Jump to content

User talk:GoodDay/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

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)

Alot of traffic there, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly more than your typical Southern California freeway at rush hour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya wanna believe it. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 25 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)

OK, long time tenures are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 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)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Good good! Sodacan (talk) 15:23, 25 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)

Since you've continued to treat me with lack of respect at your talkpage (by merely responding that I not post there anymore), without a good reason? I therefore give you the same treatment here. Please, do not contact me here 'again'. PS: Unless you wish to be treated here, the way you've treated me at your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 30 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)
I hope he's no longer using IPs or socks. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 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)
You're interesting, be flattered. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 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)
Someday, mandatory registration will be adopted; I'm certain of it. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No I am not a fan of that it goes against the wikipedia ethos of anyone can edit, just need to be stricter on disruptive editors. BigDunc 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with BigDunc on this. Irvine22 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It'll come to pass, those hopping IPs will make it inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 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. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, GoodDay. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why Ludvikus is being threatened with a ban, he's always been polite with me. What pisses me off is that truly disruptive editors and IPs are rarely banned, just occasionally blocked. Ludvikus seems to me a decent person.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even certain as to what the ANI case is about. It'll take me days, to read the whole thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems you commented in a prior, related ANI. As best I can tell, the issue is whether Ludvikus is great editor who sometimes has ESL-related misunderstandings or a disruptive so-an-so who should be forced to serve out the last seven months of his two-year block. Unless you are pretty familiar with him or decide to spend a week or so making yourself an expert on his edit history, it is probably not worth your time. -Rrius (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers, I didn't even know he was serving a 2-year restriction. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Dunc

I was away for a bit, but the semi-protection seems to have flushed out some sleeper accounts (registered in 2008 and used today to get autoconfirmed), so there's some benefit. Acroterion (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Observation

I was reading a thread on the admins noticeboard where you seem in the case of this one IP user be forcing the IP user to either create an account or be banned from editing. Need I remind you, sir/madam (I don't know which)that anonymous editors have as much right to edit as account holders. The right to privacy is a guaranteed constitutional right. There is nothing here that can allow you or anyone to command someone to get an account as a precondition of editing privilege. And nothing in policy says account only editing is a possible sanction imposable in a dispute. Really, lay off and leave IP editors alone. JourneyManTraveler (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is not entirely correct, JourneyManTraveler. Firstly a "guaranteed constitutional right" to privacy does not extend to Wikimedia's servers, which are their property to secure as they choose. You are their guest on this site, and should the Foundation choose to require you to log in to edit, then you can either do that or leave. Secondly, there are numerous ArbCom remedies that have required certain editors to get an account as a precondition of editing privilege. That has happened before and it will happen again, and in certain cases it is needed to project the project from willful abusers.
That all said, the number of account-editors who treat IP-editors with disdain bothers me too. There is a serious lack of good faith in this issue, which I find to be completely counter to the spirit of our project. Rockpocket 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
As a gross generalization (i.e. fact), most vandalism and a lot of breaches of civility policy are carried out by anon IP editors. (Most doesn't equate to all though) Sometimes for particular articles, getting a login preserves the anonymity of the editor while ensuring that only those particular editors that breach policies suffer consequences. --HighKing (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The comments of JourneyManTraveler (talk · contribs) are probably related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. Though it is appreciated that JourneyManTraveler is taking the time, as such a new logged-in account, to comment.  :) --Elonka 02:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers JMT, I've no hatred for anyone. I've never met anyone from Wikipedia, in real life. As for IPs, in general I've no prob with'em when they're not committing vandalism (though I urge them to 'create an account' after 'bout 2-months). Editors who 'hop' from IP to IP is annoying, though. As for the 'anybody can edit' stuff, that's not entirely true as there's editors (anon & registered) who can't edit Wikipedia, due to blocks & bans. Editing at Wikipedia is not a right, it's a privallage. If one wishs to be an IP, fine - just keep using that IP account (and only that IP account). GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, are you sure you have never met me? Happy Hallowe'en!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we know each other quite well. I was just pointing out that JMT's observation that I was a member of a Recruitment Board, was inaccurate. Happy Hallowen. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mother and daughter competition

Isn't it strange how some mothers are sexier than their daughters?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Frances, the mother
Anne, the daughter
Blame it on the fathers. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but Anne's mother was wild about Anne's daddy-divorced her husband for him and all. So he must've been a hot number.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes, hot + hot = cold. Who knows, maybe the artist wasn't overly accurate (daugther's portrait). GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I just created an article on Lady Anne Carr today. She was very tame compared to her mother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've found that a woman's kissing style, determines alot about her attractiveness. A good kisser, becomes quite attractives quickly. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Most men don't know how to kiss, unfortunately.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I have read where Anne was described as having been a "dangerous beauty", so she was like her mother after all. Van Dyck, remembering her mother's scandalous reputation obviously decided it was prudent to tone down Anne's sex appeal in the portrait. Also England was coming under the puritans' influence at the time the painting was done.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Censurship was taking hold. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the Puritans banned everything that was fun-even laughter! You and I would never have survived Cromwellian England. Now aren't you just a wee bit more of a monarchist when you recall the dreary 17th century alternative?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Nay, Cromwell's system wasn't a democratic republic. It gradually became an autocratic monarchy, without a monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
He declined the offer to become king; our Ollie, such a humble man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
He probably knew that Dickie wouldn't last long as King. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean Tumbledown Dick? You know, that name could very well have been a reference to something else not at all connected with politics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Nay, I meant Richard Cromwell. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's whom I'm talking about. His nicknames were Tumbledown Dick and Queen Dick.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah, I see; giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In a few hours it'll be Hallowe'en. I wonder if I'll have anymore strange dreams about Freddie Garrity?! "Ha ha ha ha ha ha......"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Hallowen

