This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

I thought I'd start this new section to say I don't hold any grudges as far as our conversation was concerned. I still stand by my views, although if I was wrong concerning my accusation of trolling then I apologise for saying it. Tumblin Tom (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I continue to stand by my views aswell. I'll always invite differing opinons on any subjects, at my Userpage. Every person is my teacher, as that I may learn from him/her, is a motto of mine. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Vatican would be a good place to start your search. I imagine that all the saints hang out there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Never been out with a saint before. I've been out with a few sinners though! LOL Jack forbes (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we all?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, we'll have to ask GoodDay. Jack forbes (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, we're waiting for you. Hurry up, we're discussing sinners!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I un-intentionally committed adultry at one time. My female partner-in-crime, failed to inform me that she was married (waiting until after our intimacies). GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Could have been worse GD. She could have told you she was on the pill-then 9 months later presented you with a living, breathing, expensive reminder of her adultery (YOU didn't commit adultery, she did! My priest would say your sin was fornication).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is GoodDay, did you go back for more? Jack forbes (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

She & I were together for six-weeks. Eeringly, she & her husband apparently got back together & had a child (10-months after our last intimate meeting 'phew'). Eek, their other child was 8yrs-old. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a close call. Obviously her wedded state didn't cause you to fear for your immortal (immoral) soul!LOL!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have mind if it were my child. The tough part, would've been she & child moved back to Vancouver. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

When I lived in Dublin back in the 1980s, I once had a boyfriend from Belfast who never knew my address, phone number, nor my marital status! How's that for being a woman of mystery?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I must come clean, I knew my female friend was married, about 1-week into our meetings. Fell out of love with her shortly after. The last 3-weeks, I merely hung on for the sex. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think I went with my boyfriend from Belfast?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, the pleasures of orgasims. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember, a few minutes of pleasure can bring a lifetime of regret.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

SINNERS! I've kept this from you till now. I'm actually a catholic priest and will now pray for your souls lest they forever languish in the fires of hell! LOL Jack forbes (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You got your purple stole on, Father Forbes? Let's get the show on the road!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As I'm athiest, the religious side doesn't effect me. But, the potential for VD, has its respect. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What does VD stand for? Veteran's Day?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Veneral Diseases. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

General diseases, did you say? What are they: a form of battle stress or shell-shocking, perhaps?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. It's ironic, the best thing a male & female can do together & it's potential dangerous. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A veteran, especially a veteran General wouldn't get VD. I'm allergic to penicillan so have always been very very careful. Jack forbes (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I too am allergic to penicillan. Yet I've managed to have un-protected encounters with 2 females. When you're in the mood, it's difficult to think rationally. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, lads but a few minutes of pleasure can bring a lifetime of regret. Old-fashioned but sound advice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My motto was "Be prepared" Either that or a dose of the clap or even worse. Jack forbes (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's so totally unfair. A beautiful experience, should be potentially dangerious. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The worse can come in the form of an Evelyn Draper--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You could always wear a full rubber suit under your clothes for any eventuality's. Could get a bit sweaty though. Jack forbes (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I suppose, the best thing is to ask the gal to join oneself in going to get medically tested (if it's a serious relationship) for diseases. If clean, continue the relationship. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You could always say "No", or better yet, join the priesthood. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Then again.....

I can picture it now. Hello there, would you like to come back to my place for coffee and on the way their we'll drop in at the VD clinic for a check up. Jack forbes (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That the tricky thing. Some gals would take the suggestion as an insult. As for priesthood? not until the celibacy rule is cancelled. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Priests are celibate? Nah, I don't believe it. Jack forbes (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

They're suppose to be. But can ya believe it? if they get an erection, they're suppose to prey to a virgin. Sooner or later, something's gonna snap. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds quite painful. Jack forbes (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I reckon at that point, they'll have to do some healing. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

They should never cancel celibacy. In point of fact, celibacy is the whole thrill, baby.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, did I ever tell you about the scandal I created in my church with a visiting Romanian priest?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No! Actually in the church! Go on, tell us more. Was he defrocked? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No he wasn't defrocked (oh I do love that word: defrocked), he has his own parish someplace in Austria. I was confessing to him when the scandal broke out. I'll elaborate when GoodDay comes back on the scene. Hurry up GD, the confessions on your talk page are still goung strong.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please continue. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to tell you the details, suffice to say my regular parish priest had a fit of jealousy-in front of the entire congregation!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Never anger a priest. Most guys can show a gal a good time, but priests can offer a gal 'eternity'. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but eternity doing what? Praying with harps strumming in the background zzzzzzz...Hell probably offers a better choice of music and far more interesting company in which to spend one's eternity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya never know, as not all priests are innocent. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, that I already know-from personal experience! Hee hee hee.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A laying of the hands? GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot say anymore on the subject of men of the cloth as the local bishop could be reading all of this. I wouldn't want any defrockings on my account. Hee hee hee.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Just remember, Jesus loves ya. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Which Jesus?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The fellow, who had children with Mary Madelin. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd better dance now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See ya'll tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned all I had to mention and gave you the oppinions of historions so why cant I edit Henry VI as a french king.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My Funk & Wagnalls encylcopedias, don't list Henry VI among the French monarchs. I can't prevent you from editing anything, but I can disagree with you. You should consider developing other interests on Wikipedia & take a break from the Charles VII/Henry VI topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your enclodipedia definitely says Henry V became heir of france in 1420 and mentiones the treaty of troyes.And as your statement requesting me to take a break on Henry VI and Charles VII OF France I also costantly revise other periods of History from early movemnt of germanic tribes to the reign of queen victoria.Why do you like disagreeing with me?I gave you a good reason how he is king of france.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've agreed with having the nav boxes in place at Henry VI of England & Charles VII of France, that was my concession. Also, my encyclopedias don't have Henry VI's as King of France from 1422-29, but rather as a claiment. IF you're displeased, seek input elswhere. As I told you before, 'I don't control Wikipedia'. PS: I would appreciate it, if you wouldn't bring up this topic 'here', again. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a list of books that say he succeded to the french throne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there not books, which say he wasn't King of France? Do as you wish, I'm done with the Charles VII/Henry VI stuff. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets cool it I apoligise for the start.Ill just ask for the main point why Henry VI cant be mentioned as a king of france.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

'Cause he's normaly not listed with the French monarchs, in any encylopedias that I've had. Perhaps, it has to do with 'to the victor, goes the spoils', I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

