User talk:GoodDay/Archive 12
 | 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. |
BI Taskforce
I'm worried about the conclusions of this taskforce if it can come up with a "shared principle" that "'Britain' is a political, cultural and geographical term but should only be used in connection with geographical features." The "UK" and "Britain" are synonymous and reliable sources back that up. How can they agree it should "only" be used to refer to geographical features? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on diacritics
You are welcome to join the discussion on diacritics here.
Let sleeping dogs lay
The dog has been awakened. So let's continue to discuss the matter. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Snowded
- I think Snowded would make a good administrator.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
He's got my support. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hope he accepts.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain that he will, but I'll keep hoping. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I like his style. Another administrator I like is Rockpocket. He gives cool, level-headed replies without antagonising anyone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Myself & Snowy, have locked horns in the past. He had erroniously accused me of being a trouble-maker on Wiki talk-pages. But, I won't hold that against him. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- What, you a trouble-maker, GoodDay? No way, Jose. D'yer maker maybe, but trouble-maker no.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the Ayn Rand events of weeks ago, have stalled Snowy's RfA. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Dios
Do you honestly need to spam the same basic messages to everyone in wp:hockey... I am sure they are capable of seeing your opinion on the project talk page... -Djsasso (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I'm not canvassing, it's quite allowable. Besides, if you were in my skates, you'd be peeved, too. We had an understanding, concerning North American based hockey articles -- correction, I thought we had. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You know I don't like the birthplace diacritics on NHL articles. You want to propose that? It opens it up for more fighting though. Probably best to remove birthplaces completely from NHL articles. Alaney2k (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've already proposed the birthplace stuff, as an exchange. Basillie has a better chance of moving the Coyotes to Hamilton. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
diacritics & quebec
I wasn't following the discussion, it seemed to be going on in several places. Coincidentally, I was looking at the WP:Canada standard for articles on Friday and the convention was to use the "typical English spelling". I was going to bring that up in your discussion, but I hadn't found it today. I wasn't sure if it was relevant and I was not going to bring it up until I re-read it. Personally, I have less of a problem with accents for pronunciation than other diacritics. I hope that if accents are required, which I am not sure is a good idea, that it won't be the 'thin end of the wedge.' Alaney2k (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hold onto your stick & face-shield, Al. 'Cause, it's only a matter of time, before the diacritics are littered on all the Hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just want to say good for you guys for sticking to your guns with this ridiculous diacritics nonsense. I started all the NHL roster templates, and due to the regressiveness of WP:Ice Hockey, I have virtually given up editing hockey articles. With the logic the other side sees diacritics, it is surprising that they don't call Sweden "Sverige" or Germany "Deutschland". Once the NHL or any English speaking hockey league uses diacritics, I will. But they don't so I won't. Keep it up, because I sure gave up a long time ago.Thricecube (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are you asking me to remove them? I don't have the authority to make unilateral decisions affecting a large chunk of the scope of WP:HOCKEY—which is why we are discussing it. Anyway, why are there diacritics in NHL rosters? (I've asked this twice at WP:HOCKEY but haven't received an answer; maybe you will reply now that I've asked directly on your talk page.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- You'll have to ask Djsasso, as to why diacritics are allowd on the NHL Roster Templates, birthplace section. IMHO, its acceptance is 'yet another' breach of the North American guideline. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- You were asked to stop repeating yourself, not to stop taking part in the discussion. You do seem to be getting emotionally worked up about this issue though. Have a look at Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process — this is a lesson I learned during one AfD where I responded to everything I disagreed with (most of the comments, as it turned out). After someone told me to stop "bludgeoning" everyone with my responses, I thought about it, and realized that editor was right. Repeating yourself will eventually hurt your cause more than it will help. So I dropped it altogether, and let the consensus have the day, even if I disagreed with it at the time. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Anyways, when you consider the number of articles-in-question. My call for removing the dios from the NHL Roster Templates (which effect 30 articles), is not asking for much in exchange for allowing dios on Quebec-based articles (which would effect alot more then 30 articles). GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- You still don't get it do you? The ENTIRE wiki has a standard of leaving them on place names. This isn't something a few people in the hockey project decided to ram down your throat on 30 articles. This is something that is used wikiwide for cities that don't have translations. If you want to change the fact place names have diacritics you will need to bring it up at a more appropriate page where consensus of the ENTIRE wiki can happen. If you feel as strongly as you do about diacritics you should be taking your stance to a wikiwide audience instead of preaching to a single project that only has 50k of the few million articles on the wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- What a perfect time to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore, as we're talking about a mere 30 Templates, out of hundres of thousands of articles on Wikipedia. Anyways, I did not re-open the dios debate & I'm not the one who's trying to makes amendements the WP: HOCKEY's (agreed upon) dios guidelines for North American based hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can't invoke IAR to ignore an english language rule. This is how things are done in the english language, whether you can accept it or not this is how the english language treats place names. But I am obviously talking to deaf ears, so I will let you be to continue on your rants. -Djsasso (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not the one, who called for and/or gave my support to a Quebec-amendment, to the North American guideline. I was happy with the compromise as it was (inspite of the birthplace exception). You'll NEVER get my consent on that Quebec-amendment, without a concession from your side. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly its good then that we don't need your consent, we just need consensus which can happen with or without you agreeing. -Djsasso (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, you don't need my consent or lack there-of. You (the pro-dios crowd) are free to scrap the whole compromise & plaster as many diacritics on all hockey articles, as you all wish. A moron (like myself), can't do a single thing about. The articles belong to you (the pro-dios crowd). GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly its good then that we don't need your consent, we just need consensus which can happen with or without you agreeing. -Djsasso (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not the one, who called for and/or gave my support to a Quebec-amendment, to the North American guideline. I was happy with the compromise as it was (inspite of the birthplace exception). You'll NEVER get my consent on that Quebec-amendment, without a concession from your side. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can't invoke IAR to ignore an english language rule. This is how things are done in the english language, whether you can accept it or not this is how the english language treats place names. But I am obviously talking to deaf ears, so I will let you be to continue on your rants. -Djsasso (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- What a perfect time to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore, as we're talking about a mere 30 Templates, out of hundres of thousands of articles on Wikipedia. Anyways, I did not re-open the dios debate & I'm not the one who's trying to makes amendements the WP: HOCKEY's (agreed upon) dios guidelines for North American based hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- You still don't get it do you? The ENTIRE wiki has a standard of leaving them on place names. This isn't something a few people in the hockey project decided to ram down your throat on 30 articles. This is something that is used wikiwide for cities that don't have translations. If you want to change the fact place names have diacritics you will need to bring it up at a more appropriate page where consensus of the ENTIRE wiki can happen. If you feel as strongly as you do about diacritics you should be taking your stance to a wikiwide audience instead of preaching to a single project that only has 50k of the few million articles on the wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Hi GoodDay, I was wondering if you knew much on Medieval history? Jeanne is always singing your praises and I have never really spoken to you before. I have also joined the Wikiblitz club is it? that you set up on Jeanne's talk page. Hello again and thanks --David 20:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- You mean back in the days of King John of England & King Philip II of France? Yep, I know something of that time period. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking of making King John mascot of WikiBlitz, or perhaps it should be Richard III, seeing as the latter has a nice portrait which could be hung in the entrance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's never been a Richard IV, apart from my son who behaves like a medieval tyrant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't recall Blackadder, honestly. I rarely watched TV as a teenager, prefered to ensconce myself in my bedroom and listen to my favourite music at full blast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- The fictional Richard IV, was played by Brian Blessed. Blessed also played Pope Pius II in a movie. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- We can always make kings John and Richard joint mascots-pun not intended.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, I myself have seen The Lion in winter (it's on youtube) and braveheart. I also like spanish films like Juana la Loca--David 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I want to see Juana La Loca. Queen Joanna of Castile was an interesting monarch.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I cannot speak very good spanish so I find it hard to understand! Isabella I of Castile is in it, Ferdinand II and all of the kids are in the first scene: Isabella, John, Joanna, Maria and Catherine.--David (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which movie? GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Juana La Loca, a Spanish film based on the life of Queen Joanna I of Castile. I haven't seen it myself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Monarchs
Slightly more complex than that, the process of consolidating the two realms really began under James, and were relatively integrated before the Act of Union (1707). In any case, you can hardly deny that there is continuity between the English and British monarchs. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's continuity between the Scottish & British monarchs, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, and personally I think that the Scottish template should also be merged with the British template, as originally I tried to do. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- That might be too cumbersome. It's best just to leave a note, that the British monarchy is a successor to the English & Scottish monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with you there, I think the British monarchy, to a large extent, is a continuation of the English, which can be seen with the numerals for starters - if you want to get involved however, there's an ongoing discussion at WP:TfD YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- An agreement was reached in the UK, that future British monarchs named James, David, Malcolm etc; will be numbered as James VIII, David III, Malcolm V etc. Again, British monarchs are equally successors to Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- That was simply a suggestion made by Chrchill, in response to Queen Elizabeth creating controversy in Scotland over her styling as "the Second". If you want to have the Scottish template merged again with the British one, I suggest you talk to User:Deacon of Pndapetzim. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Same here. What do you do with Mary I of England and Mary I of Scotland, call them both British monarchs? With the same number?! Same for James I of Scotland, and James I of England. Too confusing. I have to go along with GoodDay's suggestion and keep all three seperate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
division champs
I don't know the details of this issue. I would not want to crown a team as a champion if it's not recognized. Alaney2k (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
See how much I am paying attention? Ok, I get it, first place finisher and playoff division champion? Alaney2k (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind, but I would guess the project would say not. I think the word 'champion' implies you won something. If you placed first, but there's no trophy or anything. And in the playoffs, only one advanced from the Division right? So the standings just set up your seeding. In baseball, you might use the word pennant for the first-place finisher. I think Boston could have raised a banner for that season, but I doubt Montreal would. Alaney2k (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay Sunshine....
