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.

Have you seen what Henry has done to the lead on his article? It's not even coherent. I have asked him, Frania has asked him to revert to the version I wrote (for his benefit mind you, and to save the article), because it cannot remain the way it is at the moment. Take a look at it; it doesn't make sense.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given HENRY some advice, concerning Wikipedia:OWN. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But will he heed it? That is the question.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In the long run, he'll have no choice, as more editors get involved. It's no longer his baby. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But have you seen the lead now? The article is linked from related articles; it cannot remain in its present incoherent, rambling condition.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be reverted to your version. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just tried to revert it but it couldn't be undone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted it. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No his version is still there. You'll have to go back to my edit on 30 April at 15.27. That's the version I sent up before he added to it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There, now it's on to the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay. I hope he doesn't revert it again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No prob. See ya'll tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bye bye, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've returned. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

He did revert & Frania took care of it. Bon weekend! Frania W. (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY will catch on. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

He will when other editors come onto the scene.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In honesty, I'm still not totally sold on that article. IMHO, Austria/Hungary, Sweden/Norway & England/Denmark were more authentic Dual Monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any references that calls it a dual Monarchy? Jack forbes (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain. I know that Dual monarchy is another name for Personal union. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just did a quick google book search and came up with this in which it's referred to "as the so called Dual Monarchy". Jack forbes (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I reckon, I can't dispute the evidence. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The article itself is a good idea, and I fully support its inclusion; however, Henry has really got to eliminate mostly everything before 1415, and get to work on the main body of the article. The lead describes the dual monarchy as having occurred during the latter phase of the Hundred Years War, hence the article needs to begin during the latter phase, namely after 1415. I advised him to leave the lead as it is now, and concentrate on the period during the dual monarchy, such as the Regency, Joan of Arc's challenges, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Frania has prepared a good statement for the background section. Everything else needs to be eliminated until Henry V invaded France in 1415. I wish Henry would get to work on writing the main body of the article so we can start help getting it into shape. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing there's a little bit of a language barrier. It's possible he's having trouble fully understanding what's being requested at the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

But the article cannot remain the way it is now. I cannot edit the main article because he's got all of the references, and I have practically none.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've no references or sources. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, GoodDay, if there is anything you find contentious about the article what would it be? It's always possible any one of us could find sources that could back his up or repudiate them. PS, Royalty of any sort is not my strong point but I'd be willing to help out if needed. Jack forbes (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can acquire sources, you've the advantage. I'm too lazy to do research (remember, IMO Charles VI was succeeded by Charles VII 'only'). GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I finished the sub-category on the English regency and I cut back and removed references.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Background section is still way too long. There is already a reference at the top of the section to the Hundred Years War. You should employ Frania's more concise version. The other sections are looking much better, however you need to clarify events in the Regency section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, GoodDay et les autres: What you call "Frania's more concise version" is not mine, it is HENRY's Background first sentence which Jeanne, then Ehrenkater edited on 25 April. My modest participation in this has been to suggest that only that first edited sentence be kept. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As you commented before or are otherwise involved, please take a look at Template talk:Infobox Election#Popular vote winner in bold?, [1].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Electoral winner only, should be in bold. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Look GD, you want to please everybody, as always. You know me from elsewhere, e.g. English people. Are you going to freak out that the alter ego of Robin Hood no longer goes by this name? TharkunColl still uses that name for me, I'm sure. I don't mince words and that's why I'm unpopular, to be forever blocked and banned, whilst those who infuriate me continue to get their way, playing the numbers game to win everything their hearts desire. In a world such as Wikipedia, where the faint of heart, such as yourself, pacify obvious propagandists, by slamming down policy against those who would stop them, there can be no real future. Everything is less than mediocre, except that which is trans-wikied from Commons or Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Wikitravel or elsewhere. You know, I could like you more, if you didn't let people bully you so much, as to bully other people, like a conduit. That's what happened back at English people. It's pretty disgusting when you could make the excuse that you "only mean well". Think about it from the other side. I really don't want to get into fights with you, so I'm glad you didn't go for the jugular this time, as you used to, whenever there was some dispute, in which you simply went after me, rather than tried to truly arbitrate. Do you know the difference?

Incidentally, I wish to avoid those conflicts now and won't try to fight for what's right. The Anglo-French subject matter is much more interesting and enlightening. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Catterick. That's alot of words for me to digest. How's about triming it down & simplifying. PS: I don't recall our previous meetings. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might recall Lord Loxley. Sniffing out sockpuppetry here is in a latent and abominable state. My summary, is that I am always forthright in my opinions and I don't really believe anybody should be stifled for expressing them, but I do insist on people declaring what they are about, for the cause of transparency among all parties, which others do not do, or if they do like true believers along the lines of the Ayatollah, are rewarded by ignoring their "crimes". Consider the difference in the way you have tried to destroy Lord Loxley in the cause of "being nice" and "mediating", making it seem as though he/I was the only extremist in the room. You can clearly see for yourself, how ridiculous that is, with monsters such as Sarah and the rest of her Irish terrorist mafia clique never being taken to task for their maneouverings against Wikipedia. I am an academic with a foul temper, but I am certainly nothing more. This is not to be said of those others I mentioned, as well as the nameless left unsaid. I ask questions from the Ref Desk often enough and have expressed sincere curiosity with all sorts of subjects, but when I come across people whose edit histories are 20 reverts in a row across so many different articles, I lack faith in the infrastructure of Wikipedia. I have never done that to anybody who hasn't singled me out first, or made me one of their random victims to swat like a fly with their wiki-lawyering. I also came to say that while you and I had a rough past, I am in no way wishing that for any future association... Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lord Loxley? Wow, that's quite some time ago. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How "matter-of-fact". You know, real conversations don't go like this. How do you be honest with people, if you're always turning discussions, from your participation, into something Dudley Do-Right would say? Yeah, so? TharkunColl has found that "needle in a haystack" called "Lord Loxley", numerous times. I hardly suspect you are as stupid and "unassuming" as you intend to portray yourself. You may claim to be disinterested, but always have an angle which you consider "neutral" and "reasonable". Are you some kind of social worker? Back to my criticism of you, because I must admit that even if I have not consistently edited in articles that you have participated in, I tend to keep up with what's going on. To be honest, I am more pro-TharkunColl now than I was pro-GoodDay before, when you claimed to arbitrate for me. Maybe you should see that as a mirror for yourself. I read your profile a few times and am bothered by what appear to be Jacobin sympathies in matters of church and state, as well as anything to do with them. You should stick to hockey, instead of playing the Alun game, albeit more subtle. So you don't like what I have to say about you? I endured lots of BS in both words and actions against me before, no matter how hypocritical they were coming from many people involved. You and Jeanne felt like commenting on me when I was blocked. I read your statements about pop culture and fantasy themes, going on about Obama and the lot, but it's a load of shit to me. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you're complaining about, but I'm sensing growing hostility within your posts. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Goodday, uh, are you still here?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've returned (for a half-hour or so). What's up? GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you've gone now?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've returned (for about 2hrs). What's up? GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I reckon you've just missed Jeanne again by a couple of minutes. Jack forbes (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokers. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I could always write out a timetable of log in and out times to enable the both of you to have a conversation now and again. :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's quite alright. Sooner or later we'll cross paths, again. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, GoodDay. I was only joking though. Jack forbes (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, ha ha. What I can't desipher, is Catterick's above postings. I'm not sure if he's angry with me or not. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's letting out his frustrations and sending them to the wrong targets. He also made some comments on Jeannes's talk page which were vociferous to say the least. As I said to him, I think someone has rattled his cage at some time. Jack forbes (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure of what he's angry about. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll get over it whatever it was. If I was getting upset over everything I deemed to be nationalist, unionist or religious POV editing on mainspace I would perhaps do the same, but I no longer get that upset, a little frustrated perhaps, but not upset. As I said, if he feels that strongly about it he should aim his anger at the right targets. Jack forbes (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In agreement. We must all be relaxed, the way Barney Rubble was, after he got too much gas at the dentists office. Well, maybe that was too relaxed. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I was just about to add a bit of banter to your talk page when my son commandeered the computer. BTW, have you really got Jacobin sympathies?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Forbes, I have already been attacked for complaining about the matter to and by Republican activists. So have many others. Perhaps you don't let it get to you, because of the so-called "Gaelic confederacy" they often try to use against English. You are so easily hoodwinked into backstabbing this way.