PS- See ya'll tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye goodDay.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh where have all the editors gone? GoodDay, have you noticed there are fewer editors now at Wikipedia? And most of those who've remained make fewer edits. Why has Wikipedia become a ghost town?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps after 8-years of existance, the novelty of it has worn off. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not that. IMO, it's all the edit warring, incivilty, and deletionists. Not many people like having their images and articles deleted, after having spent so much of their free time uploading them. People are getting stressed-out--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Political motives are suspect. The long drawn-out disputes at the United Kingdom & Ireland related artiles, are good example. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. There always seems to be an agenda behind every edit. Another problem at Wikipedia is the tendency for some editors to assume ownership of articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The freedom of IPs to participate in discussions over controversal edits, is also problematic. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, I like your method of dealing with IPs by ignoring them. I shall henceforth follow suit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I just tell'em, create an account & sign in & they shall get a response. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

.GoodDay, please take a look at the message I just put on my talk page. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, straigforward and honest. I long for the day mandatory registration is adopted. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing which is annoying are new editors who jump in and immediately start taking charge. Remember the johnny-come-lately who told me not to chat?! What cheek,eh?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to that newbie? GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where he went. Only signed in to give me orders! Just today, I noticed an image I added to an article was deleted by an editor who has only made about 50 edits over the last three years. I tell you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad. I used to be accused of deliberately causing trouble on Wikipedia, by 2 established editors. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember LOL. Anyroad, I'm off now. Must catch a bus into town with my daughter to do a wee bit of shopping. See ya later.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Have fun. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is an opinion from someone who was blocked for losing his temper (boy, did I lose it!). People are getting bored and fed up with the POV nonsense going on with the UK and Ireland pages. When the majority always rules whether it's right or wrong it makes a mockery of what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. And Jeanne, your right. It feels as though nobody is here any more. Do you think Wikipedia is dying? I confess to thinking sometimes that it should. Jack forbes (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Jack forbes (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it shoudn't be allowed to die. Some editors just need to be less gung-ho about tagging new articles/images with deletion tags; less POV pushing on articles, and fewer insults thrown at people who have the RIGHT to disagree and to state their opinions. GD, remember how I was insulted on the Lee Harvey Oswald talk page for daring to state what the majority of people believe, namely that he did not act alone. Jack, when/where/why did you lose your temper? Oh tell me, please, pretty please, with sugar on top! Last year I got into an edit war with another editor. I made an ass out of myself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A user used a registered account and an ip to attack my point of view on the Scotland talk page. I attempted to get him blocked for it but he was let off the hook and I'm afraid to say I lost the plot and used some words I shouldn't have. As it happens, I found out later he was already a banned user who had numerous accounts on the go. As for you making an ass of yourself once, I wouldn't worry about that, I can make an ass of myself without even trying too hard. :) Jack forbes (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs who steadfastly refuse to create an account & sign in, are the blokes who annoy me. I tend to consider them blocked editors getting around their blocks, as a reason for the refusal to register in. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently, an IP trolled a photo of my daughter and vandalised it. I detest trolls who hide behind IPs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a certain IP.86, who's returned to the British Isles discussions. As usual he's being unhelpful. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs should not be allowed to edit controversial artices such as BI, Oswald, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for mandatory registration. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a passing comment from a passing reader: IPs are more open to tracking than registered users. A registered user has an unknown ISP, and requires checkuser even to find where the registered user's ISP resides. Press "whois" for an IP and you can discover the point of origin immediately. An IP who is assigned a new address every time he/she connects is also easier to track than someone with multiple registered names. The sense of having a better grasp on who a registered user might is, I think, largely psychological, and thus illusory. It is also illogical to depend in some way on the information given by a registered user. I am sure many tell nothing but the truth. I am equally sure that many do not. Some of WP's most persistent vandals are users of registered names. If I am missing something here, please let me know. // BL \\ (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs still annoy me. They could at least use a moniker, next to the IP number. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have a long list of what annoys me here. However, using a personal annoyance, or even one shared by many but not enough for consensus, and creating an artificially logical rationale for changing policy that is not based on fact, is a worrisome approach to take. I might, for example, refuse to respond to anyone with a user name filling up more than one line of code, or to one whose signature does not link to his/her User or Talk page. If I state why I am acting in such a manner, unsupported by policy, I should then not be surprised if I am viewed as a crank and my opinion on all matters (illogical, yes, but it happens) is vastly discounted as a consequence. If I act on the views but do not explain then I am liable to find myself at WP:AN, WP:AN/I or WP:RFC facing censure for a failure to respond to an significant request for clarification, for example. YMMV. // BL \\ (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) If an IP appears on my User-page in a grumpy mood, he/she will be asked to register in or be ignored. If an IP is in a friendly mood, I'll respond to him/her & ask that they in future, register-in when they plan to post here again. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jeanne about the reason for the drop off. I've definitely dropped off and it is because of the incivility. I was accused of POV-pushing yet again today and, as is often the case, the result of my edit lent aid and comfort to the POV opposite of mine. The dickish lack of effort to even attempt to come to a consensus and the complete failure to listen to and take seriously another editor's point of view are also major problems I've been having. Frankly this place is hell of a lot less fun than it was even six months ago, and question more and more why I even bother. -Rrius (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many editors have retired or semi retired like GoodDay over the last six months or so compared to new editors coming along. Jack forbes (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, when new editors try to turn Wikipedia into a KGB-style police state and track down another editor's comments made in 2007, that is a sure way to drive away good, sincere editors. I find that type of scrutiny scary. It happened to me before and it is very Orwellian/Kafkaesque. Why would someone go to all that trouble to read the comments of someone just because he or she happens to have an opposing POV?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Scary is the right word. How long must it have taken him to track down a comment made 2 years ago! A little worrying if you ask me. Jack forbes (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It would take a hell of a long time. That type of behaviour is extremely obsessive, which is very disturbing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Users who wish to track down my postings & edits of the past 3+ years, will have headaches. I tend to change my PoV on controversal topics, due to my attempts to see arguments on all sides. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ddstretch makes interesting though depressing reading. 78.33.161.242 (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Howdy IP: 78.33.161.242. In future, when you post here, please do so as a registered user. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I've had trolls as well as registered users exhume old comments I had written and long since forgotten. IMO whenever an editor disagrees with another's comment, either reply then and there or forget about it. Anyone who goes through an editor's past comments, trying to dig up dirt with which to fling in that person's face is committing harassment as far as I'm concerned.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If anybody wants to dig up dirt on me? go for it. If I'm guilty of something, I'll face up to it. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay,I don't think it had anything to do with guilt, it was more someone trying to get a reaction from another to their 2 year old comments being thrown back at them. Remember, Sarah had been blocked a while back for similar comments, so if she was pushed in to repeating them she could be in danger of being blocked again. That, in my opinion, is trolling at its worst. Jack forbes (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, when we see trollish remarks like that, we all need to band together irregardless of our personal POVs to make sure they don't get the result you described. You did right in deleting his/her comments.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of shooting JFK, then I know where he got his idea from. Strange how history uncannily repeated itself almost 400 years later.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Even both their wives re-married. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, weird.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it was she who encouraged Moray in his ambitions? He seems to have had betrayed Mary after his marriage to Agnes Keith. BTW, do you like my article on Agnes? I love her dress, it looks Gothic to me. The 16th century Scots dressed very chic --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, some men will do anything for the promise of daily sex. As for the gothic look? I luv women dressed in black. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Promises, promises.... Don't you love Burt Bacharach?!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Errr, wrong gender. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have said Dionne Warwick.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GD, the ghosts have returned to their former haunts on the BI talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I shall be tough, I won't be intimidated. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has the right to intimidate anybody here. This is an encylopedia not a 16th century Inquisition tribunal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just get Pepe le Pew to chase them. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said to Jack, it was IP 86, who tossed the same apple of discord back onto that page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Think how grumpy IP.86 will be, when he realizes his votes are not to be counted. There's so much hate behind that IPs posts. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page how much that IP' rants are getting on my nerves. It's really getting silly the way he goes on and on in the same vein. Like a broken IP-whoops LP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just trying to pour gas on a fire. He/she's not so brave though, when requested to create an account & sign in. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of ghosts, a royal phantom has returned to haunt the List of French Monarchs article. I don't know what to do about this. We really need arbitration, so that the sad spectre of King Henry hovering about the throne of France can be finally laid to rest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've become disappointed with HENRY, as he seems to be trying to force his preference on that article. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen his edit to the article in question?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That and related articles. I'm quite disappointed with his actions. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He sent me a message to say that he'd received a book on Henry VI for his birthday which says that Henry was King of France; so armed with his new tome, he feels free to go about changing all the Henry-related articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to handle this. I tend to get frustrated with HENRY, as I find it difficult to communicate with him (I can't seem to get through to him). GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Oh, have you seen the latest over on BI talk?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's only a matter of time before IP.86 is blocked (IMO it's the same IP.86 from the past). The RM proposal came out of Sarah's frustration over the opening sentence. I wish my trade-off idea had been adopted (concerning the naming of British Isles & Republic of Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I like East Prince Edward Islands best!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Howabout Irish Columbia? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Or Irish West Indies? Oh, and we should say Irish Invasion, not British Invasion when referring to The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Animals, Gerry and The Pacemakers, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the British & Irish have always had a stormy marriage. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but strangely enough, most Irish/English marriages turn out quite well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, make it English/Irish & after 1707 British/Irish. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Picky, ain'tcha?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya missed out on the arguments (about a year ago) me & TharkunColl used to have at List of English monarchs & List of British monarchs. He wanted to combine the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't help myself GoodDay, I've got to ask. Why English/Irish rather than Irish/English? I'd rather not go into the 1707 thingy. Jack forbes (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack, have you read the articles I've created on various 16th Century Scottish noblewomen? They were an interesting-and feisty lot!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The English & latter the British, were in charge of the Irish. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I'll leave it there GoodDay. Just watch out for any visiting Irish people on your talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well they were throughout history, militarily speaking. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but does that mean in a mixed marriage we have to name it English/Irish because the English were superior? A strange thought. Ah well. Jack forbes (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Military wise, the English & latter the British were superior. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No mas! No mas! Jack forbes (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think I shall avoid your talk page from here on in (no big deal! I hear you say). Your comments are getting stranger and stranger. No hard feeling though. Jack forbes (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How are they stranger? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, have you forgotten the guy who kicked Napoleon's a..e at Waterloo was Irish! At Waterloo, Napoleon did surrender, oh yeah.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But Wellington forces were mainly British. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And Prussian and Dutch! Oh yeah......!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Many of the British were Scottish. See image I've included.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