- Hey, I have never asked you this, but did you get your moniker from The Beatles song, Good Day Sunshine?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, you've solved my moniker riddle. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I heard it the other day. It's been years since I last heard it. Revolver was one of their best LPs. My sister had it; it came out in 1966. I bought my own copy about 4 years later, when I really got into the Beatles. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Tomorrow Never Knows was kinda cool. Do you know who came up with the song's title? GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- No I don't. Who? Didn't McCartney sing that? Norwegian Wood was one of my favourite Beatles songs when I was young; it's from Rubber Soul. That was the LP my sister had, not Revolver. Rubber Soul was the LP I had in mind, not Revolver. Rubber Soul was far superior to Revolver. God, I'm losing me memory here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It was a quote of Ringo Starr's (he had a habit of mixing phrases). Rubber Soul, had alot of Dylan influence. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was compared with Dylan's Blonde On Blonde LP. I like Ringo. What a character.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeps, it was. As for Ringo? be sure not to contact him on his personal website or via e-mail. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why, have you contacted Ringo Starr?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, but his put a message out on YouTube months ago. He requested that nobody contact him anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
- I suppose it wouldn't be wise to give him this message then:Ringo Starr is gear?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I find he's become grumpy in these last few years. He even appeard to become agitated on Larry King Live, Larry mentioned his birthday (July 7, 2008 episode) more then once. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- So many celebs become arrogant, especially the funny or droll ones. As The Stranglers said, there are No More Heroes anymore.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps Larry told Ringo to turn down his radio, or aked him if he could play on his drum kit. Remember the two scenes in Hard Days Night?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- So many celebs become arrogant, especially the funny or droll ones. As The Stranglers said, there are No More Heroes anymore.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- He'll be 69 next month. Here's hoping nobody reminds him of it, while he's holding drum sticks. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- It Don't Come Easy.......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if Barbara thinks that (if you re-spell 'come'). GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Or his late wife Maureen Cox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jumpers, Ringo sure had gorgeous wives. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Beatles' wives cannot compare to Rolling Stones' wives and girlfriends: Bianca Jagger, Anita Pallenberg, Patti Hansen, Jerry Hall, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
impossible dreams
I guess I share some level of unattainable influence on the Wiki editors with you. That's not intended to be a 'dig'.
On the franchise topic: It's a fascinating topic and it leads you to realize the whole scheme of things. On Ottawa, if it was a fast-food franchise, it would have gone inactive, then re-activated. It's the NHL franchise for the Y region. I am interested in the Phoenix bankruptcy proceedings. The Judge basically said that the NHL has a valid franchise in Hamilton. And that it may simply be a relocation fee issue. But the main point I take out of it is that the franchise is determined by area. And that there is a franchise or franchise 'opportunity' existing, even if inactive.
So it was within Gil Stein's control to say it was a reinstatement of the Ottawa franchise. Similarly, since you can't have the Phoenix franchise in Hamilton, what you have is the Phoenix organization taking over the Hamilton franchise. The fee is to cover the league and other team's costs with the different outlet's location. The Phoenix franchise will exist, as the Hamilton franchise does now, but it will be inactive.
