User talk:GoodDay/Archive 23

Wikipedia on Sundays
Haven't you noticed how dead Wikipedia is on weekends, especially Sundays?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help my absense. Thank's giving meals & family members, occupied my time. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was absent most of the day myself, but Wikipedia was completely dullsville.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's tomb is that? GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhh. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Anne_of_Great_Britain
Hey GoodDay. On Talk:Anne_of_Great_Britain you have said you oppose Anne, Queen of Great Britain because you prefer Anne (Great Britain). What you actually meant though, I'm guessing from you comments elsewhere, is that you support the move proposal to Anne, Queen of Great Britain but if it were possible, you'd prefer Anne (Great Britain)? If this is so you should change your vote to support and indicate that you would prefer Anne (Great Britain). It's just that, if you don't, we'll end with 1) Anne of Great Britain and 2) anarchy in the naming conventions of numeral-less monarchs. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatcha suggesting? I support Anne (Great Britain) or Anne, Queen of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Tis alright, you've adjusted it anyway. BTW, I wonder if anyone would object to "Queen of Britain" rather than the UK or Great Britain ... PatGallacher opposed Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom because it was a "mouthful". Maybe "Britain" would solve that ... . Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to tell ya, with all these RMs going on, I find myself agreeing a tad more with the Monarch # of country folks. I still think Victoria (United Kingdom) would solve things. Also, barring a tragedy, there'll someday be a Queen Victoria of Sweden (though not for some time, due to Swedish monarch longevity). GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was originally with those folks, but I have found the Monarch # of country system to be too clumsy and inflexible. The Name, Monarch # of country has the same advantages with none of the disadvantages. It's a shame it takes so long to change things, but when they are changed I hope you'll realise it is worth it. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right. Meanwhile, we do have existing examples - Albert II, Prince of Monaco, for example. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You gonna help this birthday girl
blow out her candles tomorrow, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wowsers, just wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh baby, I KNOW what you like......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My glasses are still steamed. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You wear glasses?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I thought perhaps you were just blinded by the light.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I can see which direction I'm pointing at. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's your finger you're pointing, that's very rude.....however, if it's something else, that's lewd!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the 'something else'. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Eek!!!! A mouse!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a mouse. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let my cat Tony decide that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of cats....
What do you make of this story: Demon Cat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Are they trying to imply that Washington DC stands for Demon Cat and not District of Columbia?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fictional character, as there's no such things as ghosts. The article seems based on a fictional book. This is the first time I've ever heard of the thing. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Demon Cat was in Dallas on 22 November 1963........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nay, it seems to hang around the Washington DC, only. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that rules out my Tony being the Demon Cat.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite possible. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

NHL Captains & Alternates
No replacements for captains or alternates even if it's a long-term injury? Not a problem! Raul17 (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC) PS: There definitely should not be any replacements listed on team rosters.
 * I can't handle what goes on at the Captains list page, but things were sure confusing last year on the rosters, with all the injuries. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal
For the record GoodDay, our difference of opinion is just that. It's not personal. We all have the right to express our opinions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya know such disagreements never offend me. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but wanted to clarify things.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to be able to have vastly different POVs without hostility creeping in.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For sure & I'm glad Dai feels the same way too. Remember, there's blokes out there who don't want these titles RM'd because of the E/W/S/NI dispute & merely won't those 4 excluded. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that the four should be included, seeing as they are separate nations with their own identity, border, culture, and history. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland ever become sovereign states? I'll back their inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Never a dull moment
There is certainly a lot of action going on here at Wikipedia today!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK parliament never should've handed out those dissolved parliaments to Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. When will England get theirs? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct word is devolved. Ya say ya wanna devolution, well you know we all wanna change the world....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Devolving Kingdom is a more accurate name. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh BTW, I've an article appearing on the Main Page's DYK in just under two hours time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Demon Cat. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Isabella Markham.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the edit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any ideas what "trobled spryghte'' might be?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea at all. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well take a guess...Those Elizabethan poets were clever with words....hee hee hee--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's speaking of his erection for her. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, don't you think the article on erection has a tad too many images, when just one would suffice?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that article. I find that there's not enough images at Breast & Vagina. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to get off on IMO. To me, clinical photos are about as erotic as a dentist's office.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The top boob image, looks mighty good. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd go berserk on the beaches here, GD. Many women go topless.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question is: How many of them, would allow a stranger to fondle around. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How the hell would I know, GD?! I've never tried to fondle anybody on the beach! Although I wouldn't have minded with a certain lifeguard. Too bad I'm cursed with timidity and a certain prudishness.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