After 1707, the Welsh, English & Scottish became British. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, they're back at it over on BI talk. I feel like I'm back in elementary school with all of this our Dev was better than your Winston prattle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in keeping that article at British Isles, since we keep the Irish Sea article at its current name. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion on the Talk:Henry VI of England about your edit. I have my doubts as to the veracity of the popular legend which blames Richard, Duke of Gloucester for the crime. As a staunch Ricardian, I am inclined to believe that Edward in point of fact, ordered the killing and that poor Richard was just the patsy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My edit? which one is that? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wasn't it you who switched Edward to Richard as the culprit? Ooh, we're both in for a hammering from 86, as I too added my tuppence worth on Talk BI. Quick, where's my armour-or better yet, where's the nearest bomb shelter?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't I, who switched Edward to Richard. IP.86 is on the verge of being blocked & just aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. Anyroad, I didn't revert the edit in the article, just brought it up for discussion on the talk page. Has 86 commented again?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he's usually squabbling with BritishWatcher & lately TharkunColl. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've often suspected aswell, that Henry VI may have learned of his son's fate & commited suicide. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You could be right. Nobody has ever considered that plausible possibility. I must applaude your fresh insights into areas that have been completely overlooked by historians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This should be over on Henry VI's talk page. He was unstable, anyroad, so the death of his only son and heir at Tewkesbury dashed his hopes forever. It also unhinged Margaret.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.

Is this a good idea, do you think?