It's kind of weird to think something exists when it is completely inactive, but the league exists, and while the league exists and has defined its area as North America, there are basically franchise opportunities and inactive franchises all over. You could reinstate Cleveland, Kansas City, Quebec and Winnipeg, even the NY Americans. (Which would be a blast) And in one sense it would be valid. Of course it is different organizations operating the franchises, but the point is that the product is NHL hockey, not Ottawa hockey or Winnipeg hockey. And what it says about our allegiances? We are supporting a giant entertainment conglomerate, not really Calgary vs. Edmonton, or Pittsburgh vs. Detroit. The Final is just the last act in the season's show. If we had an Association like they do in England, things would be different, then we would have Ottawa or Toronto hockey. Here it's all part of one big show. (I enjoy it, I'm not really cynical about it) Alaney2k (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I imagine, if the Coyotes were moved to Hamilton (the if coming from the BoG's decision), the Tigers would be the name. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Tigers is the number one choice for Hamilton. We can call them reinstated too. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Trust, the Coyotes future loaction will be either Las Vegas or Kanses City. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you on my page or yours? It's within the Judge's power to send the Coyotes to Hamilton. Really. Don't think it is impossible. He tossed out the argument about rules and the willy-nilly moving of teams doom scenario the league threw out. Cited Baltimore Colts move to Indy, and how the NFL seems to be ok. So it's now down to two issues basically: relocation fee and the move to Canada. The NHL must name a reasonable transfer fee. Balsillie can balk. If the fee is unreasonable, then the Judge can impose one. I doubt it will get nuts like that. I think that unless the NHL has some ace up its sleeve, the Judge will allow the Balsillie sale. Of course, the NHL will appeal and Balsillie could bail. But I am not sure that the NHL wants one of its teams tied up in court like that. Remember Balsillie's money is pretty attractive and no-other potential buyer of the Coyotes has made an agreement with the NHL for the Coyotes. Any potential Coyotes buyer has the NHL over a barrel for the Coyotes. Who would want to honour the lease agreement in Glendale? Of course, the NHL would love to have a team in LV or KC for the sake of TV, but nobody has any money in the States for it. LV is not the same as Florida. In Florida, it's retired Canadians that come out for games. It's either fund the Coyotes (and what a loss that will be) or take the easy money that Balsillie is offering. Does the NHL owners hate Balsillie? That is, enough to stop this? The hard-core is probably Toronto and Buffalo against it. It's more revenues for the league as opposed to propping up a dead duck that is the issue. Alaney2k (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Believe me, the NHL will try 'everything' possible to prevent a move to Canada. As a last resort, they might fold the Coyotes or cut them loose. Basille ends up owning the Coyotes, but the team has no League to play in. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Balsillie has a good lawyer, I think. He's been working on the case for years. I think the NHL risks a backlash in Canada. As it is, TV revenues for the playoffs are down in Canada, up in the US this year, but down over-all. The NHL might just be stupid enough to fight Balsillie, but the NFL and MLB have both handled owners they did not want and are doing ok. I think the NHL would be wise to accept it. It gets the NHL out of a bad situation in Phoenix. They can blame the evil Balsillie and promise an expansion team in Phoenix to placate Glendale. You could relocate Nashville or Columbus to Phoenix. Phoenix is a big place. By population it should have no problems supporting a team. It started with the move from Winnipeg to the bad arena in Phoenix. Then Glendale gives them a great arena, but it's where no-one wants to travel to for a game. A comparison would be if the only team for NY was out in NJ. It would struggle. And Glendale wants to make all of its money back on the arena. They are dreaming on that one. Alaney2k (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't underestimate the lengths the NHL will go to, to prevent Basillie's purchase & re-location. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not like here at Wikipedia, where we are all so reasonable. Alaney2k (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Vote to sort it out?
GoodDay, do you think that we should have a vote on the BI-taskforce over your proposal and my proposal? Although I wouldn't normally be in favour of a vote, it seems as though this could largely sort out the debate over "British Isles" once and for all. I would normally be in favour of your solution also, by the way, which is to completely ban the term, in consideration for the opposition I've tabled my proposal. Regards, FF3000 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Fine, thanks for your response. FF3000 (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The way of the force....very one-sided?