It's that time of year again, everybody. Happy Hallowen to all & don't forget to hide under your doorstep & jump out to scare the tiny treaters. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(from the discussion above, ending with Fred Kruger); I bloopered responding here. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping they'll be Twilight Zone episodes to watch. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My daughter wants to watch the horror film Saw. Eek!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Spooky. I saw the movie Hide and Seek & re-watched the Amittyville movies. The latter is difficult to watch, when by oneself at night. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember that scary film where Bruce Willis played a ghost? The little boy was the only one who could see him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya got me there. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It was The Sixth Sense.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, never saw it. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's very good. I highly recommend it. Very scary but well-done without it becoming a Stephen King ghoul-fest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to peek at it (between my fingers). GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no need to do that as it's a very subtle kind of horror, no chainsaws, rolling heads or manic screams from naked, copulating teenagers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A sorta 'brain teaser' type movie. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is my nightmare?

GoodDay, where is my nightmare? Don't I get one? It's not fair. I want a nightmare, after all it is Hallowe'en!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just posted them. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A Real Nightmare for GoodDay

One fine day, you awaken to discover that:

  • IPs have been given full administrative powers
  • Quebec has separated from Canada and declared itself a monarchy and theocracy
  • The legitimate heir to the French throne has been crowned King of Quebec
  • Montreal Canadiens have changed their name to Montreal Bourbons
  • Quebec has invaded all the provinces of Canada and they are now a part of the Kingdom of Quebec, and that naturally includes Prince Edward Island
  • All subjects in the new Kingdom of Quebec are thereby obliged to pay homage to the King and attend mass at least three times a week-that includes you, GoodDay
  • During mass there is a time warp; it's suddenly the year 1965 and your priest has become Freddie Garrity! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Church attendance & the IP administrators are the worst possibilities. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hee hee hee.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Free Willy 3

Yesterday I watched a lovely film which had me in tears: Free Willy 3: The Rescue: Have you ever seen it? I loved watching the whales swim about so free and beautiful. Man is more bestial than any of the living creatures, IMO.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Humans have been the most destructive species. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. That film brought it home to me. To think man could destroy those beautiful whales, happily frolicking in the ocean.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Up north in my country, baby seals (the white fury fellas) are clubbed (on the head) to death. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have seen that horrific, barbaric spectacle. Ghastly!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Where I live now, people often poison cats, which is why I never let Tony outdoors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of our fellow humans are mentally sick. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Some? I'd say it's more than some. I would have to say most, alas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Humans most destructive? Be glad you've never seen a horde of locusts come through, they make war zones seem like landscape gardening by comparison. Canterbury Tail talk 19:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Eek, thank goodness I live in a colder climate. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
For the last few weeks my house has been invaded by swarms of baby flies. It's the wine-making season now which attracts flies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please cure my boredom

Are you there? I'm bored. I could do with a dose of your humour, seeing as that cup of hot chocolate never materialised.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions you wanted to ask, but were afraid to

Hey ya'll, please continue to add to this list (at my main page). GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anybody know...

...how to transfer the above section to my 'main page'? This stuff is too good to end up archived. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dai, you da man. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Only a quick cut 'n paste job. I just got there first. No drama. Daicaregos (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add to the list. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A nightmare for GoodDay

I awaken and learn:

Better than the 1974 hit song by Paul Anka, Having My Baby. Yuck, talk about nauseating. It was constantly being played on every radio station during the summer of 1974. Puke City, man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Eek. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"Havin' my baby, what a lovely way of sayin' how much you love me, havin' my baby.....I'm a woman in love and I love what is going through me....Havin' my baby...."--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
A very suggestive song. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I just had a listen to it on YouTube. It's as awful to hear now as it was then. Luckily it has an intro so my boyfriend and I had advance warning whenever it came on the radio, and we'd be ready to switch stations!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Another stinker is In my beautiful balloon. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh I love the Fifth Dimension. Besides that great song they had even better ones such as Wedding Bell Blues, Aquarius, Stoned Soul Picnic, plus others. They are one of those groups who make me really nostalgic for the 1960s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Aquarius is cool. I enjoyed hearing it a the Benny Hill Show & the end of the movie The 40-Year Old Virgin. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with panning "She's Having My Baby". It's one of those songs, like "Billy Don't Be a Hero", that is so bad it isn't even fun to listen to just to make fun of it. Can you two think of some others that make you want to pull out your ear drums and mail them to the exec who decided to produce them? -Rrius (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Not so much the song but the singer: On the Star Trek episode Charlie X, I couldn't blame Charlie Evans for silencing Uhruha's voice. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha, she couldn't have been as bad as this lady. -Rrius (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Giggle giggle. Another singer whose voice comes out flat, is the actor Anson Williams. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
How's this for nauseating: Rod Stewart's Tonight's the Night (Gonna Be Alright). "Come on angel, my heart's on fire, don't deny your man's desire, you'd be a fool to stop this tide, spread your wings and let me come inside"...."Don't say a word, my virgin child, just let your inhibitions run wild, the secret is about to unfold, upstairs before the night's too old"......Yuck and yuck and yuck. Stewart even wrote the bloody thing. How embarrassing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
He was having a bad-hair day. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a bad pubic-hair day.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's Make a Deal