Template:2006WOIHMGerCze

Regards, LarRan (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out the dispute here:Talk:Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Oh, the Henry VI article has been edited again, with Henri II of France once more having been added to his intro box. What are we to do about this?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the Kennedy conspiracies talk page, don't you love know-it-all editors who come, make a few edits, insult editors who are hard-working, regular contribitors, disappear for about a year, then repeat the performance?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I fear there'll always be a foggy feeling, to the incidents of November 22, 1963. As for the Henry VI article, there's no way Henry II of France should be allowed in the images caption. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the Henri II bit, but he'll only replace it. GoodDay, why don't we ask an administrator like Rockpocket to mediate on the Henry VI dispute? He's a very fair-minded, reasonable person. I think he'd be able to resolve our problem here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree about consistency - and the only sensible time span is 1422-1453. 1429 is nonsensical. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It dosent matter GoodDay, leave it as Henry VI then. Can I mention then, he was crowned as Henri II of France in the article instead. Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend not, as the King of France who reigned 1547-59, is named Henry II of France. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If Henry VI's reign as King of France is extended to 1453, we'd have to perforce list Margaret of Anjou as a French consort, and history only recognises her as an English queen consort. This is such a coil! We need arbitration.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) we have to first, go to Mediation Comittee. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Hundred Years War is taking place on Talk:Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories between myself and a countryman of yours. St. Denis! Montjoie! Cry God For Jeanne! GoodDay, I think that is where the action will be from now on. When he wakes up I'm sure he'll launch a few attacks my way. Gotta polish my armour--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as ya both aren't hurling insults at each other, thing will be fine. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call our wee exchanges insults; but we are sure not giving one another compliments. Read the page, GoodDay. Would you say we were hurling insults? I have not been 'uncivil, that's for sure!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend a truce be called. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter if you say henry was crowned as Henri II of france in the article as it causes no harm at all.In griffith R.A book in page 221 it says he was crowned as Henri II of france.I wont mention it in the title but I will in the article because thats history and history canot be alterd.

P.S. Sorry for not signing in.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you re-add it, please add a note about Henry II of France (who reigned 1547 to 1559). Also, if you re-add it? use Henry II of France, not Henri II of france (as this is the English Wikipedia). GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We need arbitration-like now!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I need an asperan. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We cannot say Henry was King of France until 1453 when the article on Charles says his reign began in 1422. The Treaty of Troyes be damned!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's one of those goofy situation. Portugal had a similiar situation concerning Queen Maria II & her uncle Miguel. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne france had two kings with a disputed reign and I dont agree that the treaty should be damned.Henry as legal heir of Charles VI inherited lawfully his possetions as king of france while charles inherited the south of the loire valley Illegaly but was regognized as king.Henry remained de jure until 1429 and de facto until 1453 while charles was de jure in 1429 and de facto 1422-1461.As already said it was disputed.P.S. Why are you so angery??????

Thanks GoodDay for mentioning the similar situation with Queen Maria II & her uncle Miguel.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the Catholic Church's method could be applied, to both situations. They've chosen to ignore the Avignon & Pisan papal claiments. Perhaps we should consider France & Portugals retroactive views, too. France chooses to ignore Henry & Portugal chooses to ignore Miguel. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am curious to know what, in his own time, Henry VI of England was called as also king of France? Has anyone come across copy of original documents showing him as *Henry VI of England, King of England and King of France* or *Henry VI of England, Henry II of France*? Because if at his coronation at ND de Paris he was made king of France with the title ~*Henry II of France*, then it is obvious that this was canned years later when the Anglos were kicked out of France. Also, how do English historians (not wikipedians) mention him as a king of France? *Henry II of France*? The reason I am asking is that in English books, the king of France *Henri IV, le Vert-Galant*, (who wanted every family to have a chicken in the pot on Sundays) is named *Henry IV of France*, not *Henry V of France*, and as king of France, *Henry VI of England* could not be Henry VI but, as Jeanne pointed out several times, Henry II. Frania W. (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay.We cant use the same to boycot Henry VI because with the wstern schism the pisan lines were regognized as legitimate in the 19th century but today they are not.Henry wasnt just anknowledged by english kin he was regognized by nothen frenchmen as rightfuly king of france,was regognized by authorities of the estates-general,Bishob of Rheims ans the law(1422-1429) and also by Burgundy,low counies,Holy roman emperor(Emperor Sigsumend) and the papal states(pope Martin V) until 1434.Henry was regognized as a french monarch and so the same cannot apply to him.In fact the anglo-French Double-Monarchy was so strong it introduced minted coins in Henrys name as king of France in 1422.If you say the same could apply to Henry you must know more frenchmen regognized him as king then Charles,whose french soldiors hardly mustured to his call.We may as well take out anyone from the list of french monarchs since everybody is going purely on regognition.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pisan & Avignon line of Anti-Popes were equally recognized as Pope during their disputed reigns. But latter they were disqualified, just like France chose to latter disqualify Henry. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Besides, as Frania rightly points out, none of the other Wikipedias list Henry VI as a French monarch, so why should the English?. IMO, putting him in the list is nothing but revisionist history, which I detest more than anything.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I reckon this dispute won't die, as HENRY won't let it. Gosh darn it, things would've been easier if Henry V of England had stayed in England. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this lady here Isabella of France started the ball rolling with her insinuations about her sisters-in-law which led to their imprisonment in the Tour de Nesle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

.This is of course the same Isabella we saw in Braveheart, aged for the purpose of distorting history by making her Wallace's lover.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, Braveheart, not the movie one would want to watch for History classes. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)r

Nor the revisionist fantasy series The Tudors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, at least the Tudors did one thing accurate, that other movies & series did not, with Henry VIII. They saw to it that Henry (before 1535) did not wear a mustache & beard. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was a complete disaster; the only person who saved the series was Maria Doyle Kennedy. She made a believable Catherine of Aragon.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, correct things occur accidently. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