How much time do you want serious editors to waste?
Why, please explain why you would encourage this? Are you getting bored again? -- Snowded TALK  18:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let him & TR plead their cases at a RFC. If they don't trust us (at BISE), then let'em face the entire Wiki-community. Their constant whining is darn annoying. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The community is largely ignoring their whining -- Snowded TALK  18:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's a suggestion, LB & TR can decide their own future moves. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did everybody go?
Wikipedia just went from a beach party to a desert in less than an hour's time!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still here for now. But, I'll be away from 21:00 to 22:00 UTC & return for 22:00 to 0:00. Gotta watch M*A*S*H (on the Discovery channel), as I missed it at 16:00 to 17:00. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject: Countries
Uh-Oh, GoodDay, Agincourt 2010 is getting ready to break out at any moment. Watch out for those barbed, verbal arrows. Whooooosh....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My assumptions were correct. There are some exclusionist, who suspect inclusionist of being devolutionist. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no political agenda. I want to see those countries listed for encylopedic purposes. An encyclopedia exists to provide information, not trim it down.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that some have peeked at Snowded's & Daicaregos's userpages & have declared them Welsh nationalist promoters. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should anyone have a problem with them placing the Welsh flag on their own userpages?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the nature of the beast. I guess (for reverse reasons) it's why some get upset at BritishWatcher, too. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which flag should I place on my userpage? Hmm. Juventus perhaps.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whichever you prefer. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Juvy, Juvy, Juvy.....I wouldn't know which flag to choose from as I'm a mixture of Irish, French, English, Scots, German. I was born in California (hmm, now that's an idea as I adore that brown bear), I'm an American citizen, resident of Italy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Try 🇺🇸 & 🇮🇹. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agincourt 2010 ...where, where? I wanna see this! Don.  ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarify, whatcha mean. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Howdy GoodDay; Jeanne said this. "Uh-Oh, GoodDay, Agincourt 2010 is getting ready to break out at any moment. Watch out for those barbed, verbal arrows. Whooooosh....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)". You know me ... I love to watch a good "dust-up". ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I opted for the California flag, cute little bear and all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You California nationalist, you. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * California girls are unforgetable, Daisy Dukes, bikinis on top....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pending retirement
In about a week from now, I will be moving to a rental apartment. For financial reasons, I will not be having a computer (thus internet) & so won't be able to particpate here (at Wikipedia). Hopefully, I will be able to afford a computer & internet in 2011 & un-retire. Anyways, just letting ya'll know, ahead of time. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, GoodDay. Take it from Jack forbes, retiring isn't all it's made out to be. You and I don't always see eye to eye with each other, but I will miss you from here (not from the S/W/E/NI stuff). I hope your absense is a short one. Jack forbes (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, I'll return sometime next year. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh no!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, 'tis true. Fear not though, I'll be here for the rest of this week & all of next week. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay I hope that things work out for you and that we see you back here soon. Wikipedia needs people like you. Bjmullan (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bj. Wowsers, I'm excited & hoping for some gals to drop in. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, GoodDay. Hope your move goes smoothly, & try to stay cooool. Expect some things to go wrong, so it doesn't take you by surprise. See you in a few months? Daicaregos (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, I'll be able to return sometime in 2011. I eventually will have to get a higher paying, longer serving job. If I'm lucky, I'll meet a gal & she'll live with me and thus share the rent (among other things, hahaha). GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What, you mean like, share in the washing up, housework, that kind of thing? Jack forbes (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle, I'm hoping she'll share my bed. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect the rent first and everything else will follow. :) Jack forbes (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice one, GD. She'll end up servicing you in and out of bed, plus footing half the rent. Where will you find someone that accomodating?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, she don't gotta serve me out side the bed, my major concern is sharing rent. As for the sex? well, that has to be a mutual thing, as a male & female can share an apartment platonically. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I always preferred platonic male flatmates (roommates).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Platonic relationships tend to eventually develop into romantic ones. Friends that close, tend to become lovers. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * None of my male platonic friends ever became my lover, not even for one night.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the gal keeps saying 'no', what's I fella to do? GoodDay (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear this GD... I'll be sure to sit down and come up with ironclad arguments for the Monarchy until you come back! :) As for the whole Room mate thing, I think I agree with Jeanne, in that I always preferred female room mates, and it was always platonic.  Hell, platonic female roommates were AWESOME because I didn't have to do anything more with them then I would have to with my male buddies, and living with them, you usually get to see them naked sooner or later with no worries that you'll later have to explain why you don't want a relationship! ;) Dphilp75 (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can be a very lustful fellow. GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll be back. Good luck with your new living arrangements, hope it works out for you. --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks HK. PS- I'm gonna miss next months drama, the unblocking of LB. I wonder if TR (whole be unblocked Monday) can avoid getting blocked again, before I retire.GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I won't be retiring afterall & TR's been blocked again. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

START SPREADING THE NEWS
I won't have to retire afterall. I checked further into my situation & I will be able to get a computer (which was my major concern). GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean I stayed up all night writing a poem to celebra...err, mourn your retirement for nothing? ;)  Good to see you won't be leaving us! Resolute 15:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be off-line for 'bout a week. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't left already?
I hope you haven't left us already? It's been a couple of days since last hearing from you. I suppose you are busy packing, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I was around here for 'bout 2-hrs yesterday. TBH, I don't got much to pack. There's a chair, tv, bed & that's it. Gradually, I'll purchase more furniture. GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had to move they'd need two moving vans-one for my dolls and books alone. I've got so much stuff (I never throw anything out!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I've got alot of books too, but I'll gradually move them over. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you moving out of town or just the neighbourhood?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm moving into town, thus there's a library. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh lovely. I wish I was near a library. I used to spend hours in libraries back in the Dark Ages before Internet, Wikipedia, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope the librarian is a sexy female blond, hehehe. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your break GoodDay, hope you get a computer again soon and are back on :) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping to return in January 2011. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I like that book Jeanne. Pam Anderson, wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let your fingers do the reading.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP Ice Hockey in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Ice Hockey for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on this interview are amusing. You do realize this will be read by hundreds of people right? Airing our dirty laundry haha nice. -DJSasso (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asked for my honest opinon. I've no intentions of going around removing dios. The dirt in the dirty laundry, is the dios. PS: You're free to respond to my statements there, with a promise that I won't rebut them. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was more the case of clearly trying to soapbox and recruit to your cause that I was commenting on. There is a difference between saying how new people could help our project and basically saying come and help me destroy the opposition to my position. (my paraphrase obviously) But its all good, I was only mentioning it because it makes you look bad, not because I have disagreed with you in the past. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, it all could backfire on me. A whole new group of pro-dios editors could show up at WP:HOCKEY & the articles. Anyways, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well, I've struck out the part about the NHL team roster templates. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to go over there and start a campaign for diacritics. All the newbies would pour over the Ice Hockey articles adding them where appropriate. I changed my mind though. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's much appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Diacritics belong on Ice Hockey articles. Daicaregos (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt it. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark Fraser
I am wondering if the Devils placed Mark Fraser on the IR list. He had a pin placed in his fractured right hand and would be out four to six weeks. The last few games, I have noticed that he is listed on the NHL gameday roster as a scratch while Brian Rolston and Bryce Salvador are not listed in the Devils' last game:

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20102011/RO020128.HTM

With the recalls of Vasyunov and Eckford, there will be four extra bodies (unless someone is placed on IR) on the roster. Raul17 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If Fraser is out 4-6 weeks, that looks like IR, to me. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the Devils official website, Fraser's on IR. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Salmela and Corrente are not? The site must have been updated recently because no players were listed as being on the IR. Tonight's gameday roster will clear things up. Thanks!! Raul17 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like I thought, Corrente was listed as a scratch!! Doesn't really matter because is retroactive anyway, but just messes up my stats, though. Thanks, again! Raul17 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick
I seriously suggest you resist the temptation to comment while possible restrictions are sorted out, its unnecessary and provocative. -- Snowded TALK  21:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I never get the fuss about Mick, from those who rush to support him at least. When there are other editors who just get on and get the job done quietly, I struggle to see the value in putting up with his theatrics. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Colourful language tends to stir alot of folks. To my recollection, I've had little to no probs with Mick. This includes particpation at AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mick does indeed use a lot of durn cuss words, (this is an early attempt of mine to interact with him, d'oh!) but that's not the real issue. Mick just seems to have an unhealthy obsession with Wikipedia and policing it. Would it hurt either him or his edits here to tone down the paranoid walls of text? At the very least, I find it hard to take him in any way seriously. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain as to what his fate will be, but it's up to him. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He's in safe hands then. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope he doesn't get banned. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to see an established, content editor receive a ban. I really do. I am not condoning rudeness, but surely tireless contributions here have to count for something in his favour, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well WP:CIVIL blocks, tend to be pushed more so then others. Mick's best hope is to curb the foul language. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we have tireless contribution vs tiresome diatribes, which will come out on top? Beside, most contributions seem to be on talk pages where he rails against other users, it's hardly productive. He should also consider his blood pressure. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way to respond to emotionalism, is with calmness. Less dramatic that way. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My tip of the day. Have someone hide your computer before coming home from the pub. Jack forbes (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there's no way to proove/disprove one was drunk on Wikipedia? We'll have to AGF & take Mick's word for it. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith, which is why I'm giving my tip of the day. Jack forbes (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps having a good laugh at his expense might ultimately be the best way to deal with things. If we could convince Mick, that (and I include even myself here) since we all have better things to do away from Wikipedia, nobody is really going to get as uptight about articles as he does and he should perhaps give it a rest. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nay. I like honesty in an editor, even when it's emotional honesty. Mick is a stickler for accuracy, which is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Honesty should never be deprecated. As for accuracy, well, this is an encyclopedia, ergo......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With that in mind I'm remembered of the spifflication he threatened over the demonym issue on the Northern Ireland article. If I recall correctly I was accussed by Mick of pushing some sort of fringe theories and eventually we just had to remove the information from the article to move on. There's a price to pay for angrily enforced pedantry like Mick's. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just don't let'em push ya around. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Most active Wikipedians?
The irony, I'll be off-line for a few days (maybe a week). See ya'll then. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, take care, GoodDay. See ya.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Every one deserves a Wikibreak! — Robert Greer (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, you will be coming back? Don't abandon us, please.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm back, folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to have you with us.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So when is the Big Move?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It occured 4 days ago. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and do you like your new quarters?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, though I'm hoping for some female companionship. Meanwhile, I can't go outside much, until I get a tooth extracted. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whaaaaaaaaaaat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, just moved & began having a tooth ache. GoodDay (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Get it pulled ASAP; until then a ball of cotton saturated with clove oil will soothe the pain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm currently on medication. GoodDay (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to wait until the infection passes before you can get your tooth extracted which is why I suggested clove oil. Oh, we had another earthquake here yesterday evening. It occurred as I was editing an article. I must be the only Wikipedian who made an edit during an actual earthquake. Now is that not true dedication?!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wowsers, that's shaky stuff. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's damned scary stuff.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That I can believe. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My son was in the bathtub when it happened-he jumped out soaking wet and rushed into the living room wearing a towel and a very frightened expression!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's moments like that, where one realizes his/her life is at the mercy of nature. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head! It's a helpless feeling that one cannot do anything but wait and see whether nature is going to stop or just shake harder and deadlier.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, the Earth has no consciene. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We are all prisoners of the planet and its whims.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember George Carlin's response to the enviromentalist. "The earth's not going anywhere. We are". GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And if it gets knocked off of its axis by an asteroid or freaky comet off course?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oblivion. Our chance to get away from it all. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Far out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Way, far out. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can the EU be said to have a 'geography'?
Would you like to look at this discussion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Union#EU_has_a_geography.3FAndrewing123 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother
With Factocop he has been told about indenting before and he just cant figure out how to do it. I have stopped interacting on the talk page per WP:DENY as no matter what is said is not going to work, at present he has no consensus for the changes he made and continuing on the discussion is pointless IMO. Mo ainm ~Talk  16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I too am growing tired with his apparent stubborness. You're correct, there's nothing further that can be added to the discussion, as he certainly has no consensus for pipelinking. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He has been blocked as he went and reverted again after Sarek telling him not to, I am taking the page off my watchlist as I can't be doing with him. Mo ainm  ~Talk  19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Factocop is Wiki-young & inexperienced about the workings of Wikipedia. If he chooses to learn things the difficult way? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Factocop Wiki-young, I don't think so. Factocop and Blue is better are ✅ with regards to each other according to MuZemike. Pilgrimsquest was ✅ that this account is the same as by Tnxman307. So regardless of the The Maiden City they are still a sock and block evading editor. I've asked for some clarity on this here. -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blasted socks, grrr. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How the heck did Factocop get unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question! As has been pointed out by Elen of the Roads, "Somehow he [factocop] then persuaded Shell Kinney that although he socked as Pilgrisquest, and apparently edits in the same IP range as the Maiden City, and he edits just like the Maiden City, he isn't the Maiden City." This does not include the sock Blue is best which was also linked to Factocop, and the above mentioned which they admitted to having.! -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All socked out, for the time being-- Domer48 'fenian'  23:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't ya know, I had to wash out socks today. Jumpin' Junipers, why can't these blocked editors take a break from trying to stur trouble? GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal experience when one is washing socks is that sooner or later in the mysterious nether world between the washing and drying proccesses, one of each pairs somehow gets lost.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The tooth shall set you free. Yep, I've one less tooth, no more agonies. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah.....relief, sweet blessed relief.... makes me think of this marvelous Rolling Stones song Let It Loose!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Appointment in Samarra
This just shows that in the end, one cannot escape his or her destiny. We all have an appointment in Samarra. Suki's was postponed for 14 and a half years.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only destiny we all have is 'death'. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And before that wondrous event-old age.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We can only hope. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okposo & Streit back in the line-up?!
These guys have not been cleared to start skating yet! None of the three players were listed on the gameday roster:

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20102011/RO020243.HTM

Okposo's arm is still in a sling. Raul17 (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes, assumed they were, when I noticed the IR tags were deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay
What's the good word as we used to say in California circa 1975?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Giacomo is diving into the Rlevse situation. LemonMonday & LevenBoy are having an RFC on British Isles usage. As for me, I've been rinsing with salt-water (yuck) during my dental recovery. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, Her Majesty continues to reign over all of us in Her Maple Kingdom...! ;) Dphilp75 (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A tragedy indeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Kate Middleton
I wonder what Diana would have thought about Kate as William's prospective bride? I think she's attractive with a very upper-class, cool style.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Diana would've likely approved. No more waity katey. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are correct.. I actually have a number of problems with Diana and hold a rather unpopular opinion of her, but I have no doubt in my mind that she would be happy if William was happy.. Dphilp75 (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Diana wasn't the type of mother she tried to be portrayed as. She was more concerned about her own pleasure, right to the end. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, that's a very macho, chauvinistic attitude to take. So what if Diana wished to go on holiday and enjoy herself! What was she expected to do stay at home all day and wash her sons' socks and shirts?!! My parents used to always go on holidays together. I was left at home with my siblings who were all much older than me. I never felt neglected nor was I!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * She was a phoney baloney. The bulimia story was the worst, when one considers the number of starving people in the world. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with her as a mother?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * She often tried to portray herself as a better parent then Charlie. Which she wasn't. PS: Giggle giggle, I knew I'd get ya peeved. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm never peeved by a difference of opinion. LOL. For the record, I never thought Charles was a bad father; in fact, his behaviour at the time of Diana's death was impeccable. He didn't once put a wrong foot forward. I'm a huge fan of Charles, no matter how uncool that makes me appear in the eyes of the trendy world!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that Billy & Kate's wedding won't be as extravagent as Charlie & Diana's was. It'll likely be somewhere's in size between Charlie/Diana's & Charlie/Camilla's weddings. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the wedding of William and Kate will attract more viewers than the other weddings, due to globalisation and the Internet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what a differance from 1981. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to watch Diana and Charles' wedding as I was at work. I just caught the highlights on the evening news. I was living in Dublin at the time and practially everybody there watched it if they had access to a tv set!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dublin? right in the heart of a republic. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. I can recall lots of girls getting their hair cut like lady Di back then.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to go back to what GD was saying about Diana's parenting, he is quite correct. She used the boys wickedly as tools of revenge against Charles.  For example, when Charles went to Hong Kong to deal with the hand over, he flew like crazy to get back to Scotland to spend his time with the boys.. When he got back, he found out that Diana had arbitrarily decided not to send them.  When she and Charles divorced, she nailed him so hard that he actually had to borrow money from his mother to pay her off..  I'm *NOT* suggesting that Charles was a great husband (though, by all accounts, he's been a great Dad), however, Diana playing these games with the boys seeing their Father and attempting to bankrupt him during the divorce HARDLY plays in to her very carefully crafted image as "The People's Princess".. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Votes
Hi. You made one of those automatic votes/polls work once, didn't you. I think it was you. How do you do it? I am trying at United Ireland. --LevenBoy (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatcha mean, exactly? GoodDay (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I worked it out by using # signs. I appreciate your GoodWill GoodDay but if I need help or mentoring, I will come and ask. No need for all the personal prompting and alerts, thanks. If I am addressing someone specifically, like Cailil, please allow them to answer. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs, just making sure ya don't get blocked again. Rightly or wrongly, you & LemonMonday have to be more careful in your actions & posts, concerning the British Isles stuff. Remember, some of the other BISE dwellers, are more sensative then I. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, but remember I am not under any formal sanctions. I did agree to be more civil, but that's all. LemonMonday    Talk   17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that was Triton Rocker, who was on sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tweet tweet tweet
You're an early riser this fine morning, GoodDay. Did the twittering birds wake you? What time is it where you are?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Insominia has gotten to me, it's nearly 4:00 AM AST, wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's 8.55 AM here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're 5 hrs ahead of me. GoodDay (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oui. Oh, GoodDay, I'd like your input over here on an article I've created and been working on a lot recently. Talk:Margaret de Clare.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Margaret de Clare, Baroness Badlesmere? -- GoodDay (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * She was imprisoned for having refused Queen Isabella admittance to Leeds Castle and ordering her archers to fire upon Isabella. This amde her the first ever female to be imprisoned in the Tower of London. There are two issues which I have raised on her talk page. What is your opinion about them?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, there's 2 'Margaret de Clare' articles. GoodDay (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This one is about Margaret de Clare, Baroness Badlesmere. The other is about Margaret de Clare, wife of Edward's first favourite Piers Gaveston.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. I gonna go ta bed, I'm becoming psychotic. GoodDay (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK Good night..oops GOOD MORNING!!! (Don't let the little birdies keep you awakey).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No more Margaret de Clare for at least 24 hours!!!
I see you're awake again! I have been doing so much editing on Margaret de Clare that if I see the name Ordainer, garrison, Despenser, or Contrariant again within the next 24 hours I will scream like a banshee and tear chunks of my hair out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It could've been worst. They came after Edward II with a hot poker. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those Mortimers were meanies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Mortimer's action sealed his fate. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They always say women pay a higher price than men for their follies, but in the cases of Margaret de Clare, Baroness Badlesmere and Isabella of France, it was their menfolk who suffered the most (OUCH!!!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a good time for the guys, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Greetings -- regarding, I just shut off his talk page access. Antandrus (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The imposter was also a sock-puppet, as he/she new his/her way around the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