"Sorry about having to hang your husband; however, Eva, let's not permit a little thing like an execution get in the way of business, eh?"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Welsh Prince was so understanding. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Eva obviously didn't let her husband's execution stand in the way of wheeling-and-dealing. Or perhaps the prince did her a favour by getting rid of an annoying encumbrance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The latter is more likely, as he may have been abusive. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, or she wanted to run the family estates. Ah, the sweet taste of power.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Abusive husbands & ambitious wives, were common in those days. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
And have things changed in the 21st century?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Errr, not really. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyroad, the de Braose men were considered to have been especially violent even by 13th century standards which is saying a lot!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Abusive fathers 'raise' abusive sons. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Even the de Braose females were hardly Mother Theresa types. Remember this charming do-gooder: Maud de Braose, Baroness Wigmore?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
So, Simon was the head of Maude's party. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Or else the high table's centerpiece! Eek! I wonder what Maud handed out to her guests as party favours' (Shudder)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Montfort fingers (as oppose to chicken fingers)? GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Brutal times with brutal people. And we're already in the 21st century without any noticable changes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
We've got guns & tanks, etc, in place of axes, bows/arrows, etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
And de Braoses galore.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Alas, mankind will never evolve.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Someday. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi

Yes, has been a long time. Took a wiki break. How've u been?--Gazzster (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been well. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 7 November 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)

It's true, personally I don't think of yas as English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. I think of yas as British. I see England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales as 'constituent countries', but I've agreed to support the usage of country for all 4 parts -to keep the peace-. PS- I knew I was taking a risk, at BW's page. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
So (correct me if I'm wrong - and I hope there is another explanation) you thought you could renege on your agreement because you might get away with it? Daicaregos (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Might get away with what? GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
With it not being noticed - as in "PS- I knew I was taking a risk, at BW's page." Unless I misunderstood your PS. Daicaregos (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That's just me assumeing my Userpage is on other's watchlists (which I don't mind). I'm sticking to supporting the compromise usage. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Not by sharing your misinformed views on talk pages you aren't. Or is that what north Americans call their support? Daicaregos (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
On BW's page? He's already a Unionist, there's no harm there as I can't persuade him to be something, he already is. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, GoodDay. It's not a compromise, it's a verifiable fact that they are countries. Dai is right, spreading your views throughout wikipedia is not exactly support. Jack forbes (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think BW is gonna be converted towards your fellass views, therefore it's harmless (what I posted at his talkpage). Honestly, you fellas are being paranoid. I don't have influence on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Everyone has influence here, and you peppering talk pages with your misinformed view has as much influence as anybodies. I still can't believe after all the talking we've done you still refuse to look on me as a Scot (and Dai as Welsh). Why is that? What kind of kick do you get repeating that all the time? Are you doing it for a bit of fun? Jack forbes (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll always refer to you & Dai as 'Scottish' & 'Welsh' respectively, on your talkpages. On public pages? I will do so, if yas request it of me within those discussions. We're talking about posting at BW's page, I'd hardly consider BW as being 'un-decided' & open to influence on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Which, to you, means that your 'agreement' doesn't count? Nice to know you can be trusted on at least (?) three pages then. Daicaregos (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nobody's gonna change those opening leads at England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. I'm sticking with the usage of 'country', on those. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You make it sound as if the only reason is because consensus is against you. That you do not care about the views of millions of people, believing it is right to suppress their legitimately held belief reflects badly on you. That you completely ignore Wikipedia's core Verifiability policy (if you would like me to provide references from reliable sources to show that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all verified as countries I will be happy to do so) calls into question whether you make a positive contribution to this project. That you should renege on your agreement (and so soon) shows you are not trustworthy. I am very disappointed in you GoodDay. I'm just glad that all North Americans are not that dishonest. Daicaregos (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is to use 'country' & I'm content with that. I've no plans to attempt to overturn such consensus. You don't have to remind me about the 'verifiability' of the usage of 'country', as I'm content with those. However, I've my own views (which I haven't been pushing at those 'country' articles or related articles, lately). Ya can't re-program me (concerning my personal views), I've agreed to accept the usage of 'country' for yours & Jack's sake. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I understood that you had agreed to support the use of country. Daicaregos (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Only on Wikipedia, not within myself. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This is insanity. GoodDay doesn't see the four as countries. It is an opinion shared by many unionists, so as a starter, the "misinformed" epithet is misplaced; he just doesn't agree with you. More importantly, GD was expressing his opinion in a conversation on BW's page. He was in no way reneging on any agreement or whooping up opposition to your position. That said, he holds a legitimate view but supports the status quo because it is consensus. How in the hell is it dishonest to state your long-held opinion just because you've agreed to respect a consensus that cuts against that opinion? The way both of you, but especially Dai, have jumped down his throat on this is deplorable. It is ironic that you talk of his attempting to suppress the legitimate views of ESWNI folk while in doing so you completely ignore his legitimate view. That you have the immortal crust to be "disappointed" in him for a violation that solely exists in your mind is beyond the pale. -Rrius (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously there must be a different moral compass in Britain to that of North America. In Britain, if we have made an agreement to support a position, we would be expected to do so. Not only where we made that agreement, but in places where we may not be discovered too. So, my apologies. I put it down to differences in culture. I shall adjust my expectations of North Americans in future. Daicaregos (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? He agreed to respect the current consensus at the relevant articles and chooses to act a certain way at your and Jack Forbes's talk pages. What part of that means he has agreed to change his mind or never express his actual opinion? Supporting a consensus is a very different thing from adopting the consensus position as your own. If you are too obtuse to see that, well, perhaps that is just a cultural defect of Welshman and Scotsman (as long as we're making ridiculous accusations). I do have to ask, are you actually unable to recognize the difference between respecting consensus and changing one's own position or is this just a bad habit you picked up from spending too much time waging war at the UK articles? -Rrius (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Nobody's gonna change my personal views on the topic. But, it's healthy to discuss it & I'm not upset. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply you were. I just couldn't believe what I was reading. -Rrius (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Believe it; discusisons on this topic, can get quite heated. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That is one good thing about being a monarchist; I could never, ever view England, Wales, Scotland, or Ireland as anything but separate countries and former kingdoms. Never. I am always taken aback when English people refer to themselves as British.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The United Kingdom is an example of a 'shot gun wedding', but it's a marriage that's still in effect. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Marriage is a drag.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Marriage is the leading cause of divorce. If nobody got married, nobody would get divorced. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I hate marriage, and husbands are even worse.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah man, you can laugh, because you ain't trapped in unholy wedlock.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rrius. Just in case GoodDay is "confused" or "baffled" here by this rather odd Inquisition. The sort of effeminate histrionics above is very much minoritarian internet blog-land stuff, most people walking down the street are perfectly normal, please rest assured. If you ever come to the UK, you won't be accosted in such an unusual way. The Daisms above are generally constrained to soggy battle renactment fields or otherwise obscure Maoist organisations. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And most people speak English. So you won't have the sort of problems that ordinary people would have had trying to decipher Yorkshire's post. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I shall survive. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I've decided to support the usage of 'province'. I am prepared to face the music. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah the most controversial option I see, there are times when I think you simply enjoy the BI disputes too much.  :-) --Snowded TALK 10:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've withdrawn from the Rfc, as I can't settle on a preference. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I support country, but naturally not all editors agree, and it will provoke arguments. What else is new? LOL!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. I just can't make up my mind on which to support, therefore making my participation unhelpful. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The arguments seem to be going around in circles. I think the lead is fine as it is. As they say in the US military: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It'll likely stay the same, but with some kinda footnote added. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The best bet for keeping Scotland, England, Wales & Northern Ireland's leads the same? would've been to keep constituent country. But, I guess it's too late, now. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Campbell & Thompson

