Daicaregos (talk | contribs) →One country?: new section |
→Irvine: com |
||
Line 436: | Line 436: | ||
:::Disallowing IPs doesn't actually go against wikipedia ethos of anyone can edit. Because anyone is allowed to create an account. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 14:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC) |
:::Disallowing IPs doesn't actually go against wikipedia ethos of anyone can edit. Because anyone is allowed to create an account. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 14:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::Exactly. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay#top|talk]]) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC) |
::::Exactly. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay#top|talk]]) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
Were are all the great and the good now on this discussion? --<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></font> 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==More dearly departed sexpots== |
==More dearly departed sexpots== |
Revision as of 13:27, 27 October 2009
Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. Be assured I'll be as curtious as possible & hope to provide worthy answers to your questions (about wiki edits), I'm looking forward to meeting you. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).
You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talk-page's 'history'. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Aug-Sept 2007 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Wintertime blues
"Now is the winter of my discontent"- Richard III--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ya think he ordered the elimination Edward V & brother Richard? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- No. IMO, Henry VII did it-at the instigation of his mother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay, can you find yourself here?: User:Jeanne boleyn/Wikipedians and their historical counterparts--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tallyhoah, it's Talleyrand. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mais oui, you smooth operator!!! Do you think I've covered all the types of editors?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to add to the page if you think I've left out a type of editor. I somehow feel I haven't covered everyone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is a Society of the White Boar, who are a group of Richard III apologists. I have found the best source material in Thomas More's biography (incomplete, though it may be.) Although the WP article on More implies he was a Tudor partisan, events of his life would appear to denigrate that position.
- Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to add to the page if you think I've left out a type of editor. I somehow feel I haven't covered everyone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mais oui, you smooth operator!!! Do you think I've covered all the types of editors?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tallyhoah, it's Talleyrand. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay, can you find yourself here?: User:Jeanne boleyn/Wikipedians and their historical counterparts--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- No. IMO, Henry VII did it-at the instigation of his mother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. - I am so surprised that there is no article for Society of the White Boar, or even White Boar Society. Or that no one has named their Southern rock band "White Boar Society". Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've never heard of that Society. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- They even have an American branch [1]. Jack forbes (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I never knew. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- They do actually get a mention on wikipedia here, though it was renamed the Richard III society. Jack forbes (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of creating a re-direct from Society of the White Boar, and perhaps even White Boar Society to that page. Well done Jack! Thanks! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- They do actually get a mention on wikipedia here, though it was renamed the Richard III society. Jack forbes (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I never knew. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- They even have an American branch [1]. Jack forbes (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've never heard of that Society. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. - I am so surprised that there is no article for Society of the White Boar, or even White Boar Society. Or that no one has named their Southern rock band "White Boar Society". Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Is there a society supporting Henry VII? -- GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about Harry Seven, but the term "White Boar Society" links to a variety of pages in WP. I'll leave that one be. Interesting though, is that the white boar - in some form - is such a strong iconographic image in various disparate cultures, throughout history. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the White Boar Society was changed to the Richard III Society in 1959. I always did want to join it. GoodDay, why don't you form the Henry VII Society that way we can have some interesting Whodunnit debates. I'm Henry VII, I am, Henry VII I am I am......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nay, I'm a republican. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're no fun!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- He he he. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I could offer you advice on how to have fun. First off you will need to buy some Beach Boys CDs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- He he he. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're no fun!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nay, I'm a republican. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the White Boar Society was changed to the Richard III Society in 1959. I always did want to join it. GoodDay, why don't you form the Henry VII Society that way we can have some interesting Whodunnit debates. I'm Henry VII, I am, Henry VII I am I am......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Yeah, they're cool. Darn great harmony. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then you'll need to grow your hair long and dye it blond. Finally after learning to speak Californian you can join the Fun Gang. Alriiiiiiight maaaaan, like totally RADICAL, dude. Whoaaaaa!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Would you believe, my family is pressuring me to get a hair cut? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- How long is it now?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Would you believe, my family is pressuring me to get a hair cut? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Nicknames
Agreed, So keep them out of the infobox altogether, if they are widely reported and widely used then they will sit better in the body of the article where they can be explained. Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I respectable disagree, concerning the Infobox. But, seeing as I'm out-numbered, I'll have to accept it. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Even better still have them in the info box and have the explained in the article! Why isnt "A-Force" explained in the article?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- It oughtta be mentioned & explained in the content, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi GoodDay, that is amusing, I find that makes it easier to be objective, fwiw I did quite like your compromise solution, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- It oughtta be mentioned & explained in the content, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- New propsal.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Governor General
If Harper manages to hang on for another year, who do you think he would pick to replace the Governor General? D'ya reckon there's any chance he'd keep her on? -Rrius (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I hope someday, that post will be abolished. I honestly don't know who PM Harper would nominate. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- But what if he nominated...GoodDay!!! -Rrius (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm a republican as GG. I'd accept on the assumption that it would make me irresistable to women. Other then that, I'd turn down the nomination. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I guess you could ask Anand Satyanand or Michael Jeffries whether GGship makes the girls swoon because Adrienne Clarkson and Michaelle Jean probably don't know. Anyway, keep in mind that doing something constitutionally outrageous could hasten a move toward a Republic. You know, pick oddballs for PM, like leaders of smaller parties or backbenchers or something. Withhold assent or reserve legislation for the Queen's review. Prorogue and summon parliament at odd intervals. Just think how much fun you could have brining down the Canadian Monarchy. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- The possibilities are endless. Speaking of Michelle Jean, wow-wee-wow what a looker. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eh. She's a bit old for my tastes. Take off 10, 15 years, then maybe. -Rrius (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- If a gal looks young enough, I'm caught. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I like Kirsten Gillibrand, though. -Rrius (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed & Sarah Palin is kinda cute. Ahh heck, Palin is gorgeous. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Palin gorgeous???? GoodDay, I think you're exaggerating here. I would use the adjective attractive when describing Palin. My idea of gorgeous women are Megan Fox, Eva Green, Keira Knightley, Debbie Harry, Paulina Porizkova, Bar Refaeli, Sharon Corr, Perri Lister, Kate Garner, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Cameron Diaz, Eva Riccobono, Victoria Silvstedt, Tyra Banks, Sharon Stone, Yasmin Le Bon, former Irish Eurovision singer Linda Martin, even Cher although she's past 60. French actress Catherine Deneuve was probably one of the most gorgeous actresses ever and is still beautiful same with English actress Charlotte Rampling. Marilyn Monroe was gorgeous, same with Rita Hayworth, Maureen O'Hara, Barbara Parkins, Dolores Del Rio, Elizabeth Taylor, Julie Christie, Vivien Leigh, Brigitte Bardot, Jean Shrimpton, Anita Pallenberg, and Jane Fonda. Jacqueline Kennedy was also very beautiful and charismatic. All of the above, plus others that I've overlooked were or are what would fit the description of gorgeous. I am heterosexual, yet they would make me stop and stare at them in the street. I wouldn't look at Palin twice. Sorry GD, I'm not knocking your taste, but I just don't think she could be described as gorgeous or even beautiful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed & Sarah Palin is kinda cute. Ahh heck, Palin is gorgeous. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I like Kirsten Gillibrand, though. -Rrius (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- If a gal looks young enough, I'm caught. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eh. She's a bit old for my tastes. Take off 10, 15 years, then maybe. -Rrius (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- The possibilities are endless. Speaking of Michelle Jean, wow-wee-wow what a looker. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I guess you could ask Anand Satyanand or Michael Jeffries whether GGship makes the girls swoon because Adrienne Clarkson and Michaelle Jean probably don't know. Anyway, keep in mind that doing something constitutionally outrageous could hasten a move toward a Republic. You know, pick oddballs for PM, like leaders of smaller parties or backbenchers or something. Withhold assent or reserve legislation for the Queen's review. Prorogue and summon parliament at odd intervals. Just think how much fun you could have brining down the Canadian Monarchy. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm a republican as GG. I'd accept on the assumption that it would make me irresistable to women. Other then that, I'd turn down the nomination. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- But what if he nominated...GoodDay!!! -Rrius (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I find all those women gorgeous, too. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I watched FLicKeR (film) recently, and this person was in it, and all the way through their segment, until the final credits rolled I thought, "My God, Anita Pallenberg is looking a bit rough these days..." Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: I didn't sign the Union Acts
I have several questions for you GoodDay. Don't worry, they aren't trick questions and I've asked you them all before. You just don't seem to have got around to answering them. Question 1.: Do you agree with Wikipedia's core content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I do: Verification - England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom (i.e. they're not independant). It's not Original Research - Indeed, England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland 'are not' independant. NPOV - having England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Wales in a country list in a way that shows they make up the United Kingdom is NPOV (it satifies possible devolutionists & unionists). GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Verifiability - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all verified as countries. Reliable sources that recognise this include: a) The Library of Congress quote: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union."; b)10 Downing Street quote: "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"; c)Commonwealth Secretariat quote: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; d) European Commission quote: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. unquote.
E/NI/S/W are defined as countries. Countries are not necessarily defined as sovereign or independant. Webster' s here, has several definitions of 'country', none of which include the word 'sovereign' or 'independant'. The most relevant is # "2a : the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship b : a political state or nation or its territory." Each of the countries of the United Kingdom lie within these definitions.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - having England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Wales in a country list shows that they are countries, as noted above. No more, no less.
Wikipedia:No original research - any decision to include these countries in a country list - based on whether England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are independant or not is both irrelevant and is WP:OR.
Whether one considers E/NI/S/W to be countries or not does not matter, as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth'. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)- England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are countries; countries within a country. I don't mind having them in the Category-in-question, if they're listed under the United Kingdom. Otherwise, we'd only be listing the UK twice. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- It makes no difference if we'd be listing the UK twice. As England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are countries, they should be listed as countries. Choosing not to list them as such because one thinks they are subordinate to another country is WP:OR. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- E/S/W/NI are indeed countries within a country. That's verifiable, npov & isn't original research. As I've mentioned previously, my interpretations aren't law. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- That "E/S/W/NI are indeed countries within a country" is "verifiable, npov & isn't original research." But Choosing not to list them as countries because one thinks they are subordinate to another country is WP:OR. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not if ya list them in a manner that shows they make up an independant country. E/S/W/NI combined 'are' the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- As they are not independent countries I would not expect them to be listed as such. However, they are countries and should be noted as countries. That "E/S/W/NI combined 'are' the United Kingdom" is irrelevant. It is possible that you are confused by the definition of 'country'. If you have no dictionary at home, this may help. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales are countries which make up a country. Because of this fact, if they're to be included at the European countries category, they should be shown with those facts noted. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I could live with that. Is that something you would support, GoodDay? Daicaregos (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I look forward to it. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let me say it too. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I feel the luv in this group. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tinged with relief (and, possibly, exhaustion). Daicaregos (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I feel the luv in this group. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let me say it too. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I look forward to it. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I could live with that. Is that something you would support, GoodDay? Daicaregos (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales are countries which make up a country. Because of this fact, if they're to be included at the European countries category, they should be shown with those facts noted. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- As they are not independent countries I would not expect them to be listed as such. However, they are countries and should be noted as countries. That "E/S/W/NI combined 'are' the United Kingdom" is irrelevant. It is possible that you are confused by the definition of 'country'. If you have no dictionary at home, this may help. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not if ya list them in a manner that shows they make up an independant country. E/S/W/NI combined 'are' the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- That "E/S/W/NI are indeed countries within a country" is "verifiable, npov & isn't original research." But Choosing not to list them as countries because one thinks they are subordinate to another country is WP:OR. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- E/S/W/NI are indeed countries within a country. That's verifiable, npov & isn't original research. As I've mentioned previously, my interpretations aren't law. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- It makes no difference if we'd be listing the UK twice. As England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are countries, they should be listed as countries. Choosing not to list them as such because one thinks they are subordinate to another country is WP:OR. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are countries; countries within a country. I don't mind having them in the Category-in-question, if they're listed under the United Kingdom. Otherwise, we'd only be listing the UK twice. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Verifiability - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all verified as countries. Reliable sources that recognise this include: a) The Library of Congress quote: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union."; b)10 Downing Street quote: "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"; c)Commonwealth Secretariat quote: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; d) European Commission quote: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. unquote.