G'day~!
Hi, I don't think we've met, eh? (PS: I do sign all, if not most, of my posts but thanks for telling me that a cheeky monkey impostor didn't. BTW, the impostors like to follow User:Baseball Bugs around, I don't normally do that if I can help it even though we've always crack heaps of wise-arse jokes together.) -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. I've been the victim of imposters too, years ago. I ain't never met ya before, but I know Bugs. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing, this comment by you was strange... the guy (referring to TT) is not even a SysOp here on WP and IMO, may never be nominated, if at all. Reason: too many blackmarks already on his block logs. Oh well, what say we get back to our siriuz bizniz of editing here on WP? Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought TT was an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that and even though some people might like to act like one, it never hurt to ask: "are you an Admin?". (Read also: WP:OWB) Cheers~!
 * Cameron (whom I haven't seen around in a long time) wanted to nominate me fro administrator, years ago. I had to giv'em a Shermanistic response. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, you should also read up on WP:OWB, SysOp Antandrus is very spot on in his assessment of these low-lifes. lol* -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He's got good material. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Injured Reserve
I do believe that the official team sites are not reliable for listing players on IR. Saturday's Islanders game vs the Florida Panthers shows the Islanders with an active roster of twenty-two players: http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20102011/RO020286.HTM Furthermore, the monthly Islanders transactions and team depth chart from The Sporting News shows those players on IR:

http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/hockeynews/hockey/movements.cgi?nyi&x_date=201009 SEPT http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/hockeynews/hockey/movements.cgi?nyi&x_date=201010 OCT http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/hockeynews/hockey/movements.cgi?nyi&x_date=201011 NOV http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/hockeynews/hockey/depthchart.cgi?nyi&x_type=2&x_cat=1 ACTIVE ROSTER

Since this also occurs with the Devils site, I am assuming that all team sites are unreliable for IR info. I could not find an Injured Reserve list from the NHL site. From my understanding, until the trade deadline, the NHL roster is a maximum twenty-three players; all others must be assigned to the minors/juniors or placed on IR list. Raul17 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've completely lost track on the Islanders. If Streit & Okposo are still on IR, then it's likely those other A's are temporary. I haven't the energy anymore, to argue it. GoodDay (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Another dreary Sunday
Why did God make his special Holy Day so damned BORING?!!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who? GoodDay (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