She really was good in her role of Catherine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Patrick McGoohan (RIP) did look the part of Edward I of England, in Braveheart. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I liked him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My daughter has become a Wikipedian as of this morning.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What's her Wiki-moniker? GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking up the conversation to let GoodDay know that I left another comment on the list of French monarchs talk page. (Extremely happy that Jeanne's Tatiana is back home!) Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy too. Thank you for your concern. Her moniker is User:Tatiana kitty--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey GoodDay, I am completely with you that Henry VI of England shouldn't be called Henri II and that Charles VII's reign undoubtedly starts in 1422, though it was disputed at the time. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased. Thank goodness a compromise was reached. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay your conditions are accepted Henry will not use the name Henry II of France and Charles reign will continue as 1422-1461(even though I said this ages ago LOL.).I am glad of your acceptence.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was overcome by a wave of compromise (or was it fatigue?). GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed that most of the medieval and Baroque buildings are still standing, yet the modern edifices have totally collapsed. What a disgrace to the Italian state. Most people died in the modern houses, not in the historic city centre.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The architecture isn't what it used to be. At least the Vatican is taking in all those homeless people. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the modern buildings that collapsed were built of sand!!! Can you believe that? Sand. There are 15th century houses still standing and a 20th century dormitory that fell like a house of cards. The Italian government should be mortified to allow houses to be erected which are nothing more than perpendicular cement coffins. On a different note. Thank you for welcoming my daughter, she was a bit annoyed that she couldn't edit the Zac Efron article. As you can see, she has different tastes from me-Ha!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you both use different computers? So that you can both avoid the potential charges of sock-puppetry? There'll likely be editors out there with suspicions. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No we use the same computer. Why would we be accused of sock-puppetry? We are two different people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked BigDunc's advice on how to avoid potential accusations of sock-puppetry. I cannot go out and buy another computer. She has to use this one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You both have nothing to fear (as I checked up on thngs). I was just being precaution on your behalves. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it's always safer to check beforehand. I dont think we'll ever edit the same articles, but if we do I'll inform the other editors that Tatiana kitty is my daughter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sha-zam. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter GoodDay! What did the Easter bunny bring you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter Jeanne! He brought me a chocolate bunny, which I shall endeaver to devour within the week. PS- The Pope had a little stumble at his Easter Sunday Mass (I've read). Too much whine? GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. He probably did have too much whine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall when I was a kid, my mother gave me a chocolate hen. I love the little candied roses on the hens, bunnies, etc. I used to eat the ears first of all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the way I ate the hens & bunnies. Wowsers & I was a hyperactive child, to boot. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Spill the whine, dig that pope....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose his nearing 82, didn't help any. At least he didn't do a headfirst dive into the chairs, Castro style. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee hee.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The fall of Castro. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't these guys supposed to catch the Pope when he stumbles?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A colorful gang, those guards. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All the newscoverage (yesterday) never mentioned or showed the incident, I was hoping for a laugh. YouTube, doesn't even have a video of it. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned it here either. He stumbled as he was about to sit down in his Golden papal chair to denounce the evils of materialism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

'Tis too bad, as I was hoping for a laugh. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's strange the Italian press didn't mention it. Anytime Karol so much as sneezed, it made the headlines here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the didn't want to distract from his Easter message (in the wake of the Italian earthquake). GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama said the USA will lighten restrictions against travel to Cuba. I wonder if the end result will be the disappearance of the wonderful 1950s cars which are so much a part of the Cuban scene?

I've never been able to figure out, how they've been able to keep those oldies in mint condition. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I read an article today (from the Guardian?) that mentioned that the cars are already disappearing in favour of something I've never heard of. In terms of keeping them going, I'm guessing the lack of any need for road salt helps. -Rrius (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cuba without her 1950s cars is like Britain without her red call boxes, or Italy without scooters.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

An unusual country, this Cuba. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When I was a young girl my best friend was Cuban; she and her family fled Havana in 1961, and ended up in Los Angeles, the farthest end of the world.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A Communist island among democracies. PS: Venzuela is a democracy?. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And Haiti is a democracy?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Eek. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cry God For Harry !, Montjoie! St. Denis!, I do believe the Hundred Years War has broken out again on the Talk:List of French monarchs--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully (for my sanity), I can now remain on the side-lines. I will watch the discussion though (as I wouldn't dare miss it). GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We asked for French help and that other editor is trying to drive the French editor away.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the swords have been drawn once again. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cry God For Harry! St.Denis! Tally Ho---Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you there, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am now. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This topic really needs to be fleshed out more. Too often, editors simply gloss over stereotypical disputes between them, but do not really show how gray the relations truly are, over so many centuries. I would really support any further examination of Louis and Henry in the other's home kingdom. I don't believe they need to be named according to numeric order, but the implications can still be noted. I would only note that John's rule was disputed by Louis and that Charles's rule was disputed by Henry, but they don't otherwise need to be put independently in each other's royal lists. Catterick (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think King John's rule was disputed seeing as he was the son of Henry II, thus the legitimate successor to the throne after Richard I (once he'd removed Arthur); the disgruntled barons themselves, tired of John's caprices, had invited Louis to invade England and become their sovereign in lieu of John. They had no such right, however, as Henry III was the legitimate successor to John. Louis had no claim to the throne whatsoever--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

John caused the intercession of Philip Augustus and the conspiring aristocracy, much like in the 17th century, invited a foreign prince to rule over them instead of their legitimate monarch. Catterick (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Invitation or no invitation, by right of primogeniture, Henry III was the rightful king of England following John.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Catterick has retired. I've peeked at his situation (including his colorful edit-summaries), it appeared he was heading towards being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Where? When? I was enjoying our discussions on whether or not King Louis VIII had the right to claim the English crown (He didn't!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

His troubles began at British Isles article. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh now why am I not surprised, especially as there's IP86 in the scenes?! That BI talk page is bad news IMO; it can really bring out the worst in people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

His troubles occured at Republic of Ireland article, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The return of IP.86. It's likely the same editor, from the previous IP.86's. When ya suggest that he/she should create an account, ya get refusal or silence. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I have followed your example by refusing to respond to them on my talk page. A mild form of protest at their refusal to take off their masks--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

