Scots and wed her to his son, Edward. That was why her mother, Mary of Guise had her sent to her relations in France. Read this article here: War of the Rough Wooing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's ironic, after all those centuries of English monarchs trying to assume the Scottish throne, the visa-versa occures (though no as a military conquest, as with a English descended Scottish King). GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

History is full of many ironies such as the French toppling the Bourbon dynasty only to eventually replace it with the decidedly unroyal Bonapartes!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Then to restore the Bourbons, then the Bonpartes again & finally getting rid onf monarchies permanently. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but France sans monarch lacks something. France needs a monarchy IMO, to provide a living thread of continuity to its glorious past. Call me romantic, but it's the way I think.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nay, it's the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

E dopo?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What's that mean? GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine mondern France with a monarchy. It would be so artificial. -Rrius (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they've had Presidents non-stop since 1870, let's not break the streak. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, e dopo? is an Italian expression that roughly corresponds to the English and.....? The Germans have their own equivalent which they apparently use a lot to combat a person's statement. I can imagine a restored Bourbon monarchy putting the singing/catwalking "I'm too sexy for my shirt" French Republic's First Lady Carla Bruni in the shade. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Bourbon monarchy was restored, who'd be the Monarch of France? I think there's two claiments. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Spanish Borbons have a good claim to the French throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, John Charles I of Spain and France. Perhaps, that's what's hurting the French monarchists. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it true?

It's baaaack! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's back. One can never overcome the Wikipedia addiction, I'm a prime example. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he needs a good rehab, then; for all our sakes. Wiki Rehab With Dr. Drew? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Who needs porn

When we have Wikipedia! Check this page out?!!!!! My God O Tempora! O Mores!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the top image at this page. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But that's not obscene! It's normal. What I'm curious about is who modelled for that photo?!!!!! Jesus wept.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I assume the person gave permisson for the addition of that image. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only did he give permission but he probably had it taken on purpose to have it placed in the article. Hmm...nobody has mentioned personality rights....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya never know what people are up to, these days. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a hilarious bit: Husband comes out of the shower & says to his wife the following - "Wow honey, I feel as clean as a whistle. Wanna bl-w me?". GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you like that, you two should check out the treasure trove of (mostly) soft-core porn and nudes at Commons. -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

An x-rated Komodo. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Sorry, I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. From what I can tell, a merge and a redirect don't differ by anything more than the fact that typing a term into the search box will result in a user being sent to the merged content, in this case, Brian Burke (ice hockey) with a section entirely devoted to Brendan Burke. The difference is that a merge doesn't include the redirect quality. Am I wrong? If so, what exactly is the difference?Luminum (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In a redirect, one types in Brendan Burke & is taken to the Brian Burke (ice hockey), which has little to nothing about Brendan Burke. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is GoodDay prissy?

I had to laugh at how the other editors reacted on AN/I, calling people who rightfully object to unrestrained usage of profanity prissy, and adding how it's perfectly acceptable to say F..k off where they come from.! What a load of BS. If someone told their boss in England or Ireland to go get f..ked or something to that effect, they would be quickly given the boot, same as in the USA or Canada. I'm so sick of this we Europeans are so sophisticated and cool, while you Yanks are all uptight geeks crap. I can remember how my language used to offend my English friends. When I was 17, I was in Brighton, England, and when I accidentally used the word wank on a crowded bus, my sophisticated, trendy, liberal, socialistic English mate nearly fainted from shock. Who was the uptight, prissy one, I ask you? Tut-tut (shakes head) BTW, I have left a comment on the AN/I page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a good chuckle at that one, too. I chose not to comment on it there, as who knows where the discussion would've evolved to. Guess I shant be welcomed on those editors' talkpages, likely just as well. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already commented on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. Naturally my comment was met with the typical barrage of feeble anti-American insults including a tirade against American-style shopping malls juxtaposed with repeted f..ks. (Shakes head in amused bafflement).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The constant use of the f-bombs there, is merely them claiming "we'll say what we want, try and get us blocked, if you can" stuff. It's all entertaining, eh? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