John Boehner
Yes, I understand it comes from the Full house vote, but the speaker always comes from the majority party. No one in the Republican caucus will vote for Pelosi, so therefore, it is appropriate to say he is Speaker-elect. And I know others will agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics2012 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please wait until the Speakership election is held (Jan 2011). Right now, the Democrats still have the majority in the House. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you, but can you please tell User:Therequiembellishere to stop messing with the Boehner and Pelosi pages and leave them as they are? Thank You. Politics2012 (talk) 8:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as his changes at the infoboxes (concerning potential future events) are hidden, there should be no probs. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * PS- You're gonna have to learn to use the talkpages on those articles-in-question. Right now, you're heading for a 3RR block. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read my comments in the John Boehner discussion page. I believe those are justifiable reasons why the page should be left alone. Thank You. --Politics2012 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You gotta turn-back your last reverts on those articles. Right now, you've breached 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're correct BTW, it's gotta be United States House of Representatives. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tell me the truth..
Should I give up on convincing those "editors" that a woman does not become a Princess by virtue of marrying a Prince...? LOL Dphilp75 (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose the idea that it does happen, comes from many fictional shows. They'll learn the truth when Will & Kate are married. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe I'm being too uppity about it.. It just drives me CRAZY because I (As you do) know these fools are WRONG and they just can't bring themselves to admit it... Dphilp75 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an article on the 'pedia, that's about this topic, yet I can't remember where it is. Assuming that article has the sources, they can be shown at the discussion as concrete proof. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, it's this article. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found this and its AWFUL. It's FULL of just nonsense very poorly sourced. I opened a discussion on its talk page about it.. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BI again
I disagree with your definition of area in Westward Ho! GoodDay. That something is the biggest, smallest, widest, narrowest, tallest etc., etc, in England or in the UK is of legitimate interest. The reason that the term geographic has been applied to British Isles is that those who use the term rationalise their use of it by claiming it is not a political term, but geographic. The same criteria do not apply to England or the UK. Btw, why not 'the world'?) Daicaregos (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking with the geographic options. As I'm seeing it now, Western Europe is too broad & Great Britain could be mistaken for the UK. There is a possible 4th option, Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the reference that says it's the only place in the world to have an exclamation mark as part of its name? Using "world" is geographical surely? --HighKing (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's awfully broad, but acceptable usage. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare on Elm Street
It's hard to believe 47 years have passed since the Nightmare on Elm Street.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the number of those alive in Dallas at that time, gradually dwindles. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * True. The same goes for those who were alive when it occurred. I was a little girl of five when the news bulletin broke into Pete and Gladys, one of my favourite tv programmes, and I'm now over 50!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In that photo alone, I wonder how many of those adults are left. PS: Jeepers, I'm ghoulish. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That stout woman beside the Limo: is she carrying a pikestaff?!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that is. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That photo has many strange people.... and is Kennedy reaching into his pocket for something? How many minutes did he have left to him when the photo was taken?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not very many minutes. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it was snapped on Houston just before the limo made the fateful left turn onto Elm Street.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For your moderation on the Boehner/Pelosi articles. It's been very helpful. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:67.173.62.185
Re: your post here; per WP:BLANKING, user are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages, with only a few exceptions. Removal is seen as acknowledgement that they've seen the message. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just wasn't certain if it was the exact same editor. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, as they never replied ... but if they are the same user, then they read the message when they removed it; and if they're not the same user, then they were just removing a message not relevant to them. It would've been nice for them to reply - but nothing requires them to reply. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Loser
There's another sad anniversay approaching this December 8th (30 yrs). GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. Time sure flies....seems like yesterday I heard the awful and sad news.....terrible loss....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a chilly line in the movie A Hard Day's Night, where Norman Rossington's character growls at Lennon "John, behave yourself or I'll murder ya" GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is eerie is the picture snapped earlier on the evening of 8 December showing Lennon signing an autograph for Chapman. Two destinies about to merge together in one lethal unit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Spooky stuff. Also, there's a tear-jerker of a line in Lennon's song Beautiful Boy, about his son Sean. "I can hardly wait, to see you come of age, but I guess will both just have to be patient". GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To me (and this is just plain OR on my part) his misconstrued 1966 Jesus comment sealed his eventual death warrant. Lennon was always a high-profile, articulate anti-establishment figure and some warped loser like Chapman was bound to come along.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do recall seeing a documentary on Lennon & Chapman. Apparently, Chapman had read about Lennon's 1966 comment & it did fuel Chapman's murderious plot. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been safer for Lennon to have remaind in England. The USA has so many religious nuts.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the United Kingdom is a tad safer. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A date with destiny. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 40 is so young to die, especially at the start of an exciting decade such as the 80s, with all the videos and musical possibilities.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, there's just 1 left of Joe & Rose's children. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of the girls is it, Pat, Jean or Eunice?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jean, who is 82 yrs old. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that Pat or Eunice had died.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to John Lennon. I have to say that Mark David Chapman has to be the most boring assassin in modern history. I tried to read the book about him, but it failed to capture my interest. How this loser and non-entity managed to forever silence an iconic and musical giant like John Lennon is an outrage that is hard for me to accept.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He came across as a nerd. More frustrating, earlier in 1980, Chapman attempted suicide by gas fuming himself in his car. Unfortunately, someone discovered him & stopped his attempt. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

War history

 * I was just thinking while skimming through the Chapman book which is unreadable by his sheer incapacity to make an impression with his personality, that if the US had fewer Bible-bashing sects, it would be much safer for everybody.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Practically all wars in the history of Earth, have been fought over religion. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hundred Years War wasn't, neither were the Wars of the Roses, Wars of the Scottish Succession, nor all the ancient pre-Christian wars such as the Punic Wars. Other examples which had nothing to do with religion: Vietnam War, the two world wars, Crimean, US Civil War, French-Indian War, Napoleonic Wars, etc. I'd have to say the common denominators for wars have always been power and conquest. Even the religious conflicts were really about gain and territorial control, not the holy sacraments.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's the Crusades, English reign of Mary I, Spanish Inquisition, Middle East ongoing conflict, Yum Kippur War, Six-Day War, India-Pakistan, 1745-46 Bonnie Prince Charlie, Iranian Revolution. GoodDay (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Crusades while flying the Holy Banner were really about conquest, hence the establishment of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem. Mary I never made war against the Protestants, she just consigned them to the flames, ditto for the Inquisition. Queen Isabella's crusade against the Moors was ostensibly religious, but it was still over territorial gain. Wars are never waged unless there is some material benefit at the end.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I betcha the victors claimed their God helped out. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh of course they did. In fact, Mary I, upon discovering her pregnancy was false believed that was a sign of displeasure from God that she had not burned enough Protestants!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Religious nut, she was. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes as well as a very bad sovereign. Just as well Henry lusted after Anne Boleyn and sired Elizabeth! Who knows who Mary would have made her successor?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no doubt Mary would've lifted the succession ban on the Stuarts & named Mary I of Scotland as her succcessor. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Politics2012
I remain suspicious that Politics2012 is Multiplyperfect, but I do not have enough evidence to file at WP:SPI. For this reason I will not remove the tag, but I will not object to its removal (or dickishly add it back). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