Hi guys. Beg to disagree. No IPs seem to have had anything to do with Catterick's self-combustion. S/he just seemed to go off on one. Completely uncalled for and inexplicable. To be involved on those pages you should show some understanding, sensitivity and (above all) respect - all of which were missing from Catterick's posts. BTW, see you're semi-retired now. Think that'll last GoodDay? Daicaregos (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we ain't suggesting the IP dragged down Catterick. As for my semi-retirement? (I log-in for only 2hrs daily), it's been in place since the start of March. I've no choice, but to keep this status. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably a wise move. WP can become addictive. Best to have a balance, I reckon. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, however there's another reason for my semi-retirement. Let's just say sitting on a chair for too many conscecutive hours, caused medical discomfort. Check my archives of Feb/Mar, for a good chuckle. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I read as far down as 'Titch Tucker RIP' and I couldn't read any more. It didn't make me chuckle, GoodDay. It just made me sad. Although, I'm sure you didn't mean that. I'll check it out some other time, if that's OK? Daicaregos (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I wanted you to read about my hemmroid attacks. That's where the chuckle was. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I've been semi-retired too. Life distracted me. Nut I still dip in occasionally. Any interesting discussions happening?--Gazzster (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How to name the Irelands, is still being discussed & there's continued discussion on who does & doesn't belong on List of French monarchs & List of English monarchs articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well at least there are more editors participating on the French monarchs talk page, including a French editor!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. It appears Henry's status is still wobbly. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion remains the best deal so far; let's leave him as a King of France disputed with Charles VII, and only recognised in English-controlled territories, same as Margaret of Anjou is now listed as a disputed Queen consort of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As Henry Blake would say, "Golly, whatever you all decide, is fine with me". GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Anyroad, I think it's a fair compromise. As I told Henry V, disputed is the highest rank we can give to Henry VI where the French crown is concerned. There was never a French royal dynasty called The House of Lancaster.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite true, Henry had no Lancasterian predecessor or successor in France. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lancastrians claim to the English throne was derived from usurpation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It sure was. After Richard II, the Lionel line was next. Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March was the rightful heir. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and after Anne Mortimer died in 1411, her direct descendants. In point of fact, Elizabeth of York was the rightful sovereign of England after Richard III was killed at Bosworth, not her husband Henry VII. (Another usurper).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, had Elizabeth of York been Queen-regnant, Henry VIII would ascended the throne six-years earlier. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, think how many more wives he would have added to his tally had he embarked upon his matrimonial career 6 years earlier!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell Caterix Louis VIII is not a english king because in the treaty he was forced to confess that He was pretending to be a king of england for the two years he ruled ,therefore he is a pretender just like Edward III.Henry VI however never admitted any prior pretences as a claiment(pretender) to france in an international treaty and was a king de jure and a regnal soveriegn.Legitimacy is another case.Louis if he didnt widhraw from england and continued the fight then he would be a king of england as a USERPER like Henry IV and remained king even with no legitimacy or right to england.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, you can tell him. PS: I'm still having trouble reading your posts HENRY. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Mispelling with the name.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean no standing ovations?! Isn't an erection a standing ovation? Pardon my crude, explicit language. Oh, BTW, Catterick insulted both of us. He called us both Francophobes!!????!! Here: Talk:Louis VIII of France Obviously he has never read our User pages. Francophobic? Us? Just because we refuse to recognise Louis VIII as a legitimate king of England! Does he not realise that John was as ethnically French (if not more so) as Louis.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Catterick was a bit insulting to quite a few editors. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What point was he trying to make? I couldn't figure out what he was arguing over. Oh, have you seen who's back on BI? His initials are AVDL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles are gear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What's that mean? GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I dare you to add The Beatles are gear to BI talk. I haven't got a bomb shelter, otherwise I'd BE BOLD and add it myself. IP86 would probably break his keyboard with his furious typing in response!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I was watching an old Beatles clip on youtube, and some of the fans had placards which said The Beatles are gear. Gear is mid-1960s British slang for cool. I haven't heard it though in years which is why I had a good laugh after seeing it on YOutube.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Veeeery Interesting, that's one I've never heard of before. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It comes from the Mods, just like the word face which means a cool, slick leader of fashion. Did you ever see the 1979 film Quadrophenia? If not, I highly recommend it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, speaking of movies. On Psycho II, Mary Loomis must have been Lillie's adopted daughter or her father was oriental. Lillie Loomis was caucasion. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me of all the white guys who played Indians in Hollywood westerns. Couldn't they have used real Native Americans?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, those wigs weren't completely convincing. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither were their facial features. Eddie Little Sky was a Native American actor. He used to play on all those 1960s westerns like Virginian, Gunsmoke, High Chapparel, Rifleman, Bonanza, Rawhide, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And there was Dan George. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget Jay Silverheels. Today we have Russell Means and Lou Diamond Phillips.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokers, I forgot about my fellow Canadian (Silverheels). GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how Hollywood got away with using all the non-Indian actors up until fairly recent times. Why not just hire Indian actors?! Then again Susan Kohner was not exactly black, yet she played the part of a black girl passing as white in Imitation of Life!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing Hollywood was quite prejudice in those days, believing natives weren't capable actors. Also, many natives probably weren't impressed with Hollywood's interpration of them. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How many Hollywood directors came into contact with real Indians? Most Americans still believe in ridiculous and offensive stereotypes of Indians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think 1990's Dances with Wolves was a turning point in Hollywood (for how natives are viewed). Here's a funny one: In the forementioned movie, Costner is dismayed by the slaughter of bison (by the white man) for only its hide. In 1994's Wyatt Earp, Costner (as Earp) is killng the bison for their furs (note the dismayed natives in the backround). Spooky parallels. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there many Indians in Prince Edwards' Island?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, many of them live on Lennox Island. Common sur-names for PEI natives, are Sark, Bernard & Labobe. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe they're of the Micmac tribe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, they're. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember that episode of Twilight Zone where there were only 2 people left in the world?; well that's what Wikipedia feels like today: as if you and I are the only editors alive in this ghost town.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a fifth dimension.... GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DOO DOO DOO DOO.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. My 2-hrs of Wiki time is up, see ya tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh noooooooooooooo! See ya tomorrow, GoodDay. Doesn't time fly when you're having fun?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's get a good conversation going GoodDay, as I AM BORED TO TEARS. Where are all the fun editors? Is there a private party going on somewhere that I don't know about and was not invited to?! Just where does the in-crowd hang out around here, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

About the only place where there's constant activity, is the disciplinary pages. Wikipedia: Administrator's noticeboard, where 3RR reports, Civility reports etc are constant. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds more like a sea of circling sharks than a party!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but it sure can be entertaining. I see my Administrators Enforcement idea, didn't fan out at British Isles. Oh well, I tried. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromise is a foreign word over on that page. Now they're discussing John Dee. Oh well...whatever--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The pro-British Isles editors will come up with references & the anti-British Isles editors will come up with references. The stalemate continues. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The same sharks are circling the disciplinary page, just waiting to attack some tired, fed-up with IPs, hard-working editor who uses the f word. Tut tut tut.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Civilty clause tends to be a hot spot. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see it as an excuse for other editors to gang up on another. I have always, and still do, hate with a passion the herd mentality. People get off on kicking someone when they're down. You won't see me over there ganging up on some hard-working, creative editor who occasionally let rip at another editor who was more likely than not breaking his or her balls. There is also the hypocrisy factor at work over there. And that's another thing I despise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One has to pratice self-control. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

