User talk:GoodDay/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about User:GoodDay. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Is this nonsense contagious?

Check this out. (But don't take it as an invitation; I don't want a specious canvassing allegation on top of the flummery already there.) -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's alot of non-sense on the 'pedia. For example, there's editors who consider me disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes Rrius, you are the new GD Raul17 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am of course humbled. While I will do everything I can, I am know in my heart I can never live up to the high standards set by the last GoodDay. I shall however do my best. -Rrius (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just be careful of Welsh & Scottish nationalists, as some of'em are quite unable to think 'outside' the box. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

President Bio and the years the were in office.

Just a question, was there a discussion on these dates that I missed? Taking a look at them, I haven't really made up my mind on the dates yet, but you have my support for now if anyone gives you any grief about it.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd noticed that the US Prez articles were inconsistant on that topic. I'm also making the same changes to the US Vice Prez bios. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Saw that too. Good luck with all of that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I figured using (Year assumed office-Year left office) was quicker to read & took up less article space. But you're correct, trying to keep 76 articles consistant, is pratically impossible. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed! GoodDay, you know much more than I do about US Presidents and VPs, and I'm an American! Some of the First Ladies articles really could do with expansion and improvement.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just read alot about'em. I've a boring life. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've a boring life too. Thanks to extremely poor judgement on my part. As the Bible says, we reap what we sow.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Where have all the georgeous men gone?

Why aren't there men like this guy around anymore: Eddie Little Sky?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are. You're posting to one of'em now, as I've got Native ancestry -though quite a few generations back-. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Really?! I never told you I have had a thing for American Indian men since I was a teenager. Must be the flowing black hair. When I was 18, I went to visit an Indian reservation In Arizona and thought I'd died and gone to testosterone heaven. How much Indian ancestry do you have?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fully certain, as we're talking about something like over 10 generations back. I'm not even 100% about that, but I do have long flowing 'brown' hair, sometimes. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

10 generations back?! You're no fun! Honestly, you have to be at least 1/4 Indian to be legally considered one in the US; most tribes are pretty strict about admitting whites who claim Indian grandparents. I believe they have to be documented on the Dawes Rolls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite a mixture. I've got British, Irish & French ancestry, too. But then, most Canadians do. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

British?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, from all parts. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As I recall one of your ancestors has his own Wikipedia article, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep & it surprises me, that he does. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? A few of mine have articles here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think GD (notice the initials) would have an article, per lack of notability. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you break hearts? GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm holding out for a hero

Well?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the women who've softened us. In the old days, we'd beat yas up, when yas refused to have sex with us. Back then, women were the property of men. That's what marriage originated from, as the woman passed from the hands of her father to the hands of her husband (owner to owner) GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe violent men have gone away? No, what has changed is that a large majority of men no longer have the balls to fight other men, so they take their impotent rage out against women. I have met many men who condemn war yet think nothing of knocking the crap out of their wives and girlfriends.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do women tend to choose or stay with such guys & over-look the 'nice guys'? GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I would imagine that the 1970s bodice-rippers have played a large part in the violent man-lusty lover syndrome. A lot of feminists criticised these novels as they promoted the false theory (which benefits men and their hard-ons) that women secretly desire to be beaten into submission and raped.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No 2 women are alike. Some (due to past violent childhoods) likely only feel needed, if abused. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Very true. A lot of it is also cultural. Where I live women think its normal for a man to beat his wife if she's a poor housekeeper. Men will beat their sisters for cheating on their husbands.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult thing to figure out. I've heard gals complain about how they're treated by their guys (neglect, abuse, cheating), yet the next time you'd see these gals, you'd swear there was velcro between them & their guys. One time, a women complained to me that their were no more nice guys in the world. I told her, the nice guys are the fellows she complains to about the jerks she sleeps with. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Here in Italy, a man can legally lock his wife out of the house if she fails to fulfill her duties as a housewife, which happens to be considered (by Italian law) an occupation!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, cheating should be a criminal offense, as there's dangers of STDs - particularly AIDS. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, wife-beaters should have their assets confiscated and turned over to their wives thus enabling them to have the economic means to leave the violent pricks who control their lives.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya forgot the main part - wife beaters should have the crap beaten out of them, until they cry. Then when they cry, have'em beaten some more. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, preferably by a guy like the one shown in the painting I uploaded here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wake up!!!!!!!!!

We need some action around here. Where are all the Wikipedians today?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been snoozing. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What time is it there?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's 12:07 PM. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You had a nice lie-in. I take it it's snowing otherwise the sun's rays would have invited you to open your eyes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was awake until nearly 4:00 AM. That MedCab I was involved in (with that truth defender from Australia) has concluded. I'll be able to get more sleep now. PS: Why I let it effect my RL, is a mystery. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Staying up until 4.00am to argue over the Australian HOS is a bit over-the-top. Your sleep is important, so is eating, bathing, working, socialising, reading, watching television, listening to music, etc. The discussion could have waited, and you shouldn't IMO have let it interfere with RL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I just get so quickly frustrated with an editor like Pete. There's a group of Truth defenders at the United Kingdom article as well. However, I'm not going to fall to the baiting, by one of'em. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't get so worked up over articles' talk pages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to calm down. Jeepers, there was a time when I was so laid back; what happened to me? GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. You used to be the personification of Mr. Cool. Even Clint Eastwood had nothing on you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Snowded's constant badgering of me (here, on talkpages & edit summaries), was getting under my skin. Also, my jokes on talkpages, were an outlet for me (in letting off steam in a frustrating discussion). Now, I'm not allowed to post them anymore. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No jokes from GD?! I think it is time to give up WP!! Raul17 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Jokes are aloud here, just not on the public discussion pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

allowed (AGAIN). Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tea

GoodDay, looking at this diff, I'm concerned enough to make a first formal step on the path. Referring to editors with whom you disagree as children is not constructive. This is not an isolated incident - a review of your recent edits shows a pattern of baiting and belittling other editors. Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and when you focus on the person rather than the behaviour, you create distraction and disruption. Please don't see this as anything other than a friendly warning, but if you ignore Wikipedia's core principles, you will find yourself the target of official displeasure.

I forgive you any insults directed my way. I have generally ignored them. But if you continue on this path, I shall insist on the rules being applied. This is not just me and you. The rules are there for a reason, and the wider community here respects them because they work.