Have you ever noticed that it is always the same individuals who are quick to point the finger? --De Unionist (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's the price we pay for upholding collaboration. It only takes one civility block & you're never forgotten. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have never been blocked for incivility. Go with the flow, man..... --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Down-and-out canary
- GoodDay, how about Bianca as a second mascot? I know she's a bit down-and-out but......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Who's Bianca? GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- The scalped, one-clawed canary in the image on the right.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, Bianca it is. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, you haven't said how nice she looks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
She looks nice. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Bianca chirps her thanks. Her mate Jack hasn't complemented her lately.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Fear not, Jack will be back. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jack and Bianca share a cage. He's more bigger and a brighter shade of yellow. Wait here he is:--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do they have any younglings? GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Bianca used to lay eggs but they never hatched.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Just having her period? GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think they copulate anymore. I've had the pair of them for over five and a half years.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
How fussy can one get? GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well I suppose a plucked head and a missing claw can somewhat inhibit rampant desire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That's true. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Bianca was lucky to escape with her life after she fell into the clutches of Tony, the cat.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yuck, cats. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would have presumed you to have been a cat-lover.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I prefer canines. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which breed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As I now own one, Shih-Tzus. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- What's its name?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Her name is Star (not Starr), but I call her Googie. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why not get a male then you can name him Ringo. So when you call the pair of them, you can shout :Ringo, Starr, Ringo, Starr"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I thinking of perhaps Dust. Then I'd have 'Star, Dust'. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- When I was 16, I called my boyfriend Starman!!!!! Wasn't I a geek?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- That was a cool movie, starring Jeff Bridges. - GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- When I was 16, I called my boyfriend Starman!!!!! Wasn't I a geek?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I got it from the David Bowie song Starman. There's a starman waiting in the sky, he'd like to come and meet us but he thinks he'll blow our minds....... So hip, so mind-blowing, so 1970s!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Template:English and British monarchs
I'm still not sure why we can't have Template:English monarchs, Template:Pictish and Scottish monarchs, and Template:British monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm very concenred about the revival of this English conquered the Scottish in 1707 stuff. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you may have overlooked another issue - where would you place the section describing the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland? As its name implies, it was a unified state, but was succeeded by a period when England and Scotland were separate again. ðarkuncoll 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was no de facto monarchy during the period of the Commonwealth so why should there be a problem? I agree with GoodDay in that the Scottish monarchs are being excluded from the template as lesser Britons.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then you are reading motives into it that are simply not there, I'm afraid. As has been pointed out, this was agreed with editors of the Scottish list too, because they wanted to keep the Picts and Scots together, and in their own template. As for the Commonwealth period, there was indeed a de facto monarchy, and it comprised a unified state of the British Isles. ðarkuncoll 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't believe, that Template hasn't bee expanded to include the Scots monarchs. Particulary when the List of British monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs & List of English monarchs are seperate articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then you are reading motives into it that are simply not there, I'm afraid. As has been pointed out, this was agreed with editors of the Scottish list too, because they wanted to keep the Picts and Scots together, and in their own template. As for the Commonwealth period, there was indeed a de facto monarchy, and it comprised a unified state of the British Isles. ðarkuncoll 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's very confusing at the moment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well Jeanne, I've known Tharky for a few years now. Though we've had disagreements over the 1707 Act of Union, I've always managed to control my temper, around what appears to be Tharky's pro-English PoV. However, his latest refusal to accept that the Scottish monarchs are co-predecessors of the British monarchs, has (IMHO) gone too far. Some might say, I'm starting to see the light. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
United States presidential election, 2008
Hi GoodDay. I was wondering if you'd mind commenting here. Thanks. Timmeh!(review me) 03:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
New editors
- Don't you love it when new editors arrive at Wikipedia, and immediately start taking charge. I have noticed that a comment I made about a streaker in April 2008 (!) on my high school's talk page is being challenged by a fairly new editor who wants to remove it. My comment was made to show just how freaky my high school was back in the 1970s. (Which it was, and my presence there certainly did nothing to minimise the freakiness!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Who's the newbie growling about nudity? GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- He started in March 2009. I made my comment back on 4 April 2008, just 2 days after I had become an editor. I thought my comments added to the school's lore.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- You there GD Sunshine?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- He started in March 2009. I made my comment back on 4 April 2008, just 2 days after I had become an editor. I thought my comments added to the school's lore.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've returned. For the rest of the summer, I won't be signing-in until about 3:30 PM AST. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. That would be about 8.30 PM CEST.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- What a drag. That's the time when I am preparing a reasonable facsimile of a family dinner.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- True. Right now, it's 5.48 AM local time. Today, I'm an early bird: And Your Bird Can Sing--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Look in my direction, I'll be 'round, I'll be 'round". GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- You say you've seen seven wonders and your bird is green, but you can't see me, no you can't see me....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've got 2 versions of the song. Both are fab. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer the rockish version which is on the US Yesterday and Today LP. God, I played that song constantly when I was 12.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Extension to the Hundred Years War