re
Those were just the ones I gave examples on; I'm thinking there may be others. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There just aint any more John Tyler types. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In what sense? The name Tyler piques my interest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Succession
You asked if the succession can be changed in one realm but not another. Vernon Bogdanor says on page 269 of The monarchy and the constitution (1995):
 * "At the time of the abdication in 1936, each Dominion had to consent to the departure in the line of succession for it to be valid. Since, however, the Commonwealth prime ministers had agreed, in 1952, that there should be a locally variable title, consent was no longer needed to changes in the local element of the title. ... With regard to the succession, however, it is essential to retain a common rule so that the Commonwealth monarchies should not be a personal union over a fortuitous conglomeration of territories. ... Clearly, it would not be in accordance with the relationship between the monarchies of the Commonwealth that there should be any differences in the rules of succession. It remains, therefore, a convention that any alteration in these rules must be agreed between all the members of the Commonwealth which recognize the queen as their head of state. ... With a common rule of succession, then, in the words of Louis St Laurent, prime minister of Canada in 1953,
 * Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada, but she is The Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom and because the people of Canada are happy to recognise as their Sovereign the person who is the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. It is not a separate office."

As you will undoubtedly be aware, Miesianiacal strongly disagrees with Bogdanor's interpretation, and vociferously opposes the implications of statements like "not be a personal union" and "not a separate office". DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mies is argument is that the 16 commonwealth monarchies/realms are completely seperate from each other, even though their respective monarchs happen to be the exact same person. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * St. Laurent said what he did in 1953, when the constitutions of the realms still technically resided with the United Kingdom parliament. Still, even earlier than that, the Canadian position in discussions about the Queen's title was "the Queen is Queen of Canada, regardless of her sovereignty over other Commonwealth countries" [emphasis mine]. The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states; DrKiernan adheres to the belief that they are not, being unable to legislate for themselves as they wish. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do NOT. That is untrue, and if it is not retracted, I shall know it to be a deliberate insult and lie. DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cry me a river. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lost your sense of humor, as well as your sense of reason ? DrKiernan (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I never found your personal attacks particularly funny. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't the two of you, get along one time? GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we still do on occasions. Speaking generally about all people, not anyone specific (either myself or anyone else), tantrums can arise through misunderstandings rather than outright hostility. DrKiernan (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We need Tharky to become interested & take part in these Commonwealth realm discussions again; giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to see the Canadian Parliament attempt to pass a new Succession Act. For example: a full cognatic succession, begining with William's children. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think Mies is correct. If Canada amended its Constitution to name Kari Matchett Queen of Canada, who would be the Queen of Canada? It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that it would be Elizabeth II. By the same token, if Canada amended its statutes or Constitution to provide for female-preference primogeniture, it is equally absurd to suggest that Charles, and not Anne, would be heir-apparent. I understand that there is a convention that Commonwealth countries will not unilaterally change succession rules, but a convention is merely that. That an action, being within the power of the actor, violates a convention does not make it void; rather, it mere pisses people off. -Rrius (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, any country can withdraw any time they wish and 16 of them have done so during the Queen's lifetime. No-one disputes that, and it is frankly absurd and insulting of you to imply that I have. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody said you said a realm can't become a republic. You said a realm absolutely cannot alter its line of succession without permission from the other realms. In other words: a realm is not free to legislate as it wishes. But, as the Ontario judge I quote below points out, the agreement to have the same person as sovereign and parallel lines of succession is more like a treaty than a law and Canada can alter its constitution as it wishes. I think it's safe to presume that if Canada can, the others can as well.
 * Of course, if a realm did, without the consent of the other countries, change its succession laws and put, say, Edward on the throne there, there would likely be some negative consequences; nobody likes it when someone breaks an agreement. But, as Rrius says, the political consequences of such an act don't make it impossible. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If one of the realms changes their line of succession such that the monarch in the 15 remaining realms is different to the monarch in the one that is changed, then the monarch of the Commonwealth realms is no longer monarch in the country that has opted out. The line of succession to the Commonwealth realms cannot change without the consent of all the Commonwealth realms, but each realm is free to choose whoever they wish as their monarch.
 * There are no negative consequences at all as far as I can see. Some people may consider it a positive consequence to have a head of state that is specifically theirs rather than borrowed from another country. DrKiernan (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like a head of state, who's not the same person that's head of state of 15 other places (preferabley a president). GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The line of succession can be changed without changing the incumbent sovereign; a realm could amend its laws to call for Edward to inherit the throne upon Elizabeth's demise. Even if the change in succession also meant a concurrent change in monarch - putting Edward on the throne and altering the succession from then onwards - the required constitutional amendments would only come into effect with the Royal Assent of the person who was sovereign before the changes were made official. Hence, in both cases, it would be a Commonwealth realm making changes to its laws of succession. That could be done either with or without parallel changes in the other realms, either with or without the consent of the other realms. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, so? That's just what I said. But once the realm opts out by adopting someone else as monarch, they are no longer a Commonwealth realm. Let me explain by way of example: Canada passes a law excluding Charles from the line of succession. The law only applies in Canada since they can only legislate for Canada alone not the other Commonwealth realms. The Queen dies. William becomes King of Canada. Charles becomes King of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, etc. It is Charles who is King of the Commonwealth realms, not William. Canada is no longer a Commonwealth realm; it is a monarchy within the Commonwealth, in the manner of Tonga, Swaziland or Lesotho. It is not possible to change the line of succession to the Commonwealth realms in one realm alone: all must agree. DrKiernan (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * GoodDay's original question asked if some realms could change their monarch and/or line of succession without the others agreeing to also do so, not if any Commonwealth realms would stay Commonwealth realms after changing the monarch and/or line of succession to be different to the other realms. To the former, you first answered "no". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think British troops would invade Canada. Though, the other 15 realms 'might' boot Canada out of the Commonwealth of Nations. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have picked a country more likely to cause trouble, but it seemed natural under the circs. -Rrius (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with you & Mies, there's 16 seperate monarchies/thrones. Getting this put into the intro at Wedding of Prince William of Wales, and Kate Middleton, is gonna be tough, though. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A more recent statement came from the Ontario Superior Court: "Canada as a sovereign nation is free to withdraw from the arrangement and no longer be united through common allegiance to the Crown." Of course, the judge goes on to say that any changes in this regard cannot be made so long as the Statute of Westminster and (according to him) the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 are as they presently are. But, he does outline that S.41 of the Constitution Act 1982 gives the mechanism whereby such alterations can be made to the constitution.