I invite you to keep up your good constructive edit work, enjoy the fellowship of others of like mind, and if you find yourself frustrated or upset with behaviour you consider intolerable, remember that tolerance isn't a matter of getting along with people you like - it's getting along with people you don't like. Let any hasty anger wash past and keep your mind on the larger game. --Pete (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm so ticked off with Daicaregos constant baiting & taunting on the articles, that sometims I loose my cool. But, you're correct, that edit-summary was OTT. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: If you feel I should be reported at ANI? don't hasitate to do so. But, you shouldn't be letting your frustratons at List of current heads of state and government, influence such a decision. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile. I'm not at all frustrated - the process provided some valuable sources and a clear path forward. At least you were straightforward in your unbudgeability and I thank you for honestly expressing it. As for losing your cool, just count to ten or delete the angry response before sending it. I'm not perfect and I don't expect anyone else to be, but telling someone that they are a galah when they express their honest belief doesn't help Wikipedia get along smoothly. So I don't do it. --Pete (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We had a power-outage for nearly 2hrs a while ago, so it helped me simmer down. Myself & Daicaregos don't get along, as he's a Welsh nationalist & I've no sympathies for his political views. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange that a Welsh nationalist should have a point of view on a Welsh subject. This is where NPOV works well. Opposing views can both have a place in Wikipedia. It shouldn't be a matter of power outages or sleep sessions or whatever cooling tempers, but an understanding that one's own point of view, no matter how strongly one believes in it, may not be the pinnacle of human thought. If I find you continuing to make life difficult for people who have opposing views, I am going to push this further. Get along - or get out. --Pete (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, Pete. Telling someone (especially an established editor) to "get out" is hardly conducive to harmony and collaboration at Wikipedia. May I instead offer the less drastic, but nevertheless effective solution to GoodDay: take a break from all British/Irish/UK-related articles for at least two weeks. Spend your time on US political articles or whatever. We all have personal opinions on a variety of issues and subjects. Seeing as there's an obvious clash of POVs, why put yourself square in the middle of a conflict when there are other, less contentious areas on Wikipedia? You yourself said you had lost your cool, laid-back manner!! Honestly, I don't understand why you are deliberately courting stress, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pete, you're at liberty to do as you wish. Jeanne, I'll be alright at those articles, they're a good test of my standing up against politicial motives. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone get stressed out over Wikipedia? There are things in real life I might get stressed over but I'm damned sure wikipedia wouldn't be one of them. Take a chill pill folks, sit back, and watch the stressed out folk grow old before their time. Carson101 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's pyschological. A few days ago, an adminstrator who was stripped of his role for questionable reasons, retired from Wikipedia claiming his life was rendered worthless. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's sad. It's obviously not wikipedia or what happened here that caused him or her to say that, it's far, far deeper than that. Wikipedia should not be a substitute for real life. Carson101 (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For sure, it's amazing how folks can get overly emotional over printed words. I'm amazed that even I get unglued at times. I need a female companion, big time. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll introduce you to my sister in-law. On second thoughts, you want to feel less stress, so maybe not. :) Carson101 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Giggle Giggle. There's a tiny group of editors trying to run me off the British/Irish politicial articles, but due to the fact that I've committed no vandalism, their reasons for such an attempt are questionable. Maybe someday, they'll succeeded (via ANI or something), but only after having got alot of mud on themselves. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For the 500th time GoodDay, despite your wish to be seen as some noble martyr for "common sense" no one is trying to run you off those articles. Instead a significant group of senior editors are trying to get you to stop littering articles with repetitions of your opinion, do some basic research and generally think before you comment. --Snowded ^TALK 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I do seem to get dumped on the most, at those articles. The American editors don't grouch at me, so intensely. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec response to your first comment) People have been very very clear that is not the case. I think its your coping mechanism to avoid facing the truth --Snowded ^TALK 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been disruptive at the UK article, during the content & footnote discussions. As for 'coping mechanism'? you're entitled to your theories. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

UK article has been an improvement although there are a couple of opinion only statements and if memory recalls one near example of canvassing. However it is going in the right direction. You are more than entitled to complain that people are giving you a hard time, but don't accuse them of trying to drive you off articles without evidence --Snowded ^TALK 00:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to collect such evidence, unless the suspectees make such a statement. Since I keep my speculations to my talkpage, it shows I'm not seeking anybody's block or bannishment from the 'pedia. I've no intentions of opening an ANI report, Rfc/U, Wikiquette on any editors, as that's not my nature. Only vandalizers, sock-puppets (for example) - should be shown the door. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What the heck, I've scratched it out. Atleast you're trying to mend fences. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#.22There.22.2C_.22they.27re.22.2C_.22their.22_confusion. their - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sleep deprivation, it happens. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

RE:MedCom

When and if you file an RfM, let me know, I can verify the need for formal mediation to the committee if needed. Ronk01 talk 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll let ya know, if Pete re-considers. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue Tuesday

Arsenal getting their tails whipped!!

Talk about a rude awaking from real life!! Raul17 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Does it mean they're out of the PL playoffs? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Barcelona knocked them out of the champions league. They are still 3 points behind manu with a game in hand in 2nd. I already have them finishing fourth because they always take a dive at the end of the season! Raul17 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea are the defending champs, I see. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Stuff

Hey, GoodDay, where's your stuff?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's all on my Stuff page. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Okaaaaaaay.....was just wondering.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No probs. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

One of my latest artcles (Peter Cleary) was on the Main Page yesterday as a DYK. I checked today-it got almost 8,000 hits. Wow! Those represent a lot of eyes. I hope there were no grammatical or typo errors!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Lucky duck. I've only created 2 or 3 articles in my time on this project. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Which ones? Why don't you create more?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dan Frawley & Bob Murray (Just 2 articles). I can't think of anymore to create. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I usually just come upon people and when I discover they have no article and I can find reliable sources on them, I create the page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Someday, if I get the energy, I'll create another stub. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you should.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Something like Constituent countries of the United Kingdom or Prime Minister of Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah......no. Not quite the articles I had in mind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan

Have you seen the footage of the devastation caused by the horrific earthquake and tsunami in Japan?! The way thebuildings were shaking; I have never seen anything like it, and I'm from California! (Jeanne boleyn, 16.35 CET, 11 March 2011)

Yep, the houses & vehicles were moved around like toys. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It was the subsequent tsunami which caused all the deaths and devastation. It's said the quake was the 7th most powerful in recorded history!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Over 1,000 fatalities. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The last I heard it was 1,400.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A tragedy of epic proportions. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I just couldn't believe how the wave washed away everything. Did you see those cars piled up and the overturned train?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To the powers of nature, they were mere toys. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The news said 1,700 dead and 10,000 missing! Not to mntion the risk of radiation poisoning from the damaged reactor. What a catastrophe!!!! Speaking of nature's fury, here it's lashing rain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dumb question of the week

Yesterday while watching a current affairs programme on Italian television, I witnessed an example of the sheer stupidity of people employed in the media. The programme was showing live footage of the Japanese earthquake including people in offices with PCs, etc. falling all around them and those in the street dodging flying debris. Well it clearly showed the quake had taken place during the daytime. Do you know the programme's ignorant hostess asked the correspondent in Japan at what time did the quake occur local time, and when he replied 2.45, she then dropped her bombshell by asking if that was 2.45 AT NIGHT!!!!!!! Doesn't the idiot know that Japan is hours ahead of Europe in the time zone, and what's more didn't the footage showing people in their offices and the Japanese Parliament tell her it occurred during the day and not night? I tell you....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne? Was you watching the Italian version of Fox News? Raul17 (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it was not Fox News. It was a popular current affairs programme broadcast by Mediaset 5 and the erudite hostess is highly-paid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that the hosts at Fox News are not highly paid?! I have seen footage of "daylight" scenes which were actually shot at night. I will give the hostess at break because I think the shock of all that damage made her a little brain-dead. Raul17 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

News programs are known for asking 'dumb' questions. A reporter asked a person in Egypt (last month), how many of the thousands of protesters in Cairo, he thought were students. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't believe the stupidity of reporters here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I often find the most awful howlers in the media. In the last days of the Soviet Union, there was dissent in the Baltic states, and the local paper ran a photo labelled something like "Russian tanks moving through Riga". I complained to the editor that the tank in question was a T-34, which had been obsolete since the end of WW2, and appeared to be mounted on a plinth rather than moving along with the Soviet troops marching along the street in front of it. Perhaps it was a war memorial of some kind and they had mislabelled their photograph? I got back a reply along the lines of "We can't be expected to know everything!"

Which is fair enough. Journalists are as human as anyone else. And so are Wikipedia editors. Generally, if one knows a subject very well, it is easy to spot mistakes made by people who don't. --Pete (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

When journalist ask ya things like "were you scared when...?" concerning disasters. It's quite a lame question. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's intended to elicit an emotional response rather than a YES/NO answer. The camera is pointing at your face, aiming to catch an expression which will resonate with the viewers and words which will colour the situation.The journalist is looking for emotion rather than fact. Facts are for encyclopaedias. --Pete (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's intented to lengthen out interview, annoy the interviewee & increase ratings. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Get more out of an interview, perhaps. Any journalist who cannot resonate with his audience, or decreases ratings, will find himself out of a job. And as for the interviewed, who doesn't like talking about their experiences? The interviewer's artless questions may be lost in editing, but the response of the poor guy who has just crawled out of the rubble where his family still lies, that is what brings in the awards and recognition and higher pay. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a ratings kick. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But from the point of view of the journalist and his employer, not a stupid question at all. You might as well ask a company board to consider social harmony as a more important factor in corporate strategy than profit maximisation. We may sigh for the moon, but it will not come and snuggle up to us for the mere wishing. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The interviewees should answer with crappy questions for the reporters. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Some surely do. But those responses are not broadcast. --Pete (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's too bad. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

One time on a popular variety programme here, the English dance band Dead or Alive wre the guests. After their performance th stupid host (through a translator) made the grave error in asking singer Pete Burns if he looked the same in the morning as he does on stage in full makeup. Well Burns replied acidly "actually I find that to be a really stupid question"; as th host's face got redder and redder, Burns proceeded to insult him. It was soooooooo funny.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank God you've come on board; Wikipedia is Dullsville today.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday afternoon & night, it seemed like tumble weeds were twirling around on the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

There has been an endless edit war for months and months. I have simply removed the nationality from the lead altogether. I realy think per the MOS there is no need to mention his nationally in the lead at all - plus sounds odd hes a retired Canadian? We cant keep edit Waring over this silly point.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, I haven't been around that article, in quite awhile. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Its an endless edit war - you may not have ever edit the page- but you have commented on the situation and i am looking for more input from all that were involved in the talks. Moxy (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I'll deep my skate in. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How about mentioning that he became an American citizen after his playing career. It is not the same as Bryan Trottier when he switched nationality to play for the US. Did not Kjell Samuelsson was expelled from the Olympics or some big international tournament because he held a Canadian passport while playing for Sweden? Raul17 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the resistance to Canadian-American in the intro. Afterall, the guy's got dual-citizenship & has been living in the USA since 1988. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do not like the man. I remember him playing "dead" when Billy Smith slashed him across the ankles & then popping up to argue with the referee when he thought he did not draw the penalty. To be honest, is he a Canadian-American or naturalized American from Canada? I am only going by what he was as an active player. It should not really matter, but, just like the UK article, everyone wants his ideal/way. Raul17 (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of his. He wasn't allowed to be hit when he played, just ask Bill McCreary, Jr. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Islander fan!!! ( - _ - ) b Raul17 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Canadiens fan. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor dear. Raul17 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Deputy First Minister for Wales

Do you want to close your RM at Deputy First Minister for Wales and re-propose it as Deputy First Minister (Wales)? Or would you prefer to wait for the outcome of your original proposal? Daicaregos (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nay, it should be moved to Deputy First Minister of Wales to match with First Minister of Wales. I'll wait for the outcome. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As you've now decided to support Ghmytle's suggestion, do you want to close your RM at Deputy First Minister for Wales and re-propose it as Deputy First Minister (Wales)? Or would you prefer to wait for the outcome of your original proposal? Daicaregos (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Close it down & re-propose. There's no consensus for moving to 'DFM of Wales'. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good choice, GoodDay. Daicaregos (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, the Scottish equivalents will choose to do the same. Northern Ireland got their 2 offices wrapped into 1 article. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Irvine Draper