When I joined my place of work in the US I was rather surprised at the persistent and casual swearing, including f--k, in the professional environment. I once has a robust difference in opinion with my boss and she finished our conversation with: "well, f--k you then." Having previously worked in a similar position in the UK, I can confidently say that that sort of language was never used during professional exchanges. I think the European impression that our American cousins are overly offended by rude words is a rather naive one, based on US television and one visit to Orlando, Florida as a kid. The situation on the ground is very different. Rockpocket 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The "..it's the way we talk.." excuse, by some of the pro-foul langage usage editors, is unconvincing. That Parrot fellow (IMHO) is using foul-language deliberatley, to see how far he can take it (makes'em feel tough). GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's my opinion exactly. All that shrapnel of f...s is a verbal form of stuffing a sock down one's crotch and miming to old Led Zeppelin records. Pathetic and embarrassing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, stay AWAY from Malleus and his possy; they're, to say the least, somewhat unpleasant. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm too old to be intimidated by profanity posting editors. Don't worry, I rarely bump into them anyway. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think to successfully edit at Wikipedia one needs a US Marines crewcut and a balls-out, Robert Plant swagger.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Howabout a mixture of Groucho Marx & Gunnery Sergeant Hartman? GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, babe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn's new look

He's full of (for GD's benefit) it. There may well be a difference in the particular curse words used, but he is an idiot to suppose that his experience in telling his boss to f--k off is somehow typical of British workplaces or that exceptions such as his would be unthinkable here. I am well aware of professional offices (law offices) here in the US where telling your boss would be not only acceptable, but expected. On the other hand, it would be unthinkable in most. It is all down to the type of workplace it is, the particular people involved, and the relationships involved. His anti-American nonsense would be laughable if it weren't so sad. I worked in retail for years and never said, "have a good day!" and rarely used a fake smile. When I did, it would have been as part of humouring some idiot who thought he was clever. Americans lament the effects of shopping malls and Walmart-style discount stores on small shops at least as much as Europeans do. The impression that idiots like him have that Americans are all cows happily grazing at the local mall is absurd. Some are, sure. But then so are many Europeans. Instead of looking at malls as some sort of evil American invention that we are inflicting on the world, it should be understood as what it is—far from being cultural, they are an obvious result of the economic system we inherited from the Brits combined with our large spaces and the automobile. I shouldn't have even read the stupid thread after seeing the discussion here. I knew it would irritate me, but I went anyway. The thing that really pisses me off about anti-American Europeans is that they usually hate us for stupid reasons. There are plenty of good reasons to be frustrated with Americans, but they usually get it wrong, and the English are usually guilty of exactly the same things anyway, so they have no room to talk. -Rrius (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The United States is the most powerful country (militarily speaking) on the planet. There's bound to be resentments out there. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and there are plenty of reasons to dislike America and Americans, but people like Mal pick such bad ones. -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: I wonder did anybody watch the George Carlin clip, I mentioned there? GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When I read it, I thought I'd seen it before, but now I'm not so sure. I guess I'll go look for the link again. On second thought, could you link to it here? -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You expressed my sentiments exactly, Rrius. Ever since I first moved to Europe in 1980, I have had to put up with various forms of anti-Americanism, which as GoodDay aptly points out is mainly due to our usurpation of Britain as the premier superpower while the French resent us for cultural reasons. Prior to the 20th century, France was the arbitrator for fashion and culture, which is no longer the case as McDonalds has sadly but inevitably eclipsed Maxims. I am primarily angered at anti-Americanism for these reasons: namely when they put down my country, they aren't just knocking the government, but its history, its people (including my family) and their values, and last but not least, the countless American soldiers who died on European battlefields saving Europe from itself. My response to snarling or sneering anti-Americanism is to inquire why if they hate American people and their culture do they continue to wear jeans, fly in planes, listen to rock and jazz music, use the Internet, eat at fast food restaurants, dress like American hip-hop artists, lust after Sharon Stone and George Clooney, and use American slang (which has pretty much infected Britain and Ireland in the last 20 years). Normally they are unable to respond. As for shopping malls, I have seen Europeans become absolutely orgasmic upon entering Walmarts. I also need to add that rarely does one meet with anti-Americanism from Romanians, Russians, Moldavians, etc., and the Albanians love America and Americans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out [2], for George Carlin's views on 'having a nice day'. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)