Per Rrius' comment: the same judge likened the agreement to have a common monarch and line of succession to "a treaty among the Commonwealth countries." Parties to a treaty can't be forced into it, and if one opts out, the result is generally little more than the other party gets pissed. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In otherwords, Canada can leave the Commonwealth of Nations (or get kicked out), but -regrettably- continue as a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The consequences to Canada's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations is an entirely separate matter. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still the major stumbling block. How to get "thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms" mentioned in the intro at the aforementioned article. PS: We should note, there's no mention of the line of succession in the other related Wedding articles (George VI-Elizabeth, Charles-Diana/Camilla). GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Collective madness
Last night I saw a programme about this woman: Natuzza Evolo. I wonder how much the Church paid those people to claim they were cured by her? I'm also curious as to how much the Vatican doles out to scientists to back such idiocy as the Virgin's tears and manifestations of the stigmata.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked my talkpage history (as I do every morning) & noticed that at 8:15 UTC, somebody apparently posted something nasty. An administrator even wiped it out of posterity. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? How do you attract so many nasty posters anyway?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I'd like to know what the post was & who posted it. Heck, I don't even know who removed it. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't know which admin removed it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you find out about it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the history of my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if the deletion fed your paranoia, but there is really nothing to concern you in the edit. DrKiernan (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious though as to what it was & who posted it & who wiped it out of existance. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go to the page history and click on the "View logs for this page" link. DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't. There's a strike-out line going across & rending it wiped out. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what it looks like: (cur/prev) - 08:15, 26 November 2010 (Username or IP removed) (edit summary removed). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you see here: ? DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You accidently posted while logged out & didn't want your IP number revealed. No probs, mystery solved. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That was fast
That was a quick trip to the library. I take it your local librarian doesn't resemble Pamela Anderson.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not even close. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hee hee, so that's why you didn't linger.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Silly goose
why silly goose? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarify. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "I voted for you, silly goose". Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's just my humour. So far, every Arb candidate but 1 (Giacomo), has responded to it. That's alright though, as he didn't delete it. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you !vote for Loosmark? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I only voted for the editors I was familiar with. They're the ones whom I left my 'silly gooese' posts. Besides, he didn't seem right; In the head. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just took a peak at Loosmark's status, mass sockpuppetry is certainly one way to end one's Arb candidacy. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you think that trusting someone else with one's password should invariably result in an infinite ban. That seems to me harsh and unchristian. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an athiest. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. You are still allowed to be forgiving. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not with sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That it not what C-R is blocked for. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He/she was caught with multiple accounts (David Lauder, Sussexman, Counter-revolutionary, etc). The person behind those accounts, can't be trusted. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what he was blocked for. Or are you a better judge than the checkusers who know what happened? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I won't budge on this. I will not support the return of a sock-master. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the point. He was not a sockmaster. He was a meat puppet. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The account-in-question was a sock of Sussexman. If the community chooses to unblock the account-in-question, then there's nothing I can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well part 2 of that is true. It just bothers me that you are so inflexible and implacable. You wouldnt get my !vote for arbcom. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's alright, I wouldn't vote for me either. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not GD, don't you trust yourself?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm too inflexible & implacable for the position. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And as an editor with a voice there is a responsibility on you to consider before expressing your view. Otherwise you are being ignorant and unfair. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not budging on my stance, concerning the status of the sock account-in-question. If this comes to a community vote? I will oppose unblocking. As to weither my 'stance' there is valid or not? I'll leave that judgement to the closing administrator & won't dispute his/her decision. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but even atheists are allowed to be moral. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, we are allowed. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us hope you are never judged. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've judged myself to be modestly incredible. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-knowledge. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds circular. Back to silly goose? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, back to silly goose. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

London
I'm trying to find a Wikipedia guideline on this, but it seems one is strangely lacking. Regardless, as I noted in my last edit summary at Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, the standard phrasing is "London, England," and "London, Ontario," not "London, United Kingdom," and "London, Canada." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an inaccurate comparison, as London in Ontario isn't also the capital of Canada. London in England, is the capital of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (in that time frame). GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See my response at the article's talk page. No sense in two parallel discussions. Makes my fingers tired. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)