Our friend Irvine - clad in his various pairs of socks - is rapidly becoming the Evelyn Draper of banned Wikipedia users. Why does he have such an obsession with Snowded? After all this time, one would think he'd have moved on from Wikipedia and its editors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Irvine, is a self-entertainment seeker. It appears he blames Snowded for his bannishment & is seeking revenge through annoying edits at Snowded's bio article. BTW- Snowded should let others handle the reverts, per possible CoI. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You would think he'd have grown tired of harassing Snowded by now though. Anyroad, it was an admin. who ultimately banned Irvine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Irvine is one of those blokes who doesn't take the 'pedia seriously. To steal a quote from Snowded, Irvine sees the project as his "playground". GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever gets you through the night.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

To steal a quote from Gunnery Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket - Irvine's got a "hard-on" for Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I sure hope Snowded isn't reading this as I'm certain that he'd find the idea of Irvine with a hard-on as nauseating as I do.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment

Hey, GoodDay. I've moved your comment to "BRD application" talk page section. Your thoughts are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tumbleweeds

I fear the tumbleweeds are blowing strongly today. Wikipedia is like one of those ghost towns seen in 1960s westerns with tumbleweeds rolling down the one dusty street, saloon door hanging off its hinges, a lone horseman riding into town.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It might get more active latter in the day. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when it bedtime for moi.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to move to North America, where you'll be closer to me (wink wink). GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

North America is a BIG continent GD.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Prince Edward Island isn't big. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What about Prince Edward himself? LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Earl of Wessex? the ballet boy? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why, what's wrong with bein' a dancah?!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Until Eddie got married (to a gorgeous gal, no less), I suspected he was homosexual. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Did he make a pass at you ? (Though, even that isn't proof he's homosexual (whatever that actually means).) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just me speculating this. Prince Albert II of Monaco was speculated as being such, for years. Turns out he's got 2 children, is getting married to a gorgious gal (those lucky royals) & will likely be producing an heir-apparent in future. Sorry Caroline & Andrea. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The right to speculate

At the UK talkpage I didn't notice Carson101 was referring to a quote you made in precisely the same situation. While I understand completely why you said what you said, and must admit that that feeling does come through in the conversation sometimes (although I don't know the precise editors you're talking about), it's probably bad form to tell an editor not to discuss your opinion on the matter and then go and discuss the motives of two editors, even if you don't name them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Carson101 had good reason to be annoyed with me, there. It's this 'country/country' topic that's so frustrating. The topic can be easily handled, yet not eveyone agree on how to do it. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Frustration understood, and you've been in the conversations more than myself. Of course, it'll be equally frustrating for everyone, those calling them countries, those not calling them countries, those trying to find a middle ground, and whoever else. Considering that the issue once went all the way to arbitration, I don't see it getting any simpler anytime soon. As for Snowded's advice below, I think you should choose the second of his two options. Much better in terms of keeping the already frustrating discussion to minimal levels of ire. Discussions about editors aren't really in the realm of article talkpages anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but I've taken alot of crap on this topic for quite some time. Anyways, I hope something is worked out. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Either name names or shut up is better advise --Snowded ^TALK 18:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You're being emotional, again. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You should ask yourself, GoodDay. If I made a criticism in a roomful of people and told them I was referring to only two of them how would the room of people react? They would react rather negatively because all the individuals may think they were the ones being criticised. If I felt the need to criticise I would have pointed the individuals out so as not to alienate the others. Carson101 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have that privillage to 'point out' anybody. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do. It wasn't Carson because you said so, so who are they.--Bill Reid | (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have that privillage. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of "emotional". Using incorrect labels may allow you to avoid listening of course which may account for you use of it as a defense. Blunt yes, Put up or shut up --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Control yourself. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tumbleweeds...again

Well, the tumbleweeds have started to blow....I can see them rolling down the deserted street in the ghost town.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The weekend is approaching. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because everyone is out buying salt, there is no action! Raul17 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just Wikipedia fatigue. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No way. Everyone is out buying salt. Raul17 (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, salt it is. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See, you are learning to play nice with everyone! :D Raul17 (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, be nice to me, Dave - Evelyn Draper--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Draper should go after Darthflyer. Perhaps, he'll end up with a personalty out of it. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What a dreary Saturday. It's raining here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We got a little bit of snow again. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough to build a snowman?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough to make a sloppy mess. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What a pity. I like snowmen, they are sooooooo cute.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rain & warmer weather (this past few days), caused my neighbours snowman to gradually shrink & fall over. There's no sign of it left. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop it GoodDay, you're making me cry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We've had enough snow here, it's time for flowers again. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Flowers, budding green leaves dappled with soft golden rays of sunshine, lambs frolicking in the meadows, mewing newborn kittens, twittering birds....springtime always reminds me of my youth, when the world was younger.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Love is in the air. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah...are you trying to depress me, GD? I was 17 when that song came out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with passionate love, out in a corn field. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It itches! Bielle (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thus causing more movements. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of movement, GD, read what I wrote on my talk page. I'm really worried by the Libyan Crisis.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The perfect boyfriend

Read my latest article: James Craig (loyalist). Doesn't he sound like the perfect boyfriend?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Girls always prefer a scum bag. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I can guarantee you, women flocked to him like birds to seeds. Did you see his photo under the section External links?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic gangster material-even wore the corny gold chain. Typical.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Likely stolen. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Or a gift from an admirer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Before you ask, let me tell you up front it wasn't a gift from me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My fears were unwarranted. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

World War II Air Raid Sirens

With all that's going on in Libya, my son checked out actual recordings of British and German WWII air raid sirens on YouTube. Talk about creepy. Go have a listen to them, and feel the goosebumps.....scarier than an episode of Twilight Zone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The German siren sounds more like cattle. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the German siren sounds drone-like and far scarier-like relentless death. It uses a single tone, whereas the British used the more recognisable dual-tone siren.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there's sirens ringing in Libya. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Im sure there are. God, I hate war.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad there's no God to stop it or to have prevented it. A simple super-natural dissapearance of Quadaffi, would've been helpful, let alone a prevention of his ever being ~~concieved~~ conceived. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