Bonjour *Bonjour*: Our friend Henry got himself into a pickle... C'est tout! Frania W. (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. He's met editors, who are less patient with him. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I had warned him several times not to attack Kansas Bear who is helping him improve his article by placing sourced in-line citations. Obviously my words had no effect, neither did Frania's; and she too has been helping him out a lot.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY will just have to learn the hard way. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
British time
Hello there. We don't call it "British Standard" Time: in the winter it's Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which is the same as UTC; in the summer it's British Summer Time (BST), which is UTC+1, so noon BST is 11am UTC. Loganberry (Talk) 00:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Temptation knocks
- GoodDay, would you be tempted into entering matrimony with this delightful lady:Helena Palaiologina? A pity she died over 500 years ago, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
What she look like? GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- She seems to be ferocious, but you would live in a castle: check it out in article. Frania W. (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I took the risk of being 'nosey' & peeked, Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- But, imagine the view! And you'd practically be a neighbour of Jeanne... Frania W. (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The republican in me, tends to reject castles. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Too difficult to clean the windows. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Giggle giggle, I know. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, she was born in that Greek castle, and grew up there, but moved to Cyprus where she married King John II. Cyprus does have lovely castles, but alas I have never been there, I've just seen photos. Helena was only 14 when she married,the same age as my daughter. I cannot imagine Tatiana giving orders for someone's nose to be cut off, even a rival's!!!!! One can only wonder what Helena's nose was like for her to have been jealous of poor Marietta ("I saw King John first, honey") de Patras's nose?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay, you there? Queen Helena is looking for you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, she was born in that Greek castle, and grew up there, but moved to Cyprus where she married King John II. Cyprus does have lovely castles, but alas I have never been there, I've just seen photos. Helena was only 14 when she married,the same age as my daughter. I cannot imagine Tatiana giving orders for someone's nose to be cut off, even a rival's!!!!! One can only wonder what Helena's nose was like for her to have been jealous of poor Marietta ("I saw King John first, honey") de Patras's nose?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just signed in. I took a shower earlier & put it back. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay, have you been here:Wikipedia:Facebook? Why don't you upload your image.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd get into trouble for using the Groucho Marx image. GoodDay (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
ArmChair
You might want to have a word with your friend. He is one of those interesting eccentrics that enliven the wikipedia and I'd hate to see him get a permanent ban. I tried to help him out this morning by moving and changing the language on his edit. Otherwise I think someone else would have straight reverted and given his normal behaviour pattern we would have had a 3RR and a permanent or long term ban. He didn't take it in that spirit so rather than edit war I tagged the section and left a note with the result you can see (including the odd threat). Its very silly and he needs to learn about consensus, not reverting tags, not taking things so personally and formatting rues (the amount of talk page he consumes every time he edits is a farce). However he is not going to listen to me, he might to you. --Snowded TALK 09:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am growing concerned aswell. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I also would hate to see Armchair get banned. He's one of those flamboyant characters that Wikipedia sorely needs before it does indeed become the ghost town I had previously described. He just needs to mellow out a bit and learn how to format his edits. GoodDay, just tell him to go with the flow, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Already done. He'll gradually get the hang of the place. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hope he stays around.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- What Armchair should do is broaden his horizons a bit. Instead of fighting in the trenches at Talk:BI, he should saunter over to some of the history articles, where he can make good use of his maps and information.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- He'll have to, as I fear his persistance is being viewed as disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- What I don't understand is why he only edits at talk:BI. It's not as if Wikipedia is a compass whose needle automatically points towards Talk:British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Compulsive obssesive? GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever, he should steer clear of that article. Other editors are pretty fed up with his repetitive insertions of material which do not conform with Wikipedian style. I just hope he doesn't get banned.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- His getting banned, may be inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- He's been warned, repeatedly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've done all I can. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know you have. So has Snowded, SheffieldSteel, and myself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Someday we'll have to introduce him to Catterick & HENRY, eh? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Imagine if they joined forces and started editing over on British Isles?! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, Dismas! I hope I haven't put any ideas in anyone's head. The Hundred Years War would rapidly extend to The Five Hundred Years War-with no end in sight (or should that be site?)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- The talk-pages would be archived daily. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- And Dunlavin Green?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- He's been blocked for 1-week. Also, he doesn't like me. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- He doesn't care too much for me either. Oh well, go with the flow, man.........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- The flow, is how I'll go. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Rolling, rolling, rolling, got to keep those wagons rolling, rawhide....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- A version of that song, was a theme for Nolan Ryan. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you know who starred in the TV series Rawhide?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hope he stays around.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Head 'em up, head 'em up, Rawhide!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Eastwood? GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yep.