Jeanne, GoodDay is an avowed anti-theist and anti-monarchist. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know he is which is why he always fails to bow in my presence. He prefers instead to whistle Hail to the Chief"Ho!i-e-roe!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm catching on. Catterick dislikes me for being a republican & an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to believe in whatever he or she chooses (or not believe, as the case may be). For instance, I know that you would not object were I to sing Jesus, sweet music in my heart to you over and over.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you held me in your arms, while singing it? I wouldn't object at all (ha ha). GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you by any chance, a priest in your alter-ego?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not a chance. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I used to complain all the time about the announcers on HNIC, that was until I was subjected to the announcers on all of the sports channels in the US. When it come to Hockey Announcers, even Cherry, HNIC is far more objective, and accurate than almost anything on the air in the us. (Not included is Mickey Redmond and his crew! but then a again they used to be on HNIC!)--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What scares me, is the NHL will eventually expand further, into more American cities like Phoenix & Nashville. When will it end? GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all about $--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We shall never see the NHL contract its franchise, again. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, check out my talk page and see if you can identify the Hatfield descendant. I located the photo today and scanned it onto my computer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't do it. But wowsers, that's a sexy picture of a woman in black. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Los Bravos whoa whoa, what can I do?...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had a good idea-or atleast I thought so at the time, but as you can see it's already created controversy. I had thought a page that listed famous Celts complete with an image collage would be interesting but now there's quarrelling as to who are the true Celts?. I'd better stick with creating articles on 13th-century French heiresses. Sigh.......What can I do? I-I-I-I'm feeling blue--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought all British Scots were celtic. GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So did I. It seems like any ideas related to Britain or Ireland have to run through a formidible gauntlet of suspicion, hostility, agenda-pushing accusations, nationalism, chauvinism, past historical grievances. How can we build an encyclopedia when one has to combat against such obstacles?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How? Slowly & with bumps along the way. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but anything to do with Britain or ireland is like walking through a minefield.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Always has been & always will be. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Who on earth is Catherine de Burgh? Or as appears to be the case, who was Catherine de Burgh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have just read her autobiography! I almost died laughing. I hope the article doesn't get deleted as it's hilarious, especially the photos.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You there, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've returned. The Userpage Cate de Burgh is Giano's joke Userpage. It won't get deleted as long Giano doesn't use it improperly. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so Cate de Burgh is Giano's alter-ego. Now I understand. Wow, he's a pretty good writer, if you ask me. What a wit. I like Giano; IMO, Wikipedia needs more colourful editors like him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Administrator Bishonen also has a joke Userpage. It's called Bishzilla (note: it's only in 'discussion form' now). GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never encountered Bishonen. Who is he or she?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

She & Giano know each other quite well. They're buddies, IMO. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So Bishonen is a she. There aren't too many females here. Wikipedia is one of the staunchest bastians of male domination along with the construction business, the Italian media, and the porn industry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to say. There may be male editors posing as female & vise versa. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can assure you I am the real McCoy-pun is intended (I'm one of those low-class persons who takes much pleasure in her own puns and jokes)!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your 'self-portraits' proove beyond a doubt, you're female. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad you accept them as bona-fide. I have absolutely no intention of uploading nude pictures of myself to prove my gender. Oh, have you got your bomb shelter in good, working order? I fear we'll both need it soon as I have replied to you on Talk:BI. Uh-oh...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The arguments being held on that talkpage, need to be given a dose of humour, from time to time. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, you bring out the zany side of my humour. You should product your humour as an anti-depressant. I am always cheered by your presence here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's easy to be cheerful on an article such as BI, when one has no strong political views either way. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You were right to jump in and lighten up the atmosphere over there. It was starting to get heavy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It sure was getting heated. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when people start making threats.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying to be sure. But, such threats are empty, as typed words can't cause physical harm. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they're nasty nevertheless. Go read what I wrote about violent people at the top of my talk page. It sums up my feelings for bullies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. PS: I'll be back in about an hour. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta go out myself. I hate to leave the party now, as it's so rare to have the run of the computer in the afternoon. Bye bye for now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, I'm back. See ya, the next time I see ya. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just got back myself. Took a wee stroll past the village square teeming with people enjoying the balmy spring evening.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Peaceful & tranquil? GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hardly, teenagers were racing around on their scooters, women were shouting at their kids, the priest was yelling his mass which could be clearly heard through the open doors of the church.... Get my drift?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A day in the life. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Of a typical Sicilian village....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