I have started two RMs for Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer) and Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer); your input would be most appreciated. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm back in the saddle again

Thank God, my head feels much better today. I even created a new article this morning. Yesterday A.M it hurt like hell. I spent most of the day in bed-reading, which didn't help my head much, but I was bored and the book is excellent. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I was curious as to where you were, yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I was in agony to put it bluntly. Today, I'm feeling much better as you can tell by my edit count.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I just knew I could count on getting a warm welcome-back from you, GD. Merci. I really thought it was more serious than it actually turned out to be, which is why I left a message on my talk page in case I was out of action for a while! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, where are you?

Just when I've got the PC to myself for at least another 10 minutes, you run out on me. Hmm, typical of men.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I had to run an errand. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Tsar Nicholas II

I have posed a question on Talk:Nicholas II of Russia. The article says he was the last Tsar, however seeing as he abdicated in favour of his youngest brother, Michael, who himself abdicated the following day, that would make Michael the last Tsar. Why not head over there and offer your opinion on the subject?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I reckon that's one of the situations where the historians got the upper hand, they've chosen to ignore Michael II of Russia. Similiar situation have occured in France, concerning the possible Louis XIX & Henry V. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably like the issue we had with User Henry V insisting that Henry VI be listed as a French monarch. I thought I'd question it though, seeing as how C. L. Sulzberger in his book (which I'm currently reading) describes Nicholas's son as Alexis II and then goes on to call Michael the last Tsar of Russia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
One could also argue that Alexis 'himself' was the last Tsar. Afterall, he never consented to renouncing his succession rights (assuming at that time, a Tsar couldn't change the succession). GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well the Romanovs ruled by divine right; however, Tsar Paul I of Russia altered the succession to debar females, due to his hatred of his mother, Catherine the Great.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Paul sure was sore, his reign should've began in 1762 (upon Peter III's passing). Catherine I, pushed aside Peter II; Elizabeth pushed aside Ivan VI & Catherine II pushed aside Paul. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that the Romanovs were contemporaries of the dull, pedestrian Hanovers, eh? Ah, if only the beautiful Grand Duchesses had lived long enough to inject their DNA into the current British ruling family. My dad always used to say how the Romanovs were the best looking of all the royal families in Europe. I'd agree, with the Danes coming a close second, followed by the Wittelbachs (Re:Elizabeth of Bavaria).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Good living (royalty) & breeding, can do that. Someday, hopefully all monarchies will be abolished (preferably peacefully). GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope not. I am a staunch monarchist. I even named my daughter Tatiana after Nicholas's daughter. She was conceived on 16 July (anniversary of the Romanov assassination), and I was reading a bio on the Romanovs when I discovered I was pregnant. I thought it was an omen, so I named her Tatiana after the prettiest Grand Duchess who also had the nicest name IMO.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Tatiana Romanov may have made a good citizen of Russia. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that you think she might have survived?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope, she got shot. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Her body was identified actually. I believe either Maria or Anastasia is still missing along with Alexis. Correct me if I'm mistaken.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
They were all wiped out. Ever see the move Nicholas and Alexandra? the actors were chosen well. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes I did see the film and it was excellent; however, as it's based on Massie's book, the murder was not historically-accurate. Massie claims the bodies were doused in acid and burnt and destroyed, which was clearly not the case as the bodies have been found and identified by DNA testing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers, the ending was dramatic. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It was a good film. I think the British government behaved despicably in not allowing the Romanovs to seek asylum in Britain, yet both Lenin and Marx were welcomed previously.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If Nicholas hadn't dissolved the Duma in 1905 & behaved like an absolute monarch? his fate may have been different. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, his greatest errors were the Russo-Japanese War, Bloody Sunday, Rasputin, and World War I. Allowing Rasputin to run the government was the worst mistake out of the four.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Nicky was a weak ruler, quite indecisive. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yet he would have made a good British monarch.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The British throne would've been perfect for him. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
And for his family, although Rasputin wouldn't have been made welcome!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Priests are always trouble. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Tell me about it. I once fell under the sway of a priest. They can really mess up your head.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Most guys can only offer a gal, a good time. Priests offer eternity. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Eternity doing what-endless praying whilst harps softly strum in the background?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
All priests aren't celibate, though they're suppose to be. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes they are-ha ha ha ha ha ha!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Celibate? all of them? I'm not convinced. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, they'e no longer celibate once they receive a mauling from me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Kinky. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeeeeeeeees, I suppose it would be considered rather kinky to maul a priest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cuidado

Take care about adding it again after so short a time to the BLP noticeboard, as IDIDNOTHEARTHAT has been mentioned already, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
We should allow (if he chooses to) Vk to bring it up imediately at BLP (during the 3-day page protection). Personally, I'd wait atleast 1-week. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


I could easily be persuaded to support your suggestion, as boxers have sometimes have a few different nicknames that two could be there in the infobox, the two most notable, as per each individual talk page consensus. I am strongly against the insertion of excessive lesser known nicknames, whether they be positive or negative in the infobox, in the body of the article, if you can show a little bit of citable reportage then add it and it can be expanded there.Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of the numerious nicknames VK wishs to apply, which one would be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The most notable and citable, the most well known, as ascertained in a simple talkpage discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Very well. Alright Vk, make your selection. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Is VK prepared to come to some kind of compromise agreement along these lines? Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping so. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Compromise? It's possibly the most retarded contrieved piece of bullshit baloney, I've every heard and was already voted down last month.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It can't be that bad. I thought part of it up. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, this compromise is acceptable & I'm prepared to move on. Getting part of what one wants, is better then nothing at all. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: Besides, a boxer as un-accomplished as Harrison, isn't worth getting blocked over. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I've started another BLPN thread about this – I recommend any further discussion to continue there (including compromises on which nicknames), so we can keep it centralized. Regards, JamieS93 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Boxers nicknames again

You were recently involved in a discussion with regards boxers nicknames. There is a continuation of that discussion with specific reference to Audley Harrison on the BLP page here. Please feel free to add your opinion there once more. Regards. Vintagekits (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Shazam. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where the action is

AN/I probably has the most traffic on Wikipedia. Nearly all the editors eventually pop up over there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya wanna believe it. It's like those town meetings of the old days, when everyone watches an execution being carried out. TV violence? quite tame in comparison. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a good description of the joint. It also reminds me of a sea with hungry, circling sharks, their teeth bared.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it's open to the public. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean the mob, the proletariat or the great unwashed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Whoever has the internet. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The mob, proletariat, and the great unwashed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention, GoodDay and myself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Eh eh eh, "everything is proceeding, as I have foreseen". GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
"The age of the bayonet is at hand"_ Vladimir Lenin, 1915 as he gently strokes the sleek fur of a well-fed cherished pet cat.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the time that you were away, I created another article: Maurice FitzGerald, 2nd Lord of Offaly. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Seen it & it looks good. PS: My responses might be slower, as the server in my area seems to be sluggish. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Revolt in the colonies

They just don't play by the rules in Quebec do they? Always disquieting to hear of anarchy and rebellion in any part of the empire. We've sent Charlie over to sort them out and remind them who is boss. Let us know if you need to borrow the SAS.. or HRH's corgies. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was the best part of the Charlie visit. The only good thing about a 'royal' visit, is that it comes to an end & they leave. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, I have said it before and I'll say it again "You're no fun"!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Giggle giggle, viva la republic. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Highkings talkpage