" I before E except after C.... (With apologies for tampering with your statement) Raul17 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Also ..disappearance.. But if we start correcting all GD's errors we'll be here all day. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Either, heinous, inveigle, leisure, neither, obeisance, seize, are just some of the words that don't follow the rule, a rule I believe is probably not worth teaching when there are so many that prove the rule wrong. I, probably like most, was also taught the rule. My rule is to always have a large dictionary at hand if possible. :) Carson101 (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm usually consistant with my spelling errors. GoodDay (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hehehehe, I did that spelling mistake un-purpose. GoodDay (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your spelling errors are just one of your many likeable quirks, GD! They aren't nearly as bad as those of a certain editor with a strong interest in a certain Lancastrian king.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Who'd that be? GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't you remember me?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, one of the editors who disappeared. There's him, Cameron, Sarah777, BigDunc, Jack forbes. Domer48 & HighKing have been low-key aswell. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and Jack1755, one of my favourite editors and indeed one of Wikipedia's most promising. A pity he no longer contributes to the project.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They just faded away. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A pity. They were useful to the project.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

BC Premiers

An IP has changed the number of BC Premiers to 34 again. I'll talk to him, but can you change it back? Nations United (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

He's been messing around with the NS Premiers too. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I wanna be

a Princess in the palace!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Someday, all countries will be republics. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

GD, what will you do if the whole world becomes one giant theocracy?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It won't happen, the athiest republics will see to it. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Very funny!! Raul17 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Someday, the line of popes will end. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like someone is anti-Catholic! Do you think the pope(s) had any influence? Raul17 (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm atheist. The Papacy is also a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. Monarchies are hereditary, popes are elected by a conclave of cardinals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The pope is the father of all Catholics! Didn't you know? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly the case with this delightful pope: Pope Alexander VI!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The papacy is an elected monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So is the United States! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The electoral college follows the will of the people & stricter rules are in place to guarentee the faithfullness of electors. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not for King George II. (I'm sure you know I'm only yanking your chain... Kind of...) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That was jus a bunch of stuff made up by Democratic & liberal supporters. Bush won the 2000 & 2004 elections fair & square. The backlash? the birthers. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Stupidity of the week

Today the street was full of sheep dung as a flock had just passed by earlier. I went into a nearby shop and saw that the floor was full of the same delightful substance. When I informed the proprietor, he told me that in our village, people deliberately walk in sheep dung as it's said to bring good luck!!!!!! I tell you. In the age of Internet and Wikileaks, to think that such ignorance still continues to flourish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What if one slipped in the dung & injured themselves? that wouldn't be good luck. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Or if one attempted to come on to an attractive person while his or her designer shoes were covered in sheep dung. Given the fact that the person would most likely run away in disgust is hardly good luck.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor

I just casually strolled over to the Elizabeth Taylor article and read that she died today. It wasn't even mentioned on the news here. My God, this is really the end of an era. She was the last of the Hollywood legends.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

She sure had alot of sex. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

She was in the top ten of cinema's sexiest women along with Lana Turner, Brigitte Bardot, Catherine Deneuve, Marilyn Monroe, Dolores Del Rio, Bette Davis, Charlotte Rampling, Marlene Dietrich, and Sophia Loren.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, giantesses of Hollywood. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ursula Andress was another. Her bikini scene made Hollywood history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I betcha Dr. No couldn't say "no" to her. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Imagine the power she had over men. Same as Taylor had.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

They merely had to give a guy a little attention, in othewords a hope of sex. I betcha they did alot of 'c--k teasing' in their time. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Par for the course.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Dunderdale

Kathy Dunderdale is the leader-designate of the PC Party. News article have reported it and the PC website states it. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

She's the interim leader of the party. Since it's only for another few days, I won't fuss about it. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You're up early today, GoodDay

What's got you out of bed so early?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been awake all night 'reading'. Later, I'm gonna watch the formalities of PM Harper visiting GG Johnston, to get the 2011 federal election started. Holysmokers, our 4th federal election in 7-years. GoodDay (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot realise that next year - 2012 - there will be another US Presidential election! Time has really flown; seems like yesterday Obama was being sworn in.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It'll be Obama -vs- Romney. On 20 January 2013, I wonder of Chief Justice Roberts will mess up. GoodDay (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see from his article that Romney has a Canadian connection. Where does that come from?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Whereabout's in the article? GoodDay (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The categories section. Actually, this issue should be addressed seeing as no mention is made of Canadian ancestry in the main body of the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The category should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going out now, but this afternoon, I'll bring it up on the article's talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion on article's talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-war sentiments in cinema

Hsve you ever heard James Stewart's anti-war speech in the graveyard in the 1965 film Shenandoah (film)? It's potent stuff. You can view the clip on YouTube.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wowsers, that seems like a darn good movie. His character was a gruff fella, but he straigtened out the officer about what his family owed the state of Virginia. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

His sentiments about the futility of war were echoed in Oliver Stone's masterpiece Platoon (film). "The soldiers just want to go home".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The officer & his men, soon changed their minds about taking the old guy's sons, once they realized the sons out-numbered them. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been years since I saw that film. My dad was a big fan of James Stewart. What did you think of Platoon?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The 1986 movie, with Charlie Sheen? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and Willem Dafoe, Tom Berenger, Kevin Dillon (Bunny).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Great movie. It was based on the Vietnam War experiences by Oliver Stone. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of movies. There's a 1980's movie, in which its plot takes place around the time the A-bomb was tested in Nevada. It's about this teenage girl's (whose mother has re-married a WWII veteran) relationship with her step-father. There's intense scenes, where step-father has night-mares about the War & also gets into drunken trouble with his wife, when he & his wife's sister become too friendly. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen that one. Sounds good, though. What's its title?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping you knew. I've been looking for it on YouTube for months, no luck. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an ideal question for Ref Desk Entertainment. Why don't you ask over there? They are usually very quick about replying.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Great idea. In appreciation - here's a TZ trivia: The actor who played Willy the human (near the end of the episode) in The Dummy, also played Admiral Hanson in the ST:TNG episode The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was never a fan of Star Trek; I preferred Lost in Space with June Lockhart.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a treker (see Where No Fan Has Gone Before), but I'm certaintly a TZ fan. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you have your answer regarding the film (Desert Bloom). I told you they were quick over there! Anyroad, I've never seen this film.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, they're quite good at identifying. Now, to wait for somebody to put the film on youtube. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie's father, plays the main male character, in the movie. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought Angelina Jolie was good in Changeling. If you ever need a swift answer the ref desk is the place to go.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I sorta forgot about them. Last year, the helped me find The Trap (1966 film). -- GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