At least there's spagehtti (yum yum). GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey 'mano, I'd prefer a taco anyday.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yum yum, again. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And there are nachos, enchiladas, chili, guacamole, need I continue, ese?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hot stuff, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Si, muy caliente!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What's that in English? GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Very hot!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And When You're Hot, You're Hot!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Be he he heee haaa. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember Reed, from the Smokey & the Bandit movies. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are you then GD, Homer Jones or Big John Talley?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are those fellas? GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The guys Jerry was having a craps game with in the back of the alley when he was busted by a big cop, who then said, Hey son, When You're Hot You're Hot--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My fav character was Sheriff Buford T. Justice. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at Reed over on YouTube. Hee hee hee.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised when I discovered he was a musician. His appearance on Bandit, was the first time I saw the guy. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me a bit of Ray Stevens.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good ole Ray. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nekked as a jay bird.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

He he he. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't have nothin on but a SMILE. But it was too late she'd already been MOONED, flashed her right in front of the shoppin centre.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That you Ethel? You put your cloth one. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor Ethel. Most women would prefer a man telling them to take their clothes OFF!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you're talkin'. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I left a message on Lady Catherine de Burgh's talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a brave gal. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is bravery required? Is she that formidable then?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

She (or rather her Puppet-master) can be grumpy, at times. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay,do you think the article is doing well so far.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Henry VI was never King of France. PoV aside, it's doing well. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Henry. Keep up the good work.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If anybody has seen this movie? Please let me know what it was like. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I was never a Star Trek fan. I preferred Lost in Space.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are closet-trekkies out there. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember Time Tunnel? I loved that programme.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I've seen that one. PS: See ya tomorrow, my Wiki-time is up. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok see ya.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Time Tunnel was aired in the mid-1960s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, it sorta sound familiar. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was really good. TV programmes now are boring.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the truth. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, thank you for your hard work and expertise in the Ice Hockey World Championships article. Andreyx109 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, haven't you ever wondered why we do not worship Dismas or Gestas instead of Jesus? Hmm, I guess Jesus had the best spin doctor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I worship neither. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither meaning Dismas or Gestas?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither Dismas, Gestas or Jesus. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucifer?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles VII?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm a republican (aswell as an athiest). GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you like your barnstar? A pity there isn't one for republican athiests! LOL!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel so Barn-starish. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've signed off. I'm in the mood to party as well, what a pity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've returned. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay I forgot you need consenus.Jeanne anyway explained that historions give him the title of Henry VI of England since he was Henri II of France for a short time.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The plantagement claim has to refer to the treaty.Not moot in its vague meaning.Charles should be changed also to Charles VII and Henrys corination should be mentioned in the note.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S I thought you are supposed to mention the consenus after you made the edit or am I wrong.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to get a consensus on the talkpages for your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks but who am I supposed to get the agreement from if nobody answers. P.S I am just bieng specific on the "Plantegament Claim" to mean the Treaty of Troyes.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If I ever get my hands on that blasted treaty? I'll burn it. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like your barnstar. I wonder why nobody gave you one for good humour before. Dismas knows you deserve it. You always do manage to bring a mote of sunshine into the eye of thunderstorms!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The first time I made jokes on the Ireland naming disputes, it was no laughing matter. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, that was because I had not yet arrived on the scene. It's not our fault we aren't total drags who cannot see the amusing and ironic side of life.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall always carry my sword & shield, wearing my Groucho nose, mustache & glasses. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lasseir les alers!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Good Day, have you read the bio of King Henry V's maternal grandmother Joan Fitzalan? Doesn't she sound like your typical, sweet loving granny? Come on Harry, let's go pay a visit to granny Joan today, the poor dear is lonely for company and the rotting head of John Holland atop her castle will just not suffice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she makes Hetty Green seem like an angel. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Come to your grandmother, my pretties. Give her a loving kiss. Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!! Harry, where are you going, you forgot to kiss your granny?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

One could easily loose one's head, at her place. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You there, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've returned. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That goooooood, except now like I gotta go, man. Business to take care of y'know?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, like scoobadeedoo wha ha. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm baaaaaaaack!!!!!!Now the fun can restart! Lasseir les alers!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid HENRY is trying to drive me nuts, again. See List of French monarchs, House of Plantagenet & House of Lancaster. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look. Oh Dismas Christus!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne & GoodDay, please check the *threat* I put on his talk page... Frania W. (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay,I forgot you have a phobia from the Treaty of Troyes lol (just joking).P.S,. I was merly expanding the de facto interption on the article of Plantagement and I have to mention the Treaty of Troyes in the French monarchs because it has to mention Henrys inheritence or else he could be condemned as a Usurper.I also never toutched the House of Lancaster article and I mentioned my arguements on the talkpages,But as you said I need to reach a consenus(Agreement).--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above. If I ever get my hands on that Treaty? I'll burn it. GD

However,I wouldnt do it in front of the Queen of the United Kingdom .I personally hate the Treaty of Paris in 1259. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to remember one thing Henry: the English Plantagenet kings were of French ancestry, and most of the Queen consorts were French. Until the reign of Edward III, French was spoken at the English court; and the nobles and aristocracy were French as well. Even the Tudors and Stuarts were mainly French in ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, oui. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Of Course I agree with your 100% correct statement Jeanne.Edward III in his article on the section of his ancestry,he is 50 French.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Join the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We keep welcoming you, but you apparently continue to turn us down. Create an account & sign in, what are you so afraid of? GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this one. It dates from 1485. "Jockey of Norfolk, be not too bold, for Dickon thy master is bought and sold".