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Eastwood? GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Still there? I just got back. Went out for a bit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still here. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- And now? Seeing as my son has relinquished the PC for abour 5 minutes!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you've left the mysterious DASTEV a message. Can you guess who DASTEV is?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your daughter. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, User:Tatiana kitty is my daughter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's your son. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still here. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Again, nyet. None of my sons are Wikipedians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. Still cannot guess? I adore being mysterious on occasion--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- You've a second account? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. You're ice-cold now, whereas before you were quite luke-warm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- That leave just one person, your husband. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- You have got to be kidding? Besides, which husband are you referring to? I've had two. The first is fully capable of being a Wikipedia editor, but as far as I know, he has never edited here. As for my current spouse, he cannot string one articulate sentence together, he does not write, understand nor speak English; also, I am quite sure that he is functionally illiterate in his own language, so....Come on, GoodDay, try again. I will say that it's a he, but you'll have to keep on guessing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Throwing in the towel on this one, as I've no clue. GoodDay (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- As Lee Harvey Oswald said when he was arrested, "You figure it out". GoodDay, I'll keep ya guessing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- You've a second account? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The Dual-monarchy article
Hello GoodDay.Can you please give your oppinion on why the article should be deleted.It is focusing specificaly on the last 31 years of the war between Henry VI and Charles VII.I believe the Henry VI article should be deleted then,since there is a huge lack of informaton on him in his article.Why dont you read the article first and then decide wether the article is neutral or not.All my statements have been neutral.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- You've nothing to fear, HENRY. Just slap my complaint under DON'T LIKE. Remember, I don't believe Henry was King of France. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes I forgot.You have a personal issue towards the Treaty of Troyes.LOL.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure we will.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Armchair
Well, Armchair has been blocked for a month. He can't say he wasn't warned.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Those who live by the sword... GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, you're plagiarising KRML DJ Al Monte!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Everybody makes quotes like me, only they do it earlier. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hey you skiped my disscution, lol. Just joking.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Westerns
- Weren't the TV Westerns of the 1960s and early 1970s great? I especially loved the Virginian and Gunsmoke. The music was fab-there's a site that plays all of the television themes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Gunsmoke & Bonanza were cool. Though in the latter, it was strange how Ben, Adam & Hoss always discouraged Joe from getting involved with women. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Matt Dillon's relationship with Miss Kitty was never accurately defined.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I thought she was a looker. Jumpers, perhaps Dillion was impotent? GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, the TV censors were hung up on any reference to sex. Remember Ricky and Lucy slept in twin beds!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- No wonder Ricky was surprised (though not suspicious), when Lucy announced her pregnancy. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe he was like Henry VI, and thought there was divine intervention.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Poor Henry, he actually believed he was King of France. As for Miss Kitty? she should've went after Deputy Marshall Festus Hagen. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I thought The Virginian was sexy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Never seen that series. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Brilliant. A classic 1960s western. Oh, Henry V has created a new article:Treaty of Amiens (1423)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is it a neutral article? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's a good article, but I had to put up a copy edit template for spelling, grammar, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't like the Dual-Monarchy article. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's too long. And it doesn't need to be a duplicate of the Hundred Years War article. He could easily remove three quarters of the text to make it readable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Better yet, delete it. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- No way, Jose. After all the work we've done on it! I wrote the lead. Please have a heart GoodDay! I'll sing for ya:Good Day Sunshine......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- All this talk about Westerns has inspired me to create this article:Eddie Little Sky, one of the sexiest actors ever! When I was 17, I watched every rerun of the Westerns just to get a glimpse of him, with his long, flowing black hair and muscular body. I always was powerfully attracted to Native American men, even when I was a little girl. When I visited a reservation in Arizona back in 1976, I was in agony/ecstasy. You do know what agony/ecstasy is, GoodDay? Perhaps an article should be created which describes agony/ecstasy. Or does just the simple word of lust suffice?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ed is kinda built like me (so is Arnold Schwarzeneggar). I could go on further, but modesty prevents me. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- But which Ed are you talking about, GoodDay: Eddie Little Sky, Eddie Plenty Holes, Eddie Longshanks, Eddie Irvine, or Mr. Ed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Eddie Munster. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, more likely Ed Ames.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's the Ed. GoodDay (talk)
- Daniel Boone was a man, yes a big man, with an eye like an eagle and tall as a mountain was he.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Another sexy western actor was Chuck Connors in The Rifleman. Just loved him firing off his shotgun with that wicked gleam in his eye. Check him out on YouTube--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- "The Rifleman, pow, pow, pow". GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if Lee Harvey Oswald ever watched "The Rifleman"? I do believe Chuck Connors was faster than Lee when it came to firing his rifle. However, they both had the same wicked glint in their eyes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- "The Rifleman, pow, pow, pow". GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: NHL Entry Draft 2009
You're welcome. ^^ The whole "diacritics vs no diacritics" and "US vs CA English" discussions are beginning to get annoying, so why not counter it with a little sarcasm? ;-) --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Sedins