(outdent) giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to me you are completely ignoring Dai's points and just giving your mantra of the UK is more important. Why don't you follow policy and agree that the are countries?
For a guy who lives on a small island which is part of North America you sure have a strong view on Scotland, Wales, England and N.Ireland.Why is that you don't like the fact that they are countries? Why have you previously said that you don't like calling people Scottish, Welsh, and English. Have you a problem with me calling myself Scottish and identifying myself as Scottish rather than British? Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to me you are completely ignoring Dai's points and just giving your mantra of the UK is more important. Why don't you follow policy and agree that the are countries?
- Why is where an editor is based, relevent to their contributing to an intellectual tool such as an encyclopedia? GoodDay could be from the moon and he'd still have complete right to request NPOV and verifiability be upheld on UK related articles, rather than fanciful chest-beating regionalism (which seeks to ambigiously categorise UK internal-divisions alongside sovereign states). What you as an editor personally "identify" as is completely irrelevent to Wikipedia, this is an educational encyclopedia to simply report facts (and the fact is the United Kingdom is a sovereign state) we're not here to blog. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay has every right to ask for NPOV and verifiability and they are all verifiably countries. Your argument that they are not sovereign states has no relevance here. As you say, we are not here to blog. Jack forbes (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- The internal divisions of the United Kingdom, which in other European sovereign states are called "autonomous communities", "states", "regions", "communities", "provinces", are named "countries" by our government. It is these other internal divisions of European which they belong in a category with, not one which is otherwise used for European sovereign states themselves (which in popular discourse, the term country is instead, usually used to refer to). It is a verifiable fact that these are unambigiously internal entities of the sovereign UK, that is how they should be categorised. Its not difficult. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- They are countries (verifiably). They are countries in Europe (verifiably). Where is the problem? If you find that hard to accept then you are finding it a little more difficult than I thought you would. Jack forbes (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, E/S/W/NI are all countries within the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a European country. These points are indeed verifiable, npov & not original research. Now with respect to you & Dai, I'll use 'Scottish' in place of British on your userpage & 'Welsh' in place of British on Dai's userpage. Heck, if yas both want, yas can call me a 'Prince Edward Islander' (though I prefer Canadian, eh). GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- If your preference is Canadian, then Canadian I'll call you. I do think your generally a good guy, it's this one point that bothers me. I'll stop talking about it and move on. Jack forbes (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- 'Tis OK, discussions like these don't upset me. Afterall 'bout a year ago, I wouldn't have agreed to the usage of country on those 4 articles, but I came around to accepting the usage. Same thing with the creation of Countries of the United Kingdom, I've modified my stance. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- By this rate you will be a Scottish/Welsh nationalist in a couple of years. You will have come over to the light side as opposed to this side :) Jack forbes (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- 'Tis OK, discussions like these don't upset me. Afterall 'bout a year ago, I wouldn't have agreed to the usage of country on those 4 articles, but I came around to accepting the usage. Same thing with the creation of Countries of the United Kingdom, I've modified my stance. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- If your preference is Canadian, then Canadian I'll call you. I do think your generally a good guy, it's this one point that bothers me. I'll stop talking about it and move on. Jack forbes (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, E/S/W/NI are all countries within the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a European country. These points are indeed verifiable, npov & not original research. Now with respect to you & Dai, I'll use 'Scottish' in place of British on your userpage & 'Welsh' in place of British on Dai's userpage. Heck, if yas both want, yas can call me a 'Prince Edward Islander' (though I prefer Canadian, eh). GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- They are countries (verifiably). They are countries in Europe (verifiably). Where is the problem? If you find that hard to accept then you are finding it a little more difficult than I thought you would. Jack forbes (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- The internal divisions of the United Kingdom, which in other European sovereign states are called "autonomous communities", "states", "regions", "communities", "provinces", are named "countries" by our government. It is these other internal divisions of European which they belong in a category with, not one which is otherwise used for European sovereign states themselves (which in popular discourse, the term country is instead, usually used to refer to). It is a verifiable fact that these are unambigiously internal entities of the sovereign UK, that is how they should be categorised. Its not difficult. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)There are editors out there, who seem to believe that I've got a Palpatine/Darth Sidious personality. Sweeet on the surface with evil intent underneath. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh GoodDay, you're turning me on with all this talk of latent evil-and I haven't even had my first cup of Earl Grey tea yet. Shame, eternal shame, nothing but shame. Tut tut tut.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Everything is proceeding, as I have foreseen". GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which film is that line from (IYWEMI)?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Star Wars Episode VI, when the Emperor arrives at the new Death Star. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- "So which Beedle are you, honey?"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Emperor, ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which one? Charles V? Napoleon? Montezuma? Charlemagne?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Palpatine. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, what a turn-on! One thing though, GoodDay, to be an emperor, one needs to have an imperial. Have you got one?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- What's an imperial? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- A small, pointy beard like this guy wore.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- What's an imperial? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, what a turn-on! One thing though, GoodDay, to be an emperor, one needs to have an imperial. Have you got one?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Palpatine. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which one? Charles V? Napoleon? Montezuma? Charlemagne?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Emperor, ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- "So which Beedle are you, honey?"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Star Wars Episode VI, when the Emperor arrives at the new Death Star. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which film is that line from (IYWEMI)?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Everything is proceeding, as I have foreseen". GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Islanders' captains
I missed the Islanders' opening game and was curious of who wore the As: Wittand Park with Hunter filling in for the injured Captain Weight (according to the NHL gamesheet). Okay, Witt and Park at home with Okposo and Streit on the road. I happened to see Okposo with an A on a blue home jersey?! I checked the hightlights clip: Witt, yes; Park, no; Okposo, yes; Streit, yes; and Hunter, no!! It appears that Witt & Okposo are home Alternates while it's Park & Streit on the road.