Nicky Two was given the shoe (deposed), latter on, his family was gone (executed). GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Epitaph on Spike Milligans gravestone. "I told you I was ill". Jack forbes (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's claimed that DeForest Kelley's tombstone epitah is "He's dead, Jim". GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw the new Star Treck movie last weekend. Kept expecting Spock/Sylar to slice somebody's head open. Jack forbes (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, the previews I've seen, Spock seemd quite emotional. PS: Who did Uruhah do the horizontal with? GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't quite get my head round it. Uruhah and Spock were at it almost from the off. Jack forbes (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It must of been his human-half acting up. His Vulcan-half only gets in the mood every 7-Earth years. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, quite a build up. Why do I keep thinking of this? Anyway, the movie was alright though nothing to write home about. Jack forbes (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the USS Enterprise, didn't look exactly as it did during the 1966-69 series. I reckon using the old 60's props, would've killed the movie, instantly. I'm looking forward to the movie, though Nero (at least in the previews) looked like a rip-off of Shinzon (ST: Nemesis). GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The new guy who plays Bones is probably most like the original character. He got it down to a tee with the way he talks and his raised eyebrow. The least familiar was Scotty. He doesn't look or sound like the original. I can see them making a few sequels if it makes enough dough at the box office. Jack forbes (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't wait to find out. Does Kirk directly succeed Pike as the Enterprise's commanding officer? GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all rather complicated GoodDay. It doesn't accurately follow the original beginnings of Kirk's captaincy due to history being changed by.... No, I'll leave it there as any more information will ruin the film for you. Jack forbes (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I peeked (couldn't resist) at the article Star Trek (film). Jumpers, Pike got directly promoted to Admiral (I assume Rear Admiral), instead to the TV series' Fleet Captain. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Stay out of this, Elias. This ain't your show--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GD: I know you have a very tough time digesting "big words", but that's what an encyclopedia is...for those involved in the British disputes, who prefer simplicity and irrationality, here is a re-education for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles&diff=291114172&oldid=291113743

Now, why am I only censored on the talk page by Irish people? I can understand being reverted on the article (by those on all sides of the debate), but only my more "dire enemies", as they've declared themselves, have been so persistent in avoiding what I have to say about what is going on over there. I never do this to other people, unless of course, they do it to me first, in which case, I am the one blocked or banned. The talk page is riddled with ad gentum allegations by the Irish, but steps taken to erase such provocations, have not been taken, except, of course, by those who've been slighted and accused by Irish fanatics on the talk, who arbitrarily impose their will, as if they were admins and owned the debate or how it's framed, always claiming innocence and that nobody can, would, or should stand in their way of triumphalism. MusicInTheHouse, Bastun, etc. Where do they get off? Everybody knows and does nothing, or if they do, in response to victimisation, expose it for what it is, they are censored for merely stating it. I see lots of allegations, but I myself don't remove them on the talk page, even if other victims do. I'd rather refute them and declare my transparency, openly "coughing up" my own stance, taking neither side. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that article was dull. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And nobody could ever say the talk page was dull!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunlavin, the Angry

When people resort to swearing it's a sign they are losing the argument. I admire your calm, cool attitude--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm beginning to get the impression, that he doesn't like me. It's sorta a sci-fi mirror effect. Note our initials are GD & DG. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I know he'll like me even less after my last comment. I don't care, as I am fed up with his swearing, as well as his abusive remarks and bullying tactics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Administrators will block him, if he gets too abusive. By the way, what's a 'gob-shite'? GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

An Irish expression for asshole or idiot-not a nice word, anyroad.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah gob-shite one of my favorite swear words didn't realise it wasn't that common, have to start using it more ;) BigDunc^Talk 17:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's only effective if spoken with a proper Dub accent! Dublin 4, Cork, Westmeath or Offaly accents just will not do.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Giano has just retired. (Ctrl-click)">[2]. Jack forbes (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Typical. Another creative, hard-working editor driven to leave Wikipedia. Have you noticed guys, that nearly all the editors who get repeatedly blocked for incivility are those with the highest edit counts? This is really a shame. I hope Giano reconsiders and comes back.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a loss. That statement is not entirely encompassing, for those with very high edit counts can be the types that go around bullying by reverting everything they see, then blaming their victims, in a victory shout by those involved, patting themselves on the back for all the "vandals" they've destroyed. Come on people, don't make it a mission to go from page to page to page, attacking random edits all the time. Actually take the time to educate yourself and put a concerted effort into those articles which stand to benefit most by your scholasticism! Don't provoke people and then label them vandals, throwing policies to defend your manhandling, or make the work environment so devastating, disruptive and distracting. GD, Jack and Jeanne, the complaint was not directed at you. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I still can't get over the fact that so many editors jumped at the opportunity to get Giano blocked. Even the admin on the receiving end of his words didn't want him blocked and said he/she wasn't bothered by his words. If your not concerned with what someone says on your own talk page why should anyone else be. Jeanne, it appears he has now gone to the Italian wikipedia, so you may bump into him there. Jack forbes (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've an account at Italian wiki but I never edit there. IMO, there are three golden rules for survival at Wikipedia:

• Go with the flow. If you don't go with the flow, you get the s.it kicked out of you
• Keep cool Crazy boy/girl, keep it cool. I admire GoodDay's ability to remain unruffled under intense provocation like yesterday on talk:BI (where else?)
• Occasionally one has to eat Humble Pie. It's not that bad of an ordeal, especially when it comes packaged in the form of Steve Marriott.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's an advantage to have a temperate nature, which is still a work in progress for me. Looks like it's done and dusted over at the Admin noticeboard where I have given my (Ctrl-click)">opinions on the matter. Just a shame it had to end that way. Jack forbes (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Last year I was rude to an editor; I apologised, he accepted, and as far as we were both concerned, it was over and done with. Alas, there are some trolls who refuse to let sleeping dogs lie. IMO, an editor's comments should not be resurrected weeks, months (or indeed, years) later, as a platform from which to launch an attack on that editor's POV, which is what happened to Sarah recently, remember? Civility is a tricky issue. To me hurling a few well-chosen profane Anglo-Saxon-derived words is not an excuse to block a prolific editor such as Giano, not to mentions others such as Big Dunc, another hard-working, helpful editor who was blocked a few months ago. A simple, calm reprimand would have sufficed. The time that Giano has freely given editing his many articles here, how will he get it back? Time is our most precious-and fragile commodity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a funny old world. Here's me with nary an article to my name bumbling along whilst one of our best article writers is blocked for using a few choice words. It's a shame he couldn't take all the articles he created with him and left all those who wanted him blocked (and some who wanted him off the project) to write them from scratch. If you ever want to tell me to f*** off Jeanne I'll take it on the chin and smile (I have come to realise it's the best thing to do), just be careful there are no over zealous admins with itchy trigger fingers. Jack forbes (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that Giano's retirement, won't be permanent. He's retired over being blocked, on (at least) 2 occasions before. IMHO, his block should've at least been reduced, due to the fact that the injured party has declared himself uninjured & called for Giano's unblocking. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember what I said about the admin noticeboard being like a sea full of avid, hungry, circling sharks? My opinion has certainly not changed on that score.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The ball is in Giano's court. The way I see it, he's gonna have to request an unblock & give his reasons (which I don't see happening). Administration & Giano have been at logger-heads for quite sometime. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's always the editors with lengthy edit counts who get blocked. It's very unfair. At least Admin Moni3 has tried to mitigate his block.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In Giano's case, his short temper isn't helping him. There's quite a few editors (including Administrators) out there, who seem to view the G-man as either a Mega-Diva/Drama-King or somebody who feels he's above Wikipedia Civilty rules. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, have you read my three golden rules above? Yesterday you handled Dunlavin with remarkable tact and coolness. And he replied to me in a civil manner, probably due to your having defused the situation. Had you replied in a rude manner, I would have got caught in the crossfire of his diatribe against you, and so on. It's like a chain reaction; someone has to throw water on the flames before they consume everyone on the talk page--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Yep, that's the way to do it. 'Cause, throwing fire on fire only gets ya fire. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And wind only spreads it. A cool dose of water is the best remedy for putting out a fire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more than one page! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To the question on where to find the original of the Treaty of Troyes, this is the answer I recd from the CALAMES search group: Bonjour, En effectuant sur le catalogue Calames la recherche suivante: "Traité de Troyes", on obtient parmi les résultats l'intitulé suivant: "Traicté de Troyes, du mariage de madame Catherine de France, fille du roy Charles VI, et Henry d'Angleterre. 1420". Il s'agit de cet original, que vous trouverez à la bibliothèque de l'Institut de France. Pour connaître les modalités de consultation, vous pouvez prendre contact avec: Institut de France. Bibliothèque 23 quai de Conti 75006 Paris tél. 01 44 41 44 10 bibliotheque@bif.univ-paris5.fr Cordialement, la cellule assistance. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just my luck, I can't read French (the language that is, not the word 'French' itself). GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can read it for you, I just can't understand it. Jack forbes (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The treaty (or a copy of it), is being held somewheres in a French Institution. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you just take a crash course in French GoodDay or was it the the French word Institut that gave it away? :) Jack forbes (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there's some words that are basically the same in English, minus the diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I translate it as: Hello, Using the catalog Calames the following search: "Treaty of Troyes", we obtained the following results: "Treaty of Troyes, the marriage of Catherine of France, daughter of King Charles VI, and Henry of England. 1420". The original, you will find at the library of the Institut de France. For terms of use, please contact: Institut de France. Bibliothèque 23 quai de Conti 75006 Paris tél. 01 44 41 44 10 bibliotheque@bif.univ-paris5.fr. Sincerely, the cell support --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. Jumpers, I think I'll pass on trying to get there. Leaving PEI isn't something I wish to do. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay: words that are basically the same in English, minus the diacritics are French words the English stole from us... so to get even with you, the Anglos, we stole from you *hamburger*, *weekend*, *biftek* !!! *football* & a hundred more, at least. The French language spoken today by young & not so young people is known as *franglais* = *Frenglish*, language you will not hear at the Institut de France. Cordialement! Frania W. (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Frania, I find it annoying that there is to be some kind of nationalistic vis a vis, between the English and French. My favourite places, geographically and politically, are the Channel Islands. Franglais or Normand work just fine for me! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Catterick: There has been a 'nationalistic vis a vis' between all countries of Europe 'vis-à-vis' one another ever since Europeans came out of their caves... I personally have nothing against the 'Anglos' who love to visit France as much as the 'Frenchies' love to visit England - and I am writing 'England' on purpose. Speaking only for myself, which may sound narcissistic, why did I learn English? Because of my love of the sound of the language, for the history of England, for Shakespeare, for William Wordsworth's Daffodils, for the Ancient Mariner. The history between England & France is nothing but the saga of one family, and the burning of Jeanne d'Arc at the stake was as much the mean work of some Frenchmen than that of the English. As for the Channel Islands, they are little paradises, not to say... havens. *Cordialementally*, Frania W. (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read, that English is the toughest language to learn. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. Try German for relaxation... Frania W. (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I never completed my French, but I can translate anything in French, basically, even if only for my own understanding. After I took some Latin, others such as Spanish and Portuguese, not to mention Italian, became rather customary. I have always believed English to be much more Graeco-Roman than Germanic. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think I'll remain uni-lingual. GoodDay (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Catterick: what do you mean by Graeco-Roman ? To a Latin-background student of English, the Anglo-Saxon heritage of English is the most obvious. It is much easier to study German after having learned English, as it is much easier to study Spanish or Italian when you already know French. One of the worst tortures for French kids is what you call the Saxon genitive. Ah! Jane's house. Also, take a look at the *brotherhood* between German & English irregular verbs. The Norman invasion added French words of Latin origin to the English language but it did not change its Saxon construction. I am not speaking as a grammarian, which I am not, but as someone for whom English is a foreign language: it strikes me as a dual-language where you find words of different origin, Saxon & Latin (leaving Greek out of the discussion) having the same meaning, for instance *freedom* and *liberty*, *storm* and *tempest*, *understand* and *comprehend*...