2012 US presidential election

So who do you think will be elected? Obama or Romney?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Most likely Obama. I'm concerned with the candidate inclusion criteria at that article though. There seems to be a jumping of the gun. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It's very hard to unseat an incumbent. What do you think of Obama's term so far?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorta boring, but then it was suppose to be, as his was elected to fix the ecomony. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought there would be more drama and fireworks, instead he's another George Bush senior.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps things will rev up, the closer we get to the primaries. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been any excitement in the White House since Bill Clinton left. He was a fun president like JFK!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There's some women who'll agree to that, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Power is a big turn-on, baby.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Boring? I thought the (grossly mishandled) health care reform debate was anything but. And the very real prospect of a government shut down coming on the heels of a "shellacking" in the midterm elections is pretty exciting, too. They can't all dally with interns while on official telephone calls. Hey, and wasn't the Lewinsky thing during a government shutdown...? -Rrius (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It was different with the GW Bush years. He took office under the 'butterfly ballot' cloud, followed by the Terrorist attacks, the Aghanistan War, the Iraq War, the recall of California Governor Gray Davis & election of California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar. His second term had the passing of Pope John Paul II, the Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Prince Rainier III of Monaco, the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the shoe incident. To be fair to Prez Obama, he's only been in office for barely 2-yrs. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Irvine back in action

I see Irvine in his many different pairs of socks is back in action. Why does he have a fixation for Snowded?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-entertainment & self-empowerment, those are the only explanations. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it bizarre. To me it's a form of stalking.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is. There's only 2 options now, protection of Dave Snowden (which has been applied) or a Range block. Irvine is 'turned-on' by his belief that neither Snowded or Wikipedia can stop him. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Weird city.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the internet world for ya. It's created alot of new psychosis. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Crystal ball

WP:Crystalball says nothing about talk pages, so should we start a pool on how long it will take Iggy to announce his resignation after the election? At this point, my guess is 3 May. -Rrius (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's gonna be another Conservative minority government for PM Harper. As for Ignatieff? after feeling rejected, he will have the urge to go globe trotting again & thus will resign the Liberal leadership. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Another collector's item for my Rogue's Gallery

Well, I brought another charmer onto the Wikipedia stage. What do you think of this guy: Tommy Lyttle? You'll notice that he's not wearing a gold chain like his associate Jimmy Craig!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

He seemed determind to get rid of his rivals in the UDA leadership. PS: What did he die of? it isn't natural at 56. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question, GoodDay! I'll see if I can find out his cause of death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He died of a heart attack. Thanks for pointing out that 56 is too young to die of natural causes like old age. Something has to cause one's demise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

This is to inform you that you have been reported for sockpuppetry. There is currently an investigation underway following the general belief that you are using the sock of User:BadNight. If you wish to see the discussion in progress it is here:diff. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but you knitted your socks, so I'm afraid you'll just have to wear them!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We are one and the same! After all the BS with certain Great British editors, I had to create another id! I probably would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those damn meddling kids!--BadNight (talk)

This seems like an April Fool's joke. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah-hem........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Barbie Twins, they look just like dolls. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

They are dolls. How many real women look like they do?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if they'd be interested in a threesome. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I recall watching the Joan Rivers Show back in the early 90's, allegedly Axl Rose offered to set them both up in his mansion. They turned him down as Rivers put it, "they are nice girls".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehehehe, they weren't virgins. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither am I but I am not nor have I ever been interested in a threesome!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I prefer 1-on-1. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Two's company, three's a crowd. From what I have read sbout threesomes, there's always jealousy intruding into the picture. Let's face it: a guy's gonna pay more attention to the sexier of the two girls (unless you have the Barbie Twins), and when two guys are involved the male ego is bound to get in the way. Either way, it's recipe for disaster as well as insecurity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it always turns into one-on-one: the poor guy always passes out and girls are left to themselves, and when there are two guys, the female ego is bound to take over and make sure she is being serviced by one while the other is resting. Either way, women have the better part of the deal! BadNight (talk)

In sex, men always have the better part of the deal. It's women who run the risk of pregnancy, if she's married, she can lose custody of her kids; nowadays, a video of her having sex can be put on Internet. Another thing, kinky sex can sometime turn violent, once again, women come out the loser. No, sexually men hold all the cards. Even in a two female, one male threesome, women have to resort competing for the man's attention.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That's how we like'm, bare-foot & pregnant. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No editors, no party

Today's my Wiki-Birthday (3 years old!!), and there's nobody around today to party with. What a drag!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy THIRD anniversary of your Wiki-Birthday, Jeanne. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Exactly how long have you been here, GD?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I showed up un-registered in October 2005. I became a registered account on November 17, 2005. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, five and a half years! And how many blocks-if any?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No blocks, but there was 1 farcial ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Most blocks occur due to breaking the 3RR and/or incivility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been lucky, so far. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Wikipedia can be so frustrating that often it's hard to keep a tight rein on one's civility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. But when others loose their cool, it can be quite entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the worst insult you've received here?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been called a British unionist, Irish nationalist, a fascist & xenophobic. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been called a mess.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The fascist label, was the most hilarious. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The funniest insult I ever received was Who died and made you Queen? LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. Dai came up with the fascist label, but has since apologiezed for posting it. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Replacements for the replacements?