- I can't understand why Hunter was filling in, Okoposo or Streit should've done that. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, That is how the gamesheet roster report reads, but it was actually Witt and Okposo with Streit filling in.
Mark Flood
During training camp, everyone pretty much left the Islanders' roster template alone hiding players that were cut from the squad. Apparently, Mark Flood and several other injured players were placed Injured Reserve. Ucscottb4u felt that because Flood wasn't on the Islanders' website roster, he should be deleted. I pointed out that the NHL website had the opening-day rosters, including the Injured Reserve list. I also pionted out that the Isles' site has twenty-six players on the roster when only twenty-three is legal (there's no indicator of any player being on the injured list) which I think should deem it suspect and not reliable. Your opinion? Raul17 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that the NHL team official websites tend to 'not be' up to date. WP:HOCKEY suggests that we go with that source anyways. See what the WP:HOCKEY opinon is on Flood's status (NHL or not). GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem, but it seems bogus that the teamsite (which the NHL controls btb) holds more sway over the leaguesite. I decided to hide Flood. If a player signs NHL contract (even two-way), he should be listed. The injury icon denotes that a plaer is on Injured Reserve. And the funny thing that if Flood stays the whole year on IR, it counts as one NHL season towards his pension just like the NFL and MLB!! Thanks! Raul17 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
IP stalker
You might want to check his contributions a bit further back: he undid me twice, along with a couple of other editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- He/she's gotta be blocked. There no need for those shananigans. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDays nemesis! The Ip! (any ip) Dah da ra da. Jack forbes (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Everything is proceeding, as I have foreseen". GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Very mysterious. Want to let me in on it? Jack forbes (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The IP will (in his/her self-entertaining way) eventually be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Aha! I've just seen it. Is this your first stalker GoodDay? Jack forbes (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The IP will (in his/her self-entertaining way) eventually be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Very mysterious. Want to let me in on it? Jack forbes (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Everything is proceeding, as I have foreseen". GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDays nemesis! The Ip! (any ip) Dah da ra da. Jack forbes (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I believe there was another, way back when. Not bad, for 4-yrs on Wikipedia. PS: I enjoyed getting back at that IP, with the 'blah, blah, blah' edit summary. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep giving him the blah, blah, blahs and he/she will slink away hoping to harass another user. As you say, the ip will be blocked in no time if they go on this way. Jack forbes (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- He/she's been given a 48hr wiki-break. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- You mean wiki has been given a 48hr ip-break. Jack forbes (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- He/she's been given a 48hr wiki-break. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No joke
GoodDay, tell me you didn't take the proposal for a no bad joke policy seriously! Jack forbes (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- At first I wasn't sure. But then, I realized it was just a gag. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
One or two have taken it quite seriously. I'll keep a low profile from there I think. Jack forbes (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The template was good. You should have run with it. You may have been blocked, but you should have run with it. :) Daicaregos (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Mike Richter
Can you remember late game saves during Game 7 Stanley Cup Finals? During NBC's broadcast of Game 7 of the 2009 Finals, Mike Emrick brought up Richter's save. He said this: "Can you remember a late game save by Mike Richter in 1994, by Martin Brodeur in 2003, or Nikolai Khabiboulin in 2004, or Cam Ward in 2006?" The reason why I added Richter's save when LaFayete hit the goal post was because it was to preserve a one goal lead and it was one of those memorable Game 7 Finals moments. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not certain, but isn't hitting the post 'not' a shot on net? Anyways, if you wish to restore it, I won't protest. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Entertain me
GoodDay, I'm bored. Please entertain me with your humour (sans Groucho jokes, however!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- "My Bonnie lies over the ocean"
- "My Bonnie lies over the sea"
- "My Daddy lies over my Mommy"
- "And that's how I came to be me". GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hee hee hee. My friend Mo used to sing a really vulgar version of a famous Frank Sinatra song, but I don't know if it's suitable for Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
fre: NI flag discussion
I never called BigDunce shirley, what I said was surely The C of E (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know, it's just a joke from the movie Airplane. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- shirley he got the joke?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Seriously?