How did we get started on this one??? bye bye Frania W. (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that English has a vast vocabulary, much of it a practical clone from Latin, or Gallo-Latin, is important. English doesn't vulgarize Latin vocabulary, as the Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese especially, are wont to. We use the old form of Latin and don't bother changing them for a sub-par standardisation, called "language". Instead, we work with diversity, which I also notice of French. I myself can detect Frankish influences in French as highly similar to what you would note as "Saxon", but much of the flair in French, appears to be of Gallic origins (much like English traits of dual terminology being idiosyncratic to different Celtic origins in Britannia), separate from Romance and Germanic. I would not attest all of non-Germanic sources to English, with simply Roman ecclesiatic, nor French legal origins, nor later additions of Greek science. Before there was such a place called England, the people were attached to Rome through the Gallic praefecture (incorporating most thorough and significant, the English part of "the island"), based variously in Arles and Trier. This place and people also had Greek origins on par with Massalia and Rome herself. Then there is the matter of the much later, popular migrations, which were but sprinkles of minorities, domineering upon the masses as they already existed, those diverse tribes which crystalized into peoples on a Roman administrative model. Political revisionism inflates Mediaevalist revolution, making "mountains out of molehills". Perhaps people only began speaking any language at all, when the Saxons arrived? Non. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why can't anyone at Wikipedia take a joke? One has to walk on eggshells around here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As Robert Plant said in Stairway to Heaven, "Doesn't anyone remember LAUGHTER"?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, one can easily get beat up by his/her joke book. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia a person just has to go with the flow; because if you don't you get the sh.t kicked out of you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Groucho said it best: I don't care what they have to say, it makes no differance anyway. Whatever it is, I'm against it. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Or there's this line, although I cannot recall who said it:"To be ignored is the greatest insult of all".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Last night, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know". GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Or Keith Richards' classic:"Sh.t happens, man"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ailing comedian Stan Laurel (shortly before his death), told he friends: "If anybody has a long face (cries) at my funeral? I'll never speak to him (or her) again". GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Or another classic Keith Richards' quip when he related the exact words he and Jagger said to Brian Jones when they sacked him from The Stones:"You're out, cock".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

KR, didn't mince words. PS: See ya tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

See ya later, alligator.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay and I share the same political leanings - we are both Marxist - of the Groucho tendency (I saw it on a T-shirt and thought of you). Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the classic line from Saturday Night Fever when Double J said: "The Pope ain't got no ass, that's why he's the Pope".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we're Groucho Marxist. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Harpo?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Harpo faction, tends to be silent. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I am gone now

You two and Forbes ought to go into the articles and defuse all of it, if you can. I'm sick of editors who really make it their mission to ruin those they disagree with. I'm tired of the flamebaits and compact by sworn enemies to sacrifice peacemakers so they can polarize forever. I feel much relief in seeing that because I am not the architect of disaster, it is easy to wash my hands of it, while they're red handed with red herrings. It was really nice to communicate with intelligent people here, so be just as happy to know that it isn't you three. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no answer other than staying on his tracks & reverting. Frania W. (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm becoming concerned with HENRY's recent edits. I shudder to think what these articles-in-question would be like, without you, me & Jeanne keeping HENRY in check. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I greatly admire his Anglo-French, Franco-Anglais synchronisms. The same type of approach could be dealt to the Barons' War with John and invitation of the French prince to be proclaimed King of England. The implications and repercussions are too often overlooked. Napoleonic Wars unduly influence our modern interpretation of differences, whereas there was previously, naught but closer ethnic relationship between England and France, than between England and other Insulares, or France and other Continentals. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY should be discussing his proposals first. Henry VI of England's title as King of France, is disputed. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I like our HENRY. He has drawn us into quite an argumentation & made many of us dig into medieval chronicles & treaties that are not our usual daily reading. In his stubbornness, he even has created an article that few of us thought would survive a few days. However, since he has not yet proved his point, and until he has, he should not bring changes to other articles & begin edit wars that would alienate him from this group rather friendly to him. Maybe we should have a petition asking him to stick to the couple of articles from which this saga began and not add more to his campaign. In other words, I second GoodDay's suggestion. Cordialement! Frania W. (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I second it as well. By the way, Catterick, King John was fully French, as were his barons, and his wife, Isabella of Angouleme. Of course there's a strong link between France and England, especially in the Middle Ages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as there was a strong relationship between Britannia and Gallia. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait,what did I do.(again).--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway my good never agreeing friends.As for GoodDays comment about Henrys title bieng disputed,so was Charles VII from 1422-1453 but amazingly without geniune reason his monarchy of only France is recognized undisputed in you oppinion then in factual history when his title was disputed.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello.GoodDay there is such thing as a house called Lancaster-Valois.No offence but you have no proof.sorry.The Treaty of Troyes didnt make Henry V king of France it made him heir by bieng adopted to Charles VI and marrying his daughter.Henry therefore who now appeared as the legitimate Heir was succeding to the Valois and not the Plantagement.Henry in the treaty Abondend his claim through Edward III as bieng the legitimate and rightful king of France by allowing Charles and recognizing Charles as king.Furthermore this in effect has to be interpeted as "GIVING" The legitimacy of kingship to the valois king Charles.Henry now had a double-whammy bieng adopted to the valois house by an international treaty and by bieng Lancastrian by birth.As you know already Henry V failed to outlive Charles so Henry VI became heir for the four months difference before bieng king of France.Henry VI was therefore a Valois-Lancastrian king of France and England by beccoming the king of france through the recognition of the Valios house bieng the legitimate rulers of France.If you happen to read any English or French epigrams on Henry VI when he was in infancy he was commented on bieng blessed with a dual-monarchy and bieng of descent through his father and mother of Saint Louis.Notice my spech by saying Henry V.This is because as earlier said,Henry appeared as a Valois heir to the kingdom of France by the Treaty of Troyes not through his Plantagement claim.I hope I didnt confuse you lol and to add this is not original research although it is important to do so in terms of treaties,I have internet links to books that say so.Just ask for them.In the case of the dissinheritence of the dauphine,it was Illegal in the treaty itself but outside the treaty it was legal.Because Charles refused a courts summon in 1420 and usurped legal authority from Charles VI which was treason,He was found guilty for Lese-Majesty BY a lit-de-justice in 1421 rendering him incapable of succestion LEGALY.By 1421 it could be safely said since his legitimacy ended through a lit-de-justice he had no right to succeded Charles VI.Googbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If we hadn't been keeping you in check, you'd have the article Henry VI of England moved to Henry VI/II of England & France, by now. I sorry, but you're pushing the Treaty too far. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 25 May

2009 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion and the one on Frania's talk page.......