True.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another reason editors attack others is often due to their failure to fully read the comments and statements made; instead they leap upon key words in the paragraphs, take them out of context and use them as a launchboard from which to hurl insults. I don't know how many times I have had to tell other editors to read carefully what I have written down.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's alot of grumps, out there. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, is it just me or do you detect a covert hostility directed against us North Americans when we comment on British-related issues? It's as if our opinions are to be immediately discounted as soon as it's known that we are from the New World. I know there's a hell of a lot of anti-Americanism which is rampant amongst the editors here. Look at how many editors defended that guy Chris's blatant, and extremely aggressive anti-US sentiments on the disciplanary page! If I were an admin, I would have zero tolerance for attacks on anybody's nationality, ethnicity or politics/personal beliefs. I certainly would not defend someone like Chris with his hate-filled sentiments which he expressed on his user page. I have been insulted for being an American as well as an astrologer. Notice how nobody at BI talk replied when I pointed out that John Dee was an astrologer?! OH well, let them have their little pantomime over there. IMO, the discussions on BI talk have become tedious and predictable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I reckon, the British & Irish folk figure they have an inside understanding of the British Isles dispute. I once suggested that British & Irish editors be excluded from such discussions, as foreigners couldn't be accused of political bias. PS: Now that Bush has left office, I assume vandals give his article less attention. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot people miss having Dubya in the White House to knock. Who will they choose to pick on now?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chief Justice Roberts? I'm still amazed over how he could've messed up the delivering of the Prez oath of office to Obama. The ancient Justice Stevens had no trouble giving the more difficult oath of office to Biden. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was very strange. I remember Obama's expression as he was about to step out to take his oath; he looked like a condemned prisoner about to climb the scaffold.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still flabergasted by it. The first US President with Afro-American ancestry & Roberts messes it up. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly ruined an historic moment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the angels are allowed to use flanging as they eternally strum their harps in heaven? If so, it would make good background music when the news media talks about religious issues, eh? "It's all too beautiful..." --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The media is sooo biased (particularly CNN). They quickly make fun of interviewees who believe in aliens, yet are hospitalble with holy roller guests. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should that surprise you? Look how many times I've been sneered at here at Wikipedia by other editors for my professed belief in astrology? Ah, gone are the days when people (albeit in Los Angeles) would stop total strangers in the street just to ask them their zodiac sign? 1972, where are you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We atheist don't get much fair shake in the real world. Though, I must admit, I haven't been getting a rough time of it here (at Wikipedia). GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(Breaking my promise). Atheist? A godforsaken atheist? Isn't there a wiki rule barring people such as yourself from editing here? Holy Mary mother of God, the world is going to come to end if this is allowed. Armageddon I tell you. :) Jack forbes (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are devil-worshippers allowed here, BTW? They are allowed in the US military.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's to say they aren't already here editing? Personally, I always sit in front of my computer with my crucifix and holy water in case I come across the Sigil of Baphomet. You can never be too careful you know. Jack forbes (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as we know GoodDay could have a Sabbatic goat tattoed on his chest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll know if any of our fellow editors are followers of the left-hand path if they've got Enochian in their Babel box.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a tatoo of a running bear, but it ran off on me. I like that line in the TV series MASH, where the soldier tells Fr. Mulchahy he's an athiest, Mulchahy responds "really?" & the solider responds "Swear to God". GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is a to get a tattoo of a Sabbatic goat, it will really turn the women on when you strip off. Trust me. It'll be a bit like De Niro in Cape Fear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When I'm around, women strip off (or is that take off?). GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And what do you do remain dressed and just unzip at the crucial moment? What a drag. Just get the tattoo and you'll have hundreds of women gagging to do a Kim Bassinger for you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nay! I remember now. The women stripped, then turned to look at me & screamed "get away from that window". GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm telling ya get the tattoo. It's definitely gear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Eek, I'll pass. By the way, have you ever heard of the peeping Tom Inuit named 'Tommy Tukalook'? GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaaaaaat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, he's a cousin to 'Sammy Sawtoomuch'. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I still haven't found any video of Pope Benny 16, having a trip (before his foreign trip). GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Vatican are obviously trying to pretend it never happened. Call it a state of denial if you wish. However, it did happen because I SAW IT The Holy Father stumbled: Oopsadaisy. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'slippy' shoes of the fisherman. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if he had fallen, nothing would have happened to him, because The Pope ain't got no ass, that why he's the Pope.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He's a Holy Father, without the whole. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you still here, GoodDay? Today is my son Richard's 18th birthday, so I shall have to start getting ready for his party soon.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, happy birthday to Richard. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. His party was gear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. Why do you think the article will be deleted? BTW this is the first one I made.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the Double monarchy of Austria & Hungary, this Double monarchy is disputed. Also, it's covered under Hundred Years War. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to sound ignorant, but what article exactly are we talking about? (perhaps a link?) Thanks.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Double-Monarchy of England and France. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard it called that, and it never really happened anyway in any meaningful sense - it was just an episode in the English invasion of France. I suggest we propose this article for deletion. ðarkuncoll 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The fate of the article, is in your folks hands. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted but cut down so that it's not a duplicate of the Hundred Years War article. It should briefly state why there was a dual monarchy which began with the Treaty of Troyes and ended in 1453, with the expulsion of the English from all French territories save Calais.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello I think you saw my article and I dont think it should be deleted.You know the angevin empire was destroyed but we dont say it never actually existed and the same is with the double-monarchy.It is what historions state as I have gave sources in the article.It was formed under the Treaty of Troyes and Henry VI becme king of both kindoms.I am not pushing on any side on wether Henry or Charles VII was king of france but I had to start with Henry in order for the rticle to make sence.BTW this is my first article and I will later mention Charles VII and France during the time.I hope you still wont consider deleting the article.If you do no hard feelings but this is an important section as hundreds of Historions have written books about the inguaration of the french monarchy after Charles VI death to Henry VI.Looking forward to your rely.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay,because the dual-monarchy was disputed it still legaly existed and had a base in actual power.It is not an adequete reason to present an article for deltion because of a manner of Disputed kings and anyway that is what historions say.The dual-monarchy is not coverd in the the section of the hundred years war and in fact the term dual-monarchy used by historians is not even mentioned at all.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll let others decide the fate of the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning! Warning! Personal opinions: After reading the article, which btw was very well written, I do feel that it will stand up to a proposed deletion in it's current form. The material is already covered in the 100 years war. I do agree with Jeanne boleyn's proposition to cut it down. Wikipedia and it's editors are very quirky and have very specific guidelines on what it and they consider valid articles.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted but it does need a lot of work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