Seriously...you get told to stop with diacritics so you go and try and find the next biggest contentious issue you can find and bring it up again once its been cooled down? I mean this with all due respect, but do you only come to wiki to stir up drama, I mean you only seem to edit in areas that bring the most arguements....diacritics, english monarchy, northern ireland and now the expos issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
09-10 Buffalo Sabres Season
oh, i'm sorry, my mistake Warriorshockey1 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
When fiction is reality
I cannot believe that article on the Colorado balloon hoax has not been deleted. It was a blatant hoax that the national and international media blew up (no pun intended!) out of all proportion. In a month's time, nobody will remember it. The parents just wanted to get themselves on Oprah and every talk show in America. Pathetic!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect the enormity of the hoax is why the AfD failed. In this YouTube, Wikipedia & TV Reality Shows era, people will do 'anything' for recognition. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, while real heroes (or heroines) like firemen, paramedics, nurses, lifeguards, etc. get no recognition at all for saving lives. 'Tis the fault of the media and the tv viewers alike who share in the sub-culture mentality.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed & what really stinks, the Henne family end up with what the sought (publicity). Guranteed, when everything is settled, they'll 'atleast' write a book about the expierence. I wonder if this attention seeking phenomena will get a name, say the Henne Syndrome. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean write a book? They'll get someone else to actually do the writing but the Hens will get the fame and the grain, which I guarantee you won't be chickenfeed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- For sure, he he. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then they can throw a hen party for the media who made all their wild dreams come true.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The general audience were the biggest victims. Even though the news media were dupped, they still got (and continue to get) the ratings. The yoke is on the general public. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- But nothing happened. It was a total non-event.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The general audience were the biggest victims. Even though the news media were dupped, they still got (and continue to get) the ratings. The yoke is on the general public. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then they can throw a hen party for the media who made all their wild dreams come true.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- For sure, he he. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean write a book? They'll get someone else to actually do the writing but the Hens will get the fame and the grain, which I guarantee you won't be chickenfeed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed & what really stinks, the Henne family end up with what the sought (publicity). Guranteed, when everything is settled, they'll 'atleast' write a book about the expierence. I wonder if this attention seeking phenomena will get a name, say the Henne Syndrome. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, while real heroes (or heroines) like firemen, paramedics, nurses, lifeguards, etc. get no recognition at all for saving lives. 'Tis the fault of the media and the tv viewers alike who share in the sub-culture mentality.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
True, but the story's aftermath continues to get coverage (and viewers). It's the age of the Octomon. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Beware the savage jaws of 1984!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- That looks like a gals eye. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody said Big Brother is perforce male; it's just a euphemism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- That looks like a gals eye. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Re:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta
For the record, you're opening one hell of a can of worms. User:Imbris has been unblocked. He'll show up and won't stop writing posts until he gets his way.
To answer your question: no. No he did not consider himself "king of Croatia", in fact he refused to assume the throne (which was "assigned" to him by the Axis in 1941) because Italy annexed Croatian Dalmatia that same year, which created diplomatic conflicts between the Croatian puppet ultranationalists and Italy. Less than two years later in 1943 Italy surrendered and the issue was moot. The man was never crowned, he never ruled, and was never even confirmed by the fake Croatian deliberative assembly ("Sabor") of the illegal occupation government (NDH). He never even set foot into Croatia his entire life (let alone 1941-1943).
His son had nine names or so, and one of them was "Zvonimir" (Croatian), so the standard issue balkans nationalists managed to turn that into some kind of "argument" that he was the king after all. I still can not believe that silly title stuck. The vote was clearly in favor of a move last time around... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Imbris is but one editor. Since the fella considers having 'never' been King of Croatia, that in itself is the desider. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- User:Imbris is one editor who just keeps arguing without end, which creates the illusion of the existence of an actual dispute about something. He also likes to canvass all his nationalist buddies into the discussion. One thing I've learned is that the best thing to do is to simply ignore him... So are you going to propose a move or does this end here? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah hah, I had forgotten about Peter II of Yugoslavia. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Party, party
GD, now that you're here, let's get the party started! WOW WOO......!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I hope the Hene family isn't invited, they'll take pictures of only themselves. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as I never hold parties in chickencoops, it's highly unlikely they would attend even if I was desperate enough to invite them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let's play the party-game, find the Movie blooper(s). The 3 King Kong movies - how do they move an unconcious Kong, off the island onto the boat? GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
With ropes? I forget, how did they do it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know, it's never shown in any of the 3 movies. The 1976 version is the worst, as they have him in an empty oil tanker. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
IMO, Braveheart and The Tudors took the most glaring liberties with documented historical facts.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, Braveheart - 1) Edward II married Isabella in the 1290's? 2) Isabella had an affair with William Wallace? 3) Wallace is Edward III's daddy? 4) Edward I & Wallace died at the same time? Can ya think of anymore? GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No mention is made of Edward I's second Queen consort, Marguerite of France (Isabella's aunt) or Edward II's numerous siblings!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Historical accuracy - who needs it? Any film with Sophie Marceau gets my vote. Reminds me a lot of you, Jeanne. Daicaregos (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ya flirt. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- What can I tell you? Thought it was a party. Daicaregos (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ya flirt. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Historical accuracy - who needs it? Any film with Sophie Marceau gets my vote. Reminds me a lot of you, Jeanne. Daicaregos (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Who's 'Robert, Earl of Bruce'? GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