Hi, I see you are writing on Highkings talkpage to ask why you have no idea what my Good Friday Agreement post is about. Simply, editors have been continually referring to the document as an ipso facto proof that the Irish Government, by agreement of the voters north and south, has no political aspiration toward the north but the document says quite clearly that the "continuing political aspirations" that time are "equally legitimate". It is the first thing the document says on the matter (page 2, item No.5). I am continuing to point out the inaccuracy and bigotry of some claims as and when I can. Some have made it quite clear that they will be returning for 2011 to rehash a lot of stuff but there is no time like the present. Why should we not be all done and dusted long before 2011? Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. Do you want me to explain my examination of the document with quotes of editors such as "This or that all ended with the Good Friday Agreement"? We really need a non-discussive page on which there is a study of all the main ingredients of dispute involving Ireland naming but some people just don't give a shit because everybody knows everything. Well that's not good enough. Bring the mountain to Mohammed then... ~ R.T.G 19:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't want ya to explain your examination of the document. It's not necessary. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well, if the nature of the Ireland naming disputes is misleading, it may be complicated at this stage to unwind it. I say it again, we need a non-discussive page on which any and all study and information related to the Ireland naming disputes is set out long before 2011. ~ R.T.G 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Do as ya see fit, nobody will protest. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried already GoodDay, it wasn't much good and nobody took interest to make it good. All they want is to bicker and gain something that another would not appreciate. The Macedonian resolution was very concise and better than all the "I feel" garbage we are having in the Ireland pages. ~ R.T.G 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It's best to let the 'naming dispute' lay dormant for 2yrs. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry GoodDay but that is only going to rehash it all from point blank. Major contributors to the disputes have made it clear that they go away begrudgingly, not to give it a rest. It will surely be fairly dormant anyway but if anything new comes up in the interim it is best to lay it all forward. It's obvious that some editors have personal views to which they will adhere but the discussion will be open even if pretty empty. I reckon myself that ARBCOM will probably make some rules for it but in the mean time it's in editors hands. ~ R.T.G 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Having the 'Ireland naming dispute' in editors hands, is what brought about Arbcom's intervention. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The age of the bayonet is at hand

If you want to see the method of modern warfare in action, head over to the Town Meeting Hall where the cyber nooses are already being measured.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya mean the calls for Vk's head? GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep (as Ennio Morricone's music from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly plays). "Cut him down, cut him down, 114 counties of this state have found the accused guilty of......"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
There's only one way (IMHO), he can avoid an indef ban. He must promise to never again, use foul language on the public articles. I know alot of editors are annoyed by WP:CIVIL, but unless that rule is over-turned? we all have to deal with it. Also, Wikipedia is community runned; if the community wishes you to be gone, you're gone. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Everybody must remember to stay cool. It's so easy to lose one's temper but it ain't worth the hassle, man. Seriously though, I think that hurling foul words about is not nearly so damaging to the human psyche as snide, barbed insults which go virtually unpunished, yet are largely responsible for the defection of many good editors, who feel their efforts are demeaned by the acidic comments.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The only editors that 'bug me', are those that won't communicate atall or growl a fella, to stay off their page, just because ya disagree with them about an article. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The types of editors I despise can be found on my subpage article, but The hit-and-runs have got to be the worse. They disappear for months at a time, then out of the blue they come back on the scene running amok through articles, deleting text on the basis of their personal likes or dislikes without prior discussion. Then they leave with a trail of devastation behind them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
To suggest this is simply an issue of swearing is disingenuous. I swear all the time. I find your, and Jeanne's, opposition of efforts towards dealing with Vk rather misguided. Vandalism is actually a rather minor problem on Wikipedia, with our new tag filters, very little true vandalism remains for more than a few minutes. In contrast, using multiple sockpuppets to influence votes and evade blocks, abusing and threatening other editors with violence, personal attacks, recruiting meatpuppets on internet forums to try and influence discussions and the persistent pushing on one POV are all much bigger problems, because they are much harder to spot. When you have an editor that has done all of the above, comparing him favourably with vandals seems rather naive. What is more, do you actually have another suggestion to deal with the ongoing problem. Its easy to say "no" to a ban, much harder to actually come up with another solution. What have you got? Rockpocket 18:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've no evidence of sock-puppetry having occured since Vk's last Indef-ban report. I've an idea though, put Vk on a civility probation. Overall, the community itself has the final say. It's been suggested that my oppose vote be ignored, if that's the community choice (to ignore my vote)? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Rockpocket, you misunderstand me. I am not condoning profanity or personal attacks on Wikipedia. Have you ever seen me use either as a weapon against other editors? I merely pointed out that being told to f..k off is a lot easily to brush off than snide, sarcastic comments about one's intelligence or worse, being called an amateur. Do you realise how damaging that is to one's self-confidence when you are called that after having spent an entire morning researching and then creating an article. It's worse than a slap in the face, Rockpocket. And the editors who habitually do it never get reported, much less blocked.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
(res to Jeanne) I've chosen to go 'neutral' at Vk's Ban Case. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of any sockpuppets. I had assumed it was a matter of incivilty.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The sock-puppetry occured over a year ago, it involved the previous Banning Case. To my knowledge, Vk hasn't socked since. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You are both welcome to your express your opinions, I simply wanted to ensure you were aware of all the facts. Certain people would have you believe this is about the occasional swear word, or about an anti-Irish conspiracy or some other such nonsense. It isn't. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that Vk has probably violated every single policy we have (including vandalism). I agree, that snide comments are little better in fostering a collegial atmosphere (despite making them myself on occasion) but that isn't really the point. The issues is whether you consider it acceptable for the ongoing disruption Vk has caused (and by ongoing, I mean over years and across all the policy violations that I mentioned, without any sign of improvement) to continue. I understand you don't want to ban someone you have worked with, but opposing a ban is not very constructive unless you have a better idea of how to control the obvious disruption. As far as I am aware, all the other options have been tried and failed. What now? Rockpocket 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If Vk is 'spared' by the community? place him on Civility Probation. If he breaches (by using future colorful language towards an editor)? then that's the last straw. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, there's no Anti-Irish conspiracy 'or' British bias on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha, I don't know what you are discussing here but isn't an anti-everything and any-bias on the Wiki where it is possible? Murphys Law. ~ R.T.G 13:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand, clarify. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Strikethrough