Now that Nielsen & MacDonald are both out for the season, Martinek & Tavares wore the As against the Hurricanes, Saturday. Funny thing is that Martinek was an Alternate before he was injured (I think he replaced Hunter) and was replaced by MacDonald, but was not after his return. After three or four years of watching Islanders' captains go down injured and then their replacements, I change my position on replacements of injured captains. Unless traded, released, retired or whatever, there should be no replacements. When the clubs announced their captains, freeze the list! Raul17 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So keep'em as Weight, Okposo & Streit? GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I have not really thought about until MacDonald went down. Before the latest roster plates, I would have made a note in the Captains section of the current captains (like I sometimes do with the minors) explaining the replacements. Now, I see why you do not want replacements! Raul17 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the Habs, they've been rotating Markov's A among atleast 4 players. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, there should not be any replacement because there is no replacement. The Islanders' case is different: Hunter, Mark Eaton, James Wisniewski, Martinek, and maybe Milan Jurcina were named Alternates. All except Wisniewski were injured. Looks like Martinek & Tavares for the rest of the season and no rotating. Raul17 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm clueless as to what the Islanders are doing, as far as their official website goes. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That means you are qualified to edit the Isles website!! Raul17 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is required...

As a participant who has voiced an opinion over at the TF WikiProject about proposals to change the article formats, a set out proposal has been provided and as a participant in the overall discussions, your agreement or disagreement in regards to them is required, if you so wish to provide an answer. Link to proposals here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transformers#What_the_proposal_actually_is Mabuska ^(talk) 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

NHL

The NHL put in a new rule this year that discounts shootout wins in the tiebreaker. The correct way teams with the same amount of points are now sorted is by the regulation/overtime win column (ROW column). It is outlined on the NHL's page (http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm?type=con#&navid=nav-stn-conf) Bcperson89 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No probs, I just noticed the new rule being mentioned in the article. The NHL is getting goofier with each season. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That is one of their better decisions!! I seemed to remember that your beloved Maple Leafs failed to qualify for the playoffs one year because the Islanders had better shootout record! BTW, when are they getting rid of the shootout? One of the most silliest thing ever!! Well, maybe Colin Campbell's disciplinary decisions are worst!!! Raul17 (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I too, don't like the shootout, along with the strict rules. Ya can't brush snow off your opponents sweater, without getting a holding penalty. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Springtime

Because of springtime with its accompaning sunshine, birdsong and cute little lambs frolicking in the meadows, Wikipedia has become even quieter on the weekends. Today is like total drag city.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm bored too. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Seats needed for a majority

Thanks for adding the seats needed for a majority to all the Canadian election infoboxes. However, there is an impending parameter to allow for this line. 117Avenue (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No probs, I'll keep adding anyways. It'll keep me out of trouble. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 117Avenue (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes completed. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

She's back

GD, have you noticed our Sarah has returned! It's nice having her here with us. At least the joint will be livened up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, she's back, seeking to put out any British conspiracies against her beloved Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted a comment on her talkpage pointing-out an obvious mistake she'd made. Instead of replying and fixing the mistake, she just deleted the comment and claimed I was "trolling". Livened-up indeed, but in a bad way. ~Asarlaí 17:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe, Sarah has indeed returned. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

2004-05 season

I have noticed that you have been changing the chronological numbering of the seasons for NHL franchises to be one less than it previously showed, as you did here. Although no NHL games were played in the in 2004-05, it was still a season (albeit one with no game play). This is verified by the NHL Official Guide and Record Book, with that source shown on the article as a reference. The Guide explicitly states that the 2010-11 season was the Senators' 19th season, so the 20th season obviously follows. Your assertion, however, is not verified, so please do not continue to make such a change to these articles. Dolovis (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange for the NHL to do that, but no probs, I'll cease. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Drooooooom, droooooooom, droooooooom (Air Raid siren)

I see Jeanne Boleyn now at her computer...OK....target in.....bombs away!!!!!

GD, can you direct me to the nearest Air Raid shelter? Hurry!! I just posted a comment on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. I'm expecting an aerial bombardment at any minute!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an article with alot of emotionalism around it. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the only case where people refuse to believe outside agents had a hand in it. Europeans are more sceptical, had that been a European head of state everybody would automatically think conspiracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The truth will never be known. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an addictive site. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll drink to that!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's eating away my brain & has blurred the line between cyberspace & real life. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

2010-11 Sabres

I didn't want to revert the edit, as you'd asked, and didn't want to add it to the debate, but your edit makes the opening statement completly false. It now reads: "The 2010–11 Buffalo Sabres season is the 41st season of play for the National Hockey League. The Sabres celebrated its 40th anniversary as a franchise, which was established on May 22, 1970." No. It is their 40th season of play, and they are celebrating their 40th anniversary. It would've been the 41st season, if the lockout is counted. And it shouldn't. Same with the anniversary of the Canucks. San Jose is not celebrating 20 seasons, but 20 years as well. Jmj713 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite discouraged with the NHL teams & their inconsistancies about 2004-05. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. However, we shouldn't make it worse. Counting the lockout as a season would be a mistake, making things much worse and inconsistent. Jmj713 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I implimented the '2004-04 not a season' edits, but Dolovis reverted me. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay stop making changes. The discussion hasn't wrapped up. And currently 4 out of 6 users have said that we should follow what the NHL said. So at best there is no consensus to not call it a season. Hopefully some more people who haven't commented will come and join the conversation and comment one way or the other so it gets cleared up. But discussions usually last 7 days so stop touching the pages. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have stopped. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Seasons

I thought the agreement we had come to was to use the term "season of play", yet I see you began changing team season articles and you're not using that phrase we agreed upon. Jmj713 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You can add the phrase if you wish. I'm just concerned about the numberings adding up to what's in the 2011-12 team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just that you are creating mistakes in articles where the phrase "season of play" is already used, like the 2010-11 Wild. By adding +1 to the number you are giving the team one more season than they have played. Jmj713 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You can add "season of play" to them, if ya want. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

All things Scottish

My wife and I are planning a trip to Nova Scotia this summer, and in reading through the article on the province, I noticed the somewhat odd paragraph that closes out the lead. According to the paragraph, Nova Scotia's tourism promotion efforts lean heavily on the Scots, and someone thought it important to note that as a percentage of the total population, Nova Scotians of Scottish ancestry are actually in a minority. Fair enough, except that's also true of every other nationality the editor in question chose to mention. Now I ask, are my wife and I about to venture into a hotbed of ethnic discord or are we safe, considering the fact that neither of us has a drop of Scottish blood? Or, would we be better off getting a transfusion before leaving the States? I've singled you out because a) you were one of the more recent contributors to the article's talk page and b) your own page seems a conducive place to post such an inquiry. My personal inclination, as a strict adherent of WP policies on NOT, POV, VER, and OR, normally would be to simply yank the offending material, but I thought I'd consult someone closer to the scene before proving myself to be just another pushy yankee. Your counsel on this would be appreciated, here or on my own talk page. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You & your wife are safe to visit Nova Scotia as you are. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the paragraph is referring to the rest combined are the majority. And as GoodDay mentions, this is by no means a bad place... -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Answer to your question

The answer to your question here is 5 hours 24 minutes. Bjmullan (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Obsession?