They should have cast Sophie in the role of Queen Marguerite, or else made a second film about Isabella's real love affair with Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March. Now he was dead sexy; he also had Welsh blood (you still with us, Dai?)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, still here. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- It would make for an intriguing film (with or without Sophie Marceau). And the Mortimer family had quite a role in Owain Glyndŵr's Last War of Independence, after 1400. Daicaregos (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- The love affair between Isabella and Mortimer was shown in the French miniseries, A Cursed Monarchy. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- It would make for an intriguing film (with or without Sophie Marceau). And the Mortimer family had quite a role in Owain Glyndŵr's Last War of Independence, after 1400. Daicaregos (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- How do ya pronounce the name? 'Moore-timer' or 'Moore-ta-mer'? GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mort-amer. It was a Norman French name which was originally morte-mer or dead sea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Usually pronounced 'Moor-tim-a' these days. Daicaregos (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oops sorry, Dai, I was pronouncing it with a hybrid Californian/Dublin accent and the typical hard R.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just thought you was being 'istoric, like. Daicaregos (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, I wonder how they did pronounce it in the 14th century?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just thought you was being 'istoric, like. Daicaregos (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oops sorry, Dai, I was pronouncing it with a hybrid Californian/Dublin accent and the typical hard R.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Usually pronounced 'Moor-tim-a' these days. Daicaregos (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mort-amer. It was a Norman French name which was originally morte-mer or dead sea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, still here. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Scotland's King Alexander III died in 1286 & was succeeded by his maternal grand-daughter, Queen Margaret. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds awful. It should read instead: He was succeeded by his grandaughter, who was the child of his daughter......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought it went both ways (maternal/paternal grandparent, maternal/paternal grandchild). GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Maternal relates to the mother's side, and paternal the father's. I don't see how one can call one's granddaughter maternal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just figured it worked both ways. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Guys, perhaps we should head over to Sarah's talk page as I see a helluva party brewing over there!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- What's going on? GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have you seen the redirect?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Haven't. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)- Before you go: another one for your Braveheart bloopers: Kilts originated in the 16th century. Daicaregos (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's right.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Before you go: another one for your Braveheart bloopers: Kilts originated in the 16th century. Daicaregos (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Julia Gardiner Tyler
GoodDay, doesn't First Lady Julia Gardiner Tyler look provacative to you? 'Tis no wonder her stepdaughters hated her.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've the book 'John Tyler' (by Gary May) from the American Presidents series. She had alot of admirers before finally giving in to the President. Oh yeah, the step-daughters weren't too keen about her. None of them were even notified of the wedding. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
She looks like the type of woman other women love to hate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
She had a lot of style as well. I really dig that headband she wore. It reminds me of the thin headbands I used to wear in 1981 during the New Romantics craze.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Old Johnny enjoyed her company, 7 children in 14 yrs. He was 70 when the youngest was born. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
70! I told ya she was a hot number! I can always tell when another woman is ready for it. Call it feminine intuition.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- He was 70 & she was 40. Julia never re-married after John passed away. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably couldn't find anyone to match his stamina. If he was that hot at 70, imagine what he was like at 18!!!!!!!! Or maybe it was just Julia that fired his engine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, he did have a total of 15 children, still a US Prez record. I believe it was the latter reason, Julia could arouse pratically anyone. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Including yourself? Hmm, sounds like you've got a succubus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- She's a tad too old for me. What's left of her, would be 189 yrs old. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a helluva lot of experience she's got under her belt.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely no doubt. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- She'd be a bit out of practice, though. -Rrius (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- For sure, if we assume she hadn't don it since John's death, that's 1862 to 2009 (and counting). GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The advice is "be gentle" under those circumstances, especially since all that's left are skeletal remains. -Rrius (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, are Tyler wives buried on either side of him? GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh, you are kinky, GD. That is what is known in sexual parlance as a sandwich.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Somehow a bone sandwich doesn't sound too appetizing!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh, you are kinky, GD. That is what is known in sexual parlance as a sandwich.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, are Tyler wives buried on either side of him? GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The advice is "be gentle" under those circumstances, especially since all that's left are skeletal remains. -Rrius (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- For sure, if we assume she hadn't don it since John's death, that's 1862 to 2009 (and counting). GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- She'd be a bit out of practice, though. -Rrius (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- He he he. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ummm...?
Your telling me this because...? I'm confused.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, cause I'm confused, as to why his/her IP range hasn't been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't help there. I'm not an admin.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
re: Categories of NHL awards
Edit them in what way? Are you referring to editing the category trees? Resolute 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I gotta delete those dios. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Those are the page titles of articles. Leave them be, thats how categories work. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Page titles being represented on an NHL based category. But, I'll let it pass. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
From one editor to another...
Don't take Imbris personally, and don't try to engage him. He does not collaborate. I've been fighting this guy for over a year now on an article about a freakin' 5 pound dog. He is here to push his nationalist agenda. You CANNOT reason with him, I am sorry to say. Good luck. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sticking to my 'King Peter II of Yugoslavia' argument. Croatia 'was not' independant during 1941 to 1945. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you did not forbade me to speak to you...
And you want some insight? Possibly, I do not know:
You should familiarize yourself with the issues concerning the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
This source http://www.royalfamily.org/statements/state-det/state-2118.html dated 9 Oct 2009
speaks:
HRH Crown Prince of Serbia: his grandfather was a first victim of fascism
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia: Bullets fired at King Alexander, who was a victim of fascist and ustashe terrorism were fired at our country and European peace. King Alexander I was a Unifier, a man with deep respect for the history of his nation and profound vision of unity and integrations, which made him a first European leader in our history
Son of the Crown Prince: Laying a wreath at my great-grandfather’s monument is very special moment for all of us, and makes us think where we were 75 years ago, and where we are today
Do you know that the Croatian Republican Peasant Party proclaimed the Constitution of the Neutral Peasant's Republic of Croatia in 1921. King Peter II did not rule up to 1945, he wa banned from entering the country in 1943 when the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was formed. Then in a series of compromises he named the regency consisting of one Slovene (a member of the Communist Party), one Serb, and one Croat (not member of the Communist Party but sympatizer with the National Liberation Movement). That regency was blocked from functioning because we all know how the voting went in such circumstances.