• 1. IF the lit de justice(1420) is to be recognized then why not the decision by doctors of law at Bologna in 1435[3]?
• 2. Clause 12, obliged Henry to reduce to obediance the territories still loyal to the Dauphin. Therefore, just as Henry's heirs gained France, they also inherited this obligation. Thus their failure to ensure Clause 12, would invalidate any claim.
• 3. Whereas just as Henry V achieved the Treaty of Troyes(through force of arms) so did Charles VII regain France. A claim to kingship was valid only if territory could be secured. -- The Hundred Years War, by Curry, p91 --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So basically, Charles VII's re-establishment of full control over France, made Henry VI's claim retroactively invalid. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No.It ended his claim or other words he couldnt have inherited the oblgation if his legitimacy didnt exist.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

From a historical perspective, yes. Henry V's claim originally through Edward III was NOT mentioned in the Treaty of Troyes, and instead he was given a list of clauses/obligations which neither he nor his son completed(Clause 12 specifically). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY (who's a good egg) has been presenting the Treaty of Troyes as iron-clad, in the Lancasters favour. This part of the aforementioned Treaty, is very interesting. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find a reference to it here[4],[5],[6], and The Hundred Years War, by Curry, p93. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is why historians have never recognised Henry as a legitimate king of France. The Treaty of Troyes doesn't hold up for many reasons. It is certainly not iron-clad. Thank you Kansas Bear for providing the helpful reference.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kansas Bear. Your intervention should put the matter to rest. Frania W. (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everybody.As for the users contribution in this I am very thankful.I read those books before lol.As for your point about the clauses and his claims bieng invalid.You have the right idea in your head but I apoligize your phtasing is a bit off target.Clause 12 was not fulfilled but it only ended Henrys claim it didnt mean his claim was invalid and legitimacy never existed and this is how you are styling your work.Trust me I have many books from Anne Curry about the treaty of troyes but she is keen on Henry VI inheriteing the throne of france as this is what happend.So how can his claims be invalid and still be king,it makes no sence.As part of the clause it didnt make a peace it made an ongoing war and the war continued from 1420-1453.In the span Henry VI was king of France.Anne Curry published the contending kingdoms of england and France and she says including you say that Henry in order to inherit the problem of clause 12 had to inherit France.By the clause when Henry lost guinne in 1453 then did his legitimacy end,that does not mean it didnt exist.You have to intrpetet the clause correctly.By the same clause why do you think I put his reign as king of France from 1422-1453 and not 1422-1471.By your style no offence your stating Henry never had claim.He had claim but it ended.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In simple conclustion.How can Henrys legitimacy be invalid if inherited the responability through the inheritence of the french crown.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I know you mean well. But you are making an error by polarizing the RoI debate and the British Isles debate into two sides, where everybody agrees with either one side or the other for both debates. This is not the case, and I notice that some editors tend to think in Black and White and can therefore never actually understand what is being discussed. For example, some Irish editors refuse point black to accept "Republic of Ireland" or "British Isles". Others tend to have a "correctness" factor with then terms can be used, and this group is made up of a mixture of both British and Irish editors. And then we have a few British editors that insist on using RoI and BI whenever they feel like it. It's the middle group that should be listened to, and this is what I believe is actually starting to happen. Isolate the extremists and let a bit of common sense dictate policy. But it is good of you to make the suggestion and get people thinking and hopefully push the idea of "compromise" onto the table. And bear in mind, this is just an encyclopedia, not life and death (Come Back Matt Lewis!) --HighKing (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Someday, a compromise will occur. PS: In agreement, comeback Matt. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, why did he leave? He made a lot of contributions to Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, wake up man. Jack's already awake. We need to get the action going around here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been away from the 'puter these last few days. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope you get back here soon. We miss you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've returned. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello.Will I just end the disscution on the hundred years war.This does not mean I am wrong as I expalined above.I am just getting tired of this.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY: What a great idea! Now you can go back to the Dual-Monarchy article presenting the case for each side without taking side. There is a lot to say about this controversy but, remember, this is History, events happened the way they happened, and we are not to judge these people, just report the facts. Consider yourself as a chronicler or a modern-time reporter.

GoodDay, thank you for having this discussion on your talk page. Cordialement! Frania W. (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK.Can I give a note and title to Henry VI as Henri II of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

нет !!!! Frania W. (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, my answer is NO WAY, JOSE!!!!There was only one Henri II of France and he was married to Catherine de Medici (lucky devil).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See Henry II of France. Shall we ask all historians to start changing the numbers retrospectively? Sorry Henry, it just can't happen. Jack forbes (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK.CAN WE FIX up margerat title as Queen consort of France. --HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I promise I will never edit Henry VI as Henri II of France.I guess I did push it too far.I apoligize GoodDay.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya don't have to apologies, I'm not wounded. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay I didnt imply the edit but it should really be changed to Lancaster-Valois. I gave a reason above. Lancastrian and Valois France is only used in books to show the difference of actual power between Henry VI and Charles VII.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I reckon House of Lancaster & House of Valois must remain seperate things. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

But I am not doing original research.My references are all sourced and as the other user said"Henry V/VI/II inherited through obligations and clauses.If Henry allowed Charles VI to become king and was adopted to Charles VI then he succeded to the valois house to france not to the Lancaster succestion.This must be interpeted in fact as giving legitimacy to Charles VI and the valois house or else he couldnt have taken the title ==="Heir of France"===.I hope you understand GoodDay because it makes no sence to say Henry VI was the only lancastrian and/or English king of France.He was king of a dual-monarchy holding the blessed descent from both Father and mother to Saint Louis.Notive how I said ===Father===.This is because Henry V was Heir of France to the valois king Charles VI and since he was adopted to charles VI and legaly included to the succestion. Henry VI then gains a double-whammy inheritence.I gave reliable refs on Margerat of Anjou bieng a Queen of France on Jeanns talk page.