G'Day, I see your vote and comments here have been struck out. Did you do that yourself or did someone else do it? Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I did it, as I've chosen to remain 'neutral'. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Did not somebody say something about the hottest place in hell being reserved for something or other? Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I need my memory refreshed. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully the hottest place in hell is reserved for me as I hate cold weather. And it had better be close to a decent beach, so I can spend eternity swimming and cavorting among the fishies, whales, and dolphins. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There's is no Heaven & there is no hell. "Life is what happens to you, while you're busy making other plans". GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
My plans sure as hell went awry then.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind again. I'm opposing Vk's indef ban, as I've no evidence of recent sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Strike on through to the other side.......YEAH!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm also supporting the Mentorship proposal (even though it's the third one). GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
We all have the right to our own opinions, which is why I opposed his ban. Has VK posted a statement yet?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
He should do so. Giano advised him to do it as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
If he does? I'd recommend that there be 'no' foul language. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, no, it would not be advisable for him to do so.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I do believe, the Indef-block case has been closed. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

Thank you for answering that question the reasonable way you did. I was myself questioning whether to delete it or not, given that it seemed to me to take as a given attraction to men, and then thought better of it and decided to let someone else try. Your response is a lot better than any I would have made. Thanks again. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 16 November 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)

Thérésa Tallien sexpot#1
Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau, sexpot#2-BTW, I'd slay a dragon for her dress!
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)
Notre Dame de Thermidor certainly has living female descendants, such as Louise and Jeanne de Caraman Chimay. However, GoodDay would be well advised to keep away from them, being as they were born in 2004 and 2006. - Nunh-huh 10:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm patient, I can wait. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hornball.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Presumably GoodDay would also be interested in Clara Ward, who married as her first husband a descendant of Tallien, the 19th Prince of Caraman Chimay, (Escoffier named both Oeufs á la Chimay and Poularde Chimay after Princess Clara).
How about them oeufs? - Nunh-huh 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Grooooooowl. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Who wouldn't look good with all that money, plus a decent pair of duckies never hurt any girl.....sigh.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This guy falls in love with the whole gal, not just the duckies. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
At the turn of the century she had the perfect figure. Today all modelling agencies would tell her to go on a diet and then come back.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been with slim gals & plump gals (more blumped then her). Trust me, I luved them all. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's an interesting fact. I figured Tallien had descendants after having 10 kids!Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 12 November 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)
Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Within the hollow crown

I came upon these lines of Shakespeare's and I was reminded of Wikipedia editors who believe they are indispensable to the project:
"Within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court, and there the antick sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd, and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit
As if the flesh which walls about our life
Were brass impregnable; and humoured thus
Comes at the last, and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king !"
William Shakespeare, King Richard the Second

All of us editors here at Wikipedia should remember these lines whenever we start acting like the project would collapse without us. We are all of us mortal men and women.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. Each one of us, is a grain of sand, on the beach of Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. We are all here to help build an encyclopedia. If we break the rules, article and edit count doesn't matter. As Keith Richards said to Brian Jones back in 1969 "You're out, cock".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it more gratifying to work on an article than squabble over a few words on a talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For sure, it gets to the point where editors are more concerned with what they want, then what the article needs. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
"Within this hollow crown"

Eek, that's a spooky image. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is. I found it here:Berengaria of Portugal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a plait of her hair. I wonder if she was the origin of the fairy tale Rapunzel?
The second image isn't working. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That skull gives me the creeps.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
We've all got 'similiar' ones, within our heads. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't remind me of my mortality, GD. (Shudder as footsteps walk over my future grave)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
For each day we live, we get closer to our demise. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm counting off the days on my calendar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd be good for children's parties, eh? GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and Sunday School picnics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha ha haaaaa. 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You would also make a great guide on pilgrimages to holy shrines.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Nay, I'd be overcome with boredom. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No you wouldn't. Trust me. I've been on pilgrimages, and I wasn't bored. No way, Jose.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be fired as a guide, as I'd tell people those shrines aren't holy. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Spoilsport.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your kind words. This is JourneyManTraveler, just not logged in as I am not on my home computer. I must admit, I have had some bad times before on Wikipedia, many disputes with administrators and what not. I decided to break with my past and start fresh under this name, basically I want to start over with a clean record disassociated with my more egregious past. I would like to be a contributor to this encyclopedia, just won't be too often as I have many out in the world responsibilities with family and college studies. I'm nearing my completion of an associate degree of science and want to go higher. Wish me luck on my {talk page. See you soon, I hope. 67.246.40.144 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, JMT. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think?