I've never read the entire article, but so far it has survived its first day. Congrats to HENRY on his creation. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that congratulations are indeed in order. It's an ambitious first article. My own first article was little more than a stub. Again, congratulations Henry!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay! What's the good word?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the Moderators next move at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it was just a waste of our time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wake up, GD, it seems that the party has re-started on talk:BI, now that our droll Master of Ceremonies has returned to liven things up a wee bit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I could be the making of a new movie The War of the Words. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I know where the in-crowd hang out. On Jimbo Wales' talk page, and Giano's.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, Jimbo and Giano don't exactly see eye-to-eye. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really, and why not?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Things have cooled down since then. I think it was something to do with someones RfA (not certain though). GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been great entertainment at times. I think jimbo blocked Giano not so long ago which doesn't help. Jack forbes (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Giano, tends to create fireworks between his supporters & opposers. I've no problems with him. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Giano once helped me out with an image I uploaded to an article. I found him pleasant and highly informative.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he's knowledgeable. His weakness or strengh (depending on PoV), is his short temper. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I find he talks a lot of sense most of the time, though there does seem to be a lot of melodrama surrounding him. PS, I decided to retire from the Macedonia dispute. Believe me, the BI and Irish disputes are a cakewalk in comparison. Jack forbes (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another hot wiki spot, is the naming of Burma, or is it Myanmar. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

These national disputes can lead to lots of acrimony as I once found to my cost. When you find yourself involved in one where you have no strong opinion and it gets out of hand it's better to avoid it, as I have now decided to do. Jack forbes (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

One editor (I forget who) suggested in-directly that I was facshist in my thinking. We patched things up since. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguments and disagreements are always best forgotten about. Jack forbes (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the way to sail ones boat on the ocean of Wikia. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right, man, just mellow out and go with the flow. Why get worked up over a name, word, or sentence? Just now they're fighting at Talk:BI over the word some. I tell you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be off to Ireland next weekend to do a pub to pub survey on the matter. The things I do for wikipedia! Where's my Barnstar? Jack forbes (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Irish pubs, how I do miss them. I also like English pubs. When I lived in Lewes, I practically made the local pub my first home. Spent more time there than in my rented bedsit. Can you blame me?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(Response to both Jack & Jeanne) I still believe the BI article should fall under the Troubles Arb Enhancement. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wouldn't ya know it. No sooner do I add an A to Tom Poti, Captain Chris Clark returns to the Caps lineup."

I thought of this earlier today, but for rather obvious reasons last night I wasn't paying attention to which players were wearing the "A" because I was more interested in screaming my brains out. 1995hoo (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Next stop, the burgh. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the Republicans, it is no longer in their hands. How long the Minnesota Supreme Court takes to rule is out of his control, as is the question of whether any federal court would stay the issuance of a certificate of election (I think a stay is highly unlikely). I kinda think the six-month delay was the best they could do. I do hope Coleman keeps trying just because it is so fun to watch. -Rrius (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture it, Franken & Coleman fighting to sit in the same Senate chair. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me of story U.S. Rep. Patricia Schroeder told when she visited my university a couple of years after she retired. She and a black man had joined a committee on entering Congress, and the old-fashioned, Southern chairman did not appreciate their presence on his committee, so he made them share a seat in the committee room. I've often wondered what the chairman thought when he saw the two of them, a black man and white woman, sitting together cheek-to-cheek, as it were, on that chair.

One wonders what that committee chairman would think, about President Obama. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the note on my talk page about posting in one place doesn't apply to you because I figure our past practice trumps it. -Rrius (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm reduced to 2hrs daily on Wikipedia, I tend to keep all the conversations in one spot (my page). I'm embarrased to admit, I've never noticed your note. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey GoodDay, could you please take a look at the lead I wrote for Henry V's article The Dual-Monarchy of England and France. It's really just a rough sketch as the lead still needs more expansion. I wrote it because the article was tagged as having no lead, and I was afraid it would be deleted as a result.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It might have to be divided into 2 or 3 paragraphs, but overall it look cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I have now divided it into two paragraphs. Now, it's Henry's move.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a good artcle; just needs a lot of work and sources.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this you GoodDay? I never thought you would be so old fashioned! Jack forbes (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice dress, GD! -Rrius (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And, Jeanne, that's just wrong. -Rrius (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And on so many levels! Jack forbes (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

.

I've been followed by a moon shadow......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the farmer is how I'll look in 20yrs. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with him? He reminds me of Buddy Ebsen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I resemble Ebsen (as J.D. Clampett), even more. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Back row second from right? :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to get into a blood feud with your family GoodDay. Jack forbes (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, middle row, seated, second from left.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Impressive beard. Jack forbes (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Only in the winter months. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the guy in the back row, third from the right looks like Keith Richards in the mid-1960s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

He certainly has the ears. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And the stance, along with the anti-conformist attitude. Can't you see this guy at Altamont, cigarette dangling from his mouth?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if those are all his groupies surrounding him?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Some groupies. Have you had a close look at the women? They don't look like the kind of groupies you would want to mess about with. Jack forbes (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Even the little girls look formidable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

When I look at the shotgun-wielding men in this photo, I am reminded of Bunny from Platoon.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are those people? The Hatfields or the McCoys? GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's the Hatfields. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed that little boy holding the pistol? I really don't think it's a toy one either. I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to have been the photographer! Would you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not If I were a McCoy. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A pity there isn't a photo of the McCoys as well. Anyroad, this one is quite good considering its age.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's possible there was a McCoy family photo. But, perhaps the Hatfields shot it up. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee hee. I wonder if there are any Hatfield or McCoy descendants editing t Wikipedia?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite possible. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Us McCoy's don't take kindly to that kinda talk. Them Hatfields couldn't hit a barn door at twenty paces, ya hear. Jack forbes (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A drunken Colonel Sherma Potter (of M*A*S*H) claimed he couldn't hit the side of a bullet with a barn. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What are y'all sayin bout us here Hatfields?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

GD, I wonder how the Hatfields would have handled edit-warring had Wikipedia existed back then?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A reckon they'd bring new meaning to being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered something interesting. My brother's old girlfriend was from West Virginia, and I recall her telling me that she was a direct descendant of the Hatfields! She wasn't anything like the women in the photo; in fact, she was very nice and pretty. Anyroad, seeing as today's a holiday here, I'm off to picnic up on Mount Etna. I sure hope I don't encounter any Hatfields or McCoys in the woods!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Have no fear, they've made up decades ago. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)