Imbris (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Peter II reigned as King of Yugoslavia from 1934 to 1945. Croatia was a part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Emotions on this topic is irrelevant, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies Imbris, but I'm getting the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you're presenting a sorta revionist Croatian nationalist PoV on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
One should never shy away from novel experiences or sampling new delights, GoodDay. Try it (bone sandwich), you'll like it. TRUST ME!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Bon Appetite.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- A bone sandwich? Do you know what a bone sandwich is GoodDay? Jack forbes (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Its true... ya learn something new every day xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Women are so mysterious. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh Jack, I adore that word debauchery, it's so 17th century,; reminds me of rakes, courtesans and Barbara Villiers. Bone appetite, guys, enjoy your meal!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- A direct ancestor of Diana & Anthony Eden. Eventually, the UK throne will be possesed by Charles II's progeny. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's about time. The Stuarts came before the Hanovers. Jack, what do you think about the Stuarts making a come-back?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Stuarts never left -technically-, as Charles I's progeny currently occupies the UK throne. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- James I's progeny does. The Hanovers descended from Elizabeth, James' daughter. She was known as the Winter Queen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, my blunder. Elizabeth was Charles I's sister. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- She's here as :Elizabeth of Bohemia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, my blunder. Elizabeth was Charles I's sister. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- James I's progeny does. The Hanovers descended from Elizabeth, James' daughter. She was known as the Winter Queen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Stuarts never left -technically-, as Charles I's progeny currently occupies the UK throne. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's about time. The Stuarts came before the Hanovers. Jack, what do you think about the Stuarts making a come-back?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- A direct ancestor of Diana & Anthony Eden. Eventually, the UK throne will be possesed by Charles II's progeny. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh Jack, I adore that word debauchery, it's so 17th century,; reminds me of rakes, courtesans and Barbara Villiers. Bone appetite, guys, enjoy your meal!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's her. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Royalty had their place and time Jeanne and now is not the time for them. I confess to having a liking for Kings such as Robert I and such, but only because they fought for a cause I believe in. Even so, they fought more for their position than for their people. As for debauchery, as long as one is old enough I say debauch away. Be careful though, you appear to be a bad influence on GoodDay. We really wouldn't want a debauched GoodDay on wikipedia, would we? Jack forbes (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Who knows, there maybe alot of little GoodDays out there. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah! But that's not debauchery. Debauchery is a whole different thing altogether. Jack forbes (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Numerious children by multiple partners, can be a by-product though. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Numerous children by multiple partners conceived on the same night, that would be good old fashioned debauchery. Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why oh why, did there have to be VD (not to mentions AIDS). GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the English royals have a very modest track record for debauchery compared with others; for instance, there were only five English monarchs that one can describe as having been truly debauched: Henry I, John, Edward IV, Charles II, and George IV. The rest were pretty much family men; even Henry VIII had more wives than mistresses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Quite true. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I adore words like rake, wanton, debauched, buxom, and here is a nice 16th-century word:leman.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Buxom, is fav of mine. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- No my fave would have to be leman followed by rake.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah hah, a mistress? GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, a mistress. Oh, happy days, I'm alone in the house, apart from my cat.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah hah, a mistress? GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- No my fave would have to be leman followed by rake.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Buxom, is fav of mine. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I adore words like rake, wanton, debauched, buxom, and here is a nice 16th-century word:leman.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Quite true. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the English royals have a very modest track record for debauchery compared with others; for instance, there were only five English monarchs that one can describe as having been truly debauched: Henry I, John, Edward IV, Charles II, and George IV. The rest were pretty much family men; even Henry VIII had more wives than mistresses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why oh why, did there have to be VD (not to mentions AIDS). GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Numerous children by multiple partners conceived on the same night, that would be good old fashioned debauchery. Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Numerious children by multiple partners, can be a by-product though. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah! But that's not debauchery. Debauchery is a whole different thing altogether. Jack forbes (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ya don't consider that, purr-fect? GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely purrrrrrrrrrrr-fect! Miaow.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The In-Crowd
Now I know where the in-crowd hangs out. You led me to it, GoodDay, it's ANI.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Slightly more than your typical Southern California freeway at rush hour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Injury replacements
Hi, why wouldn't we put an "A" for injury replacements such as Cammalleri? He will be the "A" for several months, what difference does it make how it was obtained? I've seen this done on many pages.
FlameMoth (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Line of succession to Thai throne
Howdy to you too,
I thought so too, legally speaking he is, but the accepted version in Thailand is that it is Princess Sirindhorn and then Princess Chulabhorn (the Crown Prince's younger sisters). If we follow the European way and use the law as it stands it would be: the Crown Prince and then Prince Dipangkorn (the prince you speak of); these are the only two legitimate male heirs of the House of Mahidol (the present Royal Family). If we are not counting of course the Crown Prince's four other sons (illegitimate).