I thought it made it look more tidy. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Arb breaks are used when a talk-page discussions get overly long. It's common pratice on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried an failed. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, I was doing ya a favour. PS: If ya want to revert, I won't protest. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
No I wont. Making an edit on this laptop is a total chore thanks to a crappy internet connection and a broken hub antenna. I wont make any edits that really are not needed. Too much hassle. You just wait till I am in South Korea in the new year, best internet speeds in the world apparently. I will edit so fast you wont see me coming…And all your pages will be changed…Hahahaaaa…Oh I’m tired eh. (How do you like my one instance of Canadian slang eh?) --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The slang? If ya like it, ya can use it. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ring of Fire

I just stepped out onto my balcony and I saw that Mount Etna is glowing. Hmm, go with the flow, man.......Welcome to the Lava Lounge, and just relax!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's too close to a volcanoe, for my liking. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I can watch it erupt from my bedroom window. Oh come on baby light my fire, YEAH!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose gals get a kick out of volcanoes. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I certainly do not as volcanic activity often results in earthquakes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Kinky. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Not kinky, GoodDay, but scary.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Like really horror film scary.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive, eh? GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
When it starts to shake you just lie there waiting for your world to come crashing down upon you. I was in a quake in 1971 in Los Angeles, but no damage was done. It was frightening though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm lucky to be where I'm at. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Scotland

"Meep!" was the best contribution to date, why did you remove it? ;) Fribbler (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was overcome with a wave of seriousness. By all means, 'restore' it. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Nah, maybe I was looking to much into it...it felt like the IP was the only one who realised they were a Muppet. Fribbler (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was the Road Runner, not Beeker. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Perhaps a statement on the low level of investment in Scottish road infrastructure in the Highlands......Fribbler (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Quite possible. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of archiving some of the discussion on the Scotland page? It's very difficult to wade through all the contribs to get a sense the latest issues, etc. I like the Scotland page, don't really have much to add, but I like follwoing discussions to learn what items are in dispute, etc. Very educational that way. Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

Archiving would be acceptable, as there's alot of repetition in those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Irvine22

I know this is a very little thing and all, but I didn't want to change it and be called upon for altering someone's comment, so I will let you fix it if you want to. Anyway, the beginning should be "Here are some examples..." You have "Here's some..." Again, it's probably a very small thing, but I'm into all that grammar stuff, and when someone makes a mistake, it just irks me. It's not just you, though, so I hope that this does not offend you. If it does, my sincerest apologies. Anyway, here's your error. - Zhang He (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

'Tis alright, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To the IP 166.205.xxx.xxx

I had considered 'retiring' from Wikipedia or getting my account deleted & starting as a new account (anon style). But, your persistant childishness (and lack of courage to identify yourself), has only made me dig in my heels further. I'll continue on Wikipedia, if only to spite you. Sooo, give it your best shot. Try and push me off the project, if you're smart enough. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

GoodMan GoodDay! Illegitimi non carborundum. RashersTierney (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Good day, you should not have to be harassed bu this cowardly IP 166,, please email (or if you feel ok, just on my talk page) me all the details of the harassment and I will investigate. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I put in a complaint here, concerning that anon. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good idea, I am watching there and joining in as necessary, it is good that you spoke up as we can block some ranges that will help identify him and narrow him down in readiness for a complaint to his provider. Internet harassment is illegal and the punishments especially in the USA are quite lengthy. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Regrettable for the innocent anons, the harrasser may have 'deepened' my pro-mandatory registration views. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, respect, Canterbury tail just called you a valued editor..I am also lean towards the mandatory registration but we also need to allow what pisses us off but if very beneficial to the growth of the wikipedia, the unregistered accounts do add a lot of the quality content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Ct's a super-duper editor. Hmm, you're right about IPs-in-general; there are alot of good anons. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hope the techies are close to finally getting that monkey off your back GD. Canterbury tail is not the only valued editor hereabouts. RashersTierney (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, there's alot of 'super-duper' editors on Wikipedia. Hopefully, that anon won't be able to harrass anyone (on this Project) again. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You been having some trouble with the ip, GoodDay? Jack forbes (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, for these last 2-months. He's reverting via 'Wireless Data Service Provider Corporation'. But, I won't retire because of him. I'll continue on, just to spite his limited intellect. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if we help him/her find a life they'll eventually stop. Jack forbes (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it. The anon has become obsessed with me (can't understand the attraction), I suppose psychosis would have an answer for the anon's behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not a prolific editor, it sure is easy to find & reverse the harrassers reverts. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still on Wikipedia, anon. You're dissapointing me with your feeble efforts to push me off. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_15&oldid=1142464055"