Here is a book confirming Henry VI dual blood from valois and Lancaster:Read.:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gFfaD4JdZhwC&pg=PA45&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy

http://books.google.com/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy

http://books.google.com/books?id=_JDOVMDi8d4C&pg=PA601&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=

main book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PP1&dq=contending+kingdoms+of+England+and+France&lr=#PPA23,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as the Royal House of Valois-Lancaster. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I notice that all the templates on the Dual-Monarchy article have been removed by an IP. What should we do about it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Undo the doings of the IP. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay it is not a house it is a branch.Please give me reason why it is not a branch if Henry V became the valois heir of Charles VI.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay if I am wrong about the aqiuesation but did you even read the references.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Call it what ya wish, it doesn't stick. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, GoodDay is right.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You said I was veering into original research.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again GoodDay.I sincerly apoligize.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

She can't have retired, because if she had, I'm sure you'd be the first to know. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe we are in danger of losing another good editor User:Kafka Liz.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In the words of Groucho, I never hoyd of him. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a template on the dual-monarchy article and it says if the article is not up to date it will be deleted or merged. What do they mean by merged. Thanks GoodDsy.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen such a Template, before. GoodDay (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It dosent matter. Caterrick took it off.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you heard? Jack Forbes has retired. This is terrible. I'll really miss him. Can't you use your powers of persuasion to convince him to stay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I can try. GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can persuade him to stay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It'll be tough, as the choice is ultimately his. Thankfully, he retired on happy terms. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, how are you doing RK7

Thanks for being friendly! All the best. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, "GoodDay" (or whoever you are^*joke*), I've written an essay you might be interested in. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've no sympathy for veteran IPs (those who've been around for over 2-months). I'm not impresssed with IPs who's only excuse for not creating an account, is they don't want to. In the latter situation, they're just being spite-ful. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(You may also wish to comment at the Village pump.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nay! I'll just keep them on their toes, when they show up at my User-page. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh baby when you talk like that, you make a woman go mad. IPs don't lie.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of making women go mad? see my comment at Sarah777's userpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything to get me back into the daily grind of at least checking my watchlist... LutetiaPetuaria | 11:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You still around, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Only briefly. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember all the cat fights between Joan Collins and Linda Evans on Dynasty? LOL. I used to watch it just to see them pulling each other's hair out. I was beaten up by a jealous female, her sister, as well as the latter's Marine boyfriend back in 1978 here: Rainbow Bar and Grill. And it was over a CANADIAN guy who was allegedly a drummer for some obscure LA-based rock band!!!!!.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I remember correctly, I was once a drummer for an obscure LA-based rock band back in the '70's. Err alright, I wasn't. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were born in 1971?! The catfight took place in the summer of 1978!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was 7-yrs old, at the time, thus my admittance, that it wasn't me. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as well, the guy was so corny he thought he could take me up in his beat-up car (it was green, I recall) to Mulholland Drive, shrouded in foggy mists and seduce me there. No way, Jose. Also, I cannot imagine you miming to drummer John Bonham during a Led Zeppelin song. Yuck, he was geek city.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is getting so boringggggggg! Where have all the editors gone to? There's no one to run with anymore. You are one of the few fun editors still around. Don't ever go away, please.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack, is on wiki-break. Giano retired May 21, Bishonen hasn't been around since May 23 & Sarah777 has mellowed these last 2 months. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We just need to attract all the hip, gear editors to our respective talk pages. Make them (our talk pages) the Blitz Club of Wikpedia, the place where the in crowd hang out, ya dig?.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're able to attract them, but I'm not. I'm a very boring person. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You, boring? NEVER. You are probably one of the funniest editors at Wikipedia. I have mentioned on my talk page that I speak the blunt truth, which I am doing at this moment. YOU ARE NOT BORING!!!!!!! OK. So, let's get busy on creating the gear club on our talk pages. What do we call it, WikiBlitz?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's done. I have named my talk page the WikiBlitz Club. Hopefully it will attract fun editors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

@G'Day: MELLOWED??? pah! Actually I needed (wanted) to do a load of routine stuff on the Towns and villages in Ireland - you guys are very distracting! Sarah777 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Sarah, have you checked out my club yet?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the GD's not boring reassurance, gals. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you like my club or not?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Groovy, baby. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We are colleagues, after all. Any gear ideas?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wear Beatle wigs, with Groucho Marx glasses, mustache & nose (don't forget a cigar). GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm planning on wearing this dress which is vintage 1974. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, says I love you. The cop on the corner & the burgler too. The preacher in the pulpit & the man in the pew, says I love you. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't recognise this song, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's from one of the Marx Brothers movies. All 4 brothers were competeting for the affections of a beautiful woman. Those lines are from Zeppo's rendition. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So how does my photo relate to the song?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Easily. You're a beatiful woman, who has alot of men fighting for her affections. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was born in the wrong century. I have never had men fight over me. Now, perhaps if I'd lived in the 17th century, I would have had the odd duel fought over me.....maybe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're too modest. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My mother always said that nobody likes a braggart, which is true. A touch of modesty and humility is a charming trait in both sexes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Modest gals always caught my attention. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have always detested people who constantly toot their own horn.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

They toot their own horns, 'cause others won't toot them for 'em. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right about that. There are some people who present themselves to the world as one continuous Sousa march.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, any more ideas on our club? Remember, you are responsible for providing the dancing boys and girls. They must be over 18, and I think their costumes should consist of exotic bird plumage, seeing as they'll be dancing inside suspended cages. A pity, Jack Forbes isn't around as he'd make a good chief bartender for the revolving bar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna be handing out the Groucho stuff, at the door. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, do you want to be one of the bouncers? We do need bouncers to keep out the trolls. Which editors, besides yourself do you have in mind for the post?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've nobody in mind. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So far, the club has not attracted one patron. Perhaps they're not aware it's open on Sundays. Now if I were to turn up the music....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my being nude, isn't helping. The Groucho nose & glasses, covers only so much. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That is one hell of a good idea. Your naked body (sans the Groucho gear) will be a magnet to pull the women in. Not completely nude, just an Indian-style breechcloth to whet their appetite should do the trick. Complete nudity is so Woodstock-hippie boring.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll cover up completely. I'm just too self-consience of my body. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Most shy guys turn out to be the biggest ravers of them all, once they let it all hang out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya know what they say about guys with big feet? They wear big shoes. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee hee, get your Beatle wig on and come on over to my club.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Show me the way. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a Peter Frampton song. I suppose I could add him to my playlist.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

...for pro-movers like me, to accept the fact that there'll never be a consensus to move those Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear it. Though I'm not too upbeat about the prospects of a move really being put through. Still, for you, I'd compare the affair to an insistence on having Canada at Dominion of Canada...even if the comparison is not 100% corect, its along the right lines. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on G'Day - never give up - If we don't make it the next generation will! Manifest wrong will never sleep easily, will always need to keep one eye open:) Sarah777 (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We're no farther ahead, then we were a year ago. Perhaps concentrating on pipe-linkiing will have better results. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. I was watching the help desk tonight, and saw this. Thought you might be interested since I got the impression that you and Titch were close. — Ched :  ?  05:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokers, thanks Ched. As I've claimed, Titch lives on. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)