If the laws were to change to allow females to succeed (which it has now allowed, enshrined in the current and previous constitutions) then it would be more complicated. Probably between two scenarios: 1st After the two Princes: are Princess Bajrakitiyabha (the Crown Prince's eldest child, with his royal and first legitimate wife), Princess Sirindhorn and then Princess Chulabhorn. Or the 2nd scenario would be after the Crown Prince, Princess Sirindhorn, Princess Chulabhorn, and then which ever is first: Princess Bajrakitiyabha or Prince Dipangkorn (a legitimate son but of non-royal wife). However with the status quo as it remains means that Prince Dipangkorn is the second in line after his father, but the Thai people have be so use to the idea that a female might succeed (as an inevitability) that they have still not really changed their attitudes. Hope this helps Sodacan (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I reckon, when Vaj becomes King, his 'legit' son will likely be made crown prince. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Definetely, the 'controversy' and 'uncertainty' people talk about centers around the changing of the law for females and the possibility of either Princess Sirindhorn or Bajrakitiyabha succeeding to the throne, but if the change does not happen during the present reign then it probably will never happen. Sodacan (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Irvine
I left a message on his talk page. He's really starting to annoy me with his baiting of seasoned editors. Wait and see a good editor will soon get caught in the crossfire,he'll be blocked, and Irvine will continue to go on his merry, disruptive way, whistling a farmer's tune.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- The fellow seems intent on annoying Irish editors at Troubles related articles. A reason for this possible intent, may stem from feeling bullied. Discussions on those article, can turn emotional rather quickly. If my theory is correct, I hope he'll drop his 'revenge' kick. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with revenge the editor is a troll and IMO has added nothing constructive since they registered their account or as one of the many IP's they use. BigDunc 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)He's not after the Irish or the Scots per se, its a Unionist agenda against nationalists. Orange and the Green all that and Glasgow can be as sectarian as Belfast, sometimes more so. He is also a clear Troll and I'm pretty sure uses IP address as well. --Snowded TALK 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is probably the best guidance available for interacting with that particular editor. Politely and civilly deal with his content edits when required, but ignore all the clever asides designed to provoke. Denial of recognition works in two ways: either the editor gets bored when he or she fails to elicit a reaction, or they ramp up the disruption to get a reaction and get themselves blocked int he process. Either way, it deals with the issue. Rockpocket 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Now ya'll know, why I favour 'mandatory registration'. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- One of his IP's were at work not sure if it was block evasion their block might have been up but check here especially the Glasgow edit and then look at this edit by Irvine same edit summary. I cant understand how this is allowed to keep happening, maybe you can do something Rock. BigDunc 18:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Let me look into this. Rockpocket 19:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at that particular edit, its difficult to see intent to mislead or be disruptive by logging out (other than the fact that ordering "by quality" is knowingly provocative, but sadly that sort of editing is commonplace among certain editors in this area). The IP edit was the first of a session, therefore it is likely that he simply edited, realized he was not logged in, then logged in and continued to edit. This is reinforced by the fact that he later modified an IP edit to amend the signature to his account.
- Let me be clear: I have little patience for this sort of purposely provocative editing that apparently serves only to rile political opponents. However, there are other editors - some of whom edit in this very area - who have been doing this for years and are still here. Admin efforts to deal with this is the past have been thwarted, so I'm simply not sure what can be done at the moment. My suggestion is to simply ignore that windups and continue to deal with the content when needed. Rockpocket 19:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- If Irvine could let us know if/when he edits while logged out, that would be helpful (to him & us). GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting wee discussion here. I think Rockpocket has the right take on my occasional edits by IP - I just didn't realise I wasn't logged in when I made them. BTW I think everyone involved in this discussion needs reminding to assume good faith. I mean, really.Irvine22 (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- He's a Glaswegian? Damn! There's always someone that'll let my city down. If you want to see the nonsense that some people get het up over have a look at the Rangers F.C. talk page. Makes you want to weep sometimes. Jack forbes (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is it that rough at the games? GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nah. But right enough I'm usually in the executive suite... Irvine22 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Those crowds are too rough, for my taste. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Must be expensive flights as the IP's are not in Scotland. BigDunc 14:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- True, I don't currently live in Scotland. But Sir David Murray is kind of an "honorary uncle" and I was at school with Martin Bain so when I'm back they make sure I'm set for the matches. :o) Irvine22 (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Must be expensive flights as the IP's are not in Scotland. BigDunc 14:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Those crowds are too rough, for my taste. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nah. But right enough I'm usually in the executive suite... Irvine22 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is it that rough at the games? GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- If Irvine could let us know if/when he edits while logged out, that would be helpful (to him & us). GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Let me look into this. Rockpocket 19:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- One of his IP's were at work not sure if it was block evasion their block might have been up but check here especially the Glasgow edit and then look at this edit by Irvine same edit summary. I cant understand how this is allowed to keep happening, maybe you can do something Rock. BigDunc 18:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Now ya'll know, why I favour 'mandatory registration'. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Someday, mandatory registration will be adopted; I'm certain of it. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Were are all the great and the good now on this discussion? --Domer48'fenian' 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
More dearly departed sexpots
I have provided more 19th-century sexpots, for your delectation, GoodDay. What do you think of these hot numbers?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow-we-wow, do they have any living female descendants? GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps they do.....Who knows?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Gautreau's hour-glass figure is eye catching. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don't believe it GoodDay. When she takes off that corset her stomach would hang over her knees. Jack forbes (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- She may puff out some, but not that much. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe they've both been reincarnated as Wikipedia editors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- She may puff out some, but not that much. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don't believe it GoodDay. When she takes off that corset her stomach would hang over her knees. Jack forbes (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Gautreau's hour-glass figure is eye catching. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps they do.....Who knows?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
One country?
Please clarify your post here. What did you mean by "I too, view the United Kingdom as one country."? Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)