GoodDay, the only editor with an obsession is you, for haunting Talk pages and trying to stir things up.... --HighKing (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're the ~~bugger~~ fellow who started this whole crazy British Isles stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. I didn't "start" the crazy stuff, that was going on long before I got involved. Since then, I've tried to make sense of it, put guidelines around it, stop the edit wars, etc. The mess and craziness was caused by the disruption and socking - so much so, that BISE had to be abandoned (for a lot of the reasons Mick has written about at the AN/I).

But what I think is underhanded and sneaky of you, is when an AN/I report is filed which doesn't involve me, you try to rope me into it anyway by stirring up things at Mick's Talk page. That's low, and poor form.

And BTW, don't know about things in Canada, but calling someone a "bugger" is not funny.

As a suggestion to you GoodDay, keep away from areas where you are not a participant with views and opinions. And next time, if you're going to name-call or make insinuations behind someone's back - don't. It's not clever. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your reaction to any suggestion of your being removed from the British Isles topic, is quite predictable. You can't let go of it. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an ostrich reaction - bury head in sand. Pretends a problem/issue doesn't exist. Hopes it'll go away. Discourages change and dialogue, marginalizes minority communities and views.... Yeah - I'd hope most people's reactions would be just as typical to any sort of suggestion that hasn't been thought out properly. Of course, if the real issue was tackled properly..... --HighKing (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, G'day, if anyone was to be removed from the "British Isles" controversy on Wiki it should be yourself. As a Canadian subject of the British Queen you should really steer away from the topic. Sarah777 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Canadian subject of the British Queen"? Wowsers, Mies would argue with ya indefinitely on that. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me add this comment GD, and it's being issued in a friendly tone of voice. Anything to do with the British Isles has become for you an electric hare and you are instantly off and running like a greyhound at its appearance on the racetrack.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Be not afraid, the politically charged editors of the BI topic, will eventually cease their PoV pushing. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally think HighKing and LevenBoy should both be banned off British Isles terminology and articles as for a good while it seemed to be all their sole cause on Wikipedia. BISE just exemplified how obssessed they both were to the issue. GoodDay is entitled to his opinion, just as long as he doesn't become as extreme in the issue as those said two editors.

And i'm quite sure that HighKing knows full well that "bugger" is also used to refer to someone, maybe not in the best way, and not always meant in the derogative way the word actually means. I use it in casual speech as no doubt anyone else here has and never used it to mean anal intercourse or the like. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In English it is in common use as a jocular rather than a serious insult. I read somewhere that one form derived from "bodger" meaning daft/stupid/useless - as in "daft old bugger" from wife about husband. All my respectable elderly aunts used it and they wouldn't have dreamed of mentioning anything referring to even ordinary intercourse, let alone anal. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bugger" is a harmless phrase. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It's not. Really. --HighKing (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, it is a harmless jocular phrase. But, I've scratched it out, as you think otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wowsers, am I the victim of another Easter Rising? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

GD, a wee bit of advice. If you are ever in an English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Northern Irish, or Australian pub don't call someone a bugger. It could cost you an ass-beating (as we used to say at my high school) at the very least.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No offense but that's nonsense and all depends on the context of how its used. I've heard and used the word bugger many times without malicious intent, and would agree with Fainites better defined description than how i tried to explain its other meaning. HighKing is only trying to inflate the offensiveness of the term so it reflects badly on GoodDay. Then again what do they say? Always going out of their way to be offended?

In fact i've noticed over the past month or two that there appears to be a slowly increasing campaign of systematic putdowns and low-level abuse towards GoodDay by editors you could say are of the nationalist persuasion. Whilst i've only noticed bits of it here and there, it does appear to be in effect to be a case of wiki-bullying using GoodDays sometimes pointless contributions to discussions to throw abuse at him. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you wouldn't walk up to someone you didn't know and just call them a "bugger", but you would say "you silly bugger" when your friend spills his drink on you. Or - if you bumped into a long lost friend you'd say "where have you been you daft old bugger?"Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, it depends on context. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay knows I'm not ganging up on him. It would be prudent to find out how certain slang words could cause offence though, depending on the social milieu.Jeanne Boleyn. Can't find the signature icon.

Yesterday, was the very first time, I've ever been informed that 'bugger' was a bad term. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you GD, as I know profanity isn't your scene. However, it would behoove you to become hip to the meaning of slang terms; find out whether they have a vulgar and/or offensive connotation in other English-speaking countries. An example was on the JFK assassination article. The opening line used to read that Kennedy and Jackie were riding in a motorcade. I changed it to traveled as riding is slang for screwing in Ireland. Were a group of Irish students to come upon the word riding they would burst out laughing, thereby introducing an unseemly levity to a serious subject. Jeanne Boleyn. 16.06 (Automatic signature has a glitch)

Could greatly improve a number of tedious sports programmes though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What does "behoove" mean? GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In one's best interest. Jeanne Boleyn

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

¿GD, what did you do now? I think you are a glutton for punishment, so you shall be banished to the Islanders related wiki pages!! Raul17 (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just informd HighKing, that he was obsessed with the terminology British Isles. Predictably, HK didn't take it too well. Banished to the New York Islanders related articles? oh well, atleast they're not named the British Islanders. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Another rewriting of a sequence of events GoodDay. Let's not fall out over this one, but I didn't give an iota about you saying I'm obsessed over British Isles. I placed the remark on your Talk page to point out that it was poor form trying to get me dragged into an AN/I report by making a sneaky comment on the Talk page of the editor who was actively involved, and by attempting to turn (yet again) an AN/I on an editors behaviour into a "ban everything to do with British Isles" discussion. --HighKing (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That 1-year ban is going to be in place (sooner or later) & there'll be nothing 'both sides' can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)