I would speculate that it is because the brothers themselves have never indicated they are willing to be separated. Their entire career, one has followed the other. Resolute 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Twilight Zone
- GoodDay, check this out:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker Isn't that gear? Trust me to find out where the action is on Wikipedia. If that's really her, do ya think she'd come to our club? Regale us all with intimate stories of Lee? Alriiiiiiiight--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of this person, she can't be too notable. PS: 3 times in the last 12-months, when I linked to Wikipedia (and just before I sign-in), the IP page 142.68.106.239 comes up with a you have a message golden bar. Any idea on this Wiki glitch? GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I've never had that glitch happen to me. Judyth allegedly had an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald. I had heard of her before. Did you read her reply to Wikipedia below our comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't find it. What she say? GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- She made a long comment on the page which is discussing the proposed deletion of her article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Found it & responded to it. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- So I see. Seems that you and I are on opposite sides of the fence.LOL. Come on, GoodDay, Lee never had the amount of lovers that JFK had. If there's a woman who claims she was lucky enough to dance horizontally with the mysterious LHO, let's keep her article. God knows the pillow talk those two shared!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nyet. There's no way to confirm 'beyond a doubt', this woman was Oswald's boo. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- If she was his leman, lucky Judy. I'd prefer a romp with weirdo Lee than the all-mighty, powerful, grinning JFK.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer Judy. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which Judy? Exner or Baker?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Both (in their primes). GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh, Wild Thing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Grrrr. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if JFK would have done a swop of the Judies with Oswald?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's possible. LBJ claims to have had more women, then either JFK or LHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Rifleman had more than all three put together. Pow!Pow!Pow!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe LBJ's mistress was Madeleine Brown. I wonder if she has an article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- You mean Madeleine Duncan Brown? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's her. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- It might be a candidate for deletion. It was created 'bout 2-yrs ago, by an editor who left Wikipedia (after creating the article). Presidential paramour articles, tend to be kept. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- And articles on alleged presidential assassins' mistresses? Hey that reminds me, why aren't there any articles on John Wilkes Booth's mistresses?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Howabout Guiteau & Czolgoz. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Or Princip, and the would-be Papal assassin, Agar something or other.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- There'd just be too many & difficult to verify. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- The guy who tried to assassinate the Pope was Mehmet Ali Agca. I was far off the mark with his name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Pope forgave him. But, did you noticed he didn't get a pardon from the Italian government via papal pressure? GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agca was a Bulgarian secret agent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Two icons gone
Can you believe it? Two icons died on the same day. Farrah Fawcett symbolised the 1970s, while Michael Jackson symbolised the 1980s. God, do I feel old. I remember my parents always being shocked and upset when one of their film idols passed away. Now I know how they felt. My world (as I know it) is slipping inexorably into the future.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jackson's passing, I could see coming (though not this early). Fawcett's passing was tragic. Yep, a new generation of stars, have taken their places. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I can understand how my parents felt when their favourite film stars and singers died, only to be replaced by newcomers they couldn't relate to. There have been so many deaths of celebrities that formed the backdrop of my earliest years-even two of the Beatles are gone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- It sure didn't take long for Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson to get infront of a camera & microphone. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The world's reaction to his death is assuming Diana-like proportions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, the realization of his passing, is gradually sinking in. For some though, MJ sorta died years ago & was replaced my a wax figure. They're now the Jackson 4. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In heaven, I wonder if Johnny Carson introduced Ed McMahon, with a "Heeeeere's Eddie". GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- To whom?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The ghosts (spirits) of all those who've passed, that were Tonight Show fans. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- What makes you think they're in heaven? I watched the Tonight Show and I sure as hell ain't gonna end up in heaven.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, I'm an athiest. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm n-n-n-not, and I'm afraid Heaven's bouncer will give me the boot at the Pearly Gates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that'll occur. Afterall, he loves you. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Jenny, I never said I loved you". "No, Jesus, don't let it be true, please, say you love me!!!!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
He loves you and he needs money . GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I need some money, honey. He has plenty of lolly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
George Carlin always recommended that people should prey to Joe Pesci, as he looks like somebody, who can get things done. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why not do as Anton La Vey suggested, and pray to oneself?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe in myself. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why, do you think you're just an illusion? A figment of someone's imagination?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
When I've passed, that's basically what I'll be. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- God, how depressing. Please believe in something GoodDay, please!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- For my sake, would you at least believe in Diabolos Rex.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe in skepticism. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
What's a Diabolos Rex? GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- You mean, who is Diabolos Rex. He used to appear on talk shows. Read about Diabolos Rex here. He's got his own church. Guess what it's called?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not into that stuff either. If I may steal a line from Groucho, "I never wanted to belong to an organization, that would have me as a member". GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Whenever I get stopped in the street by Jehovah's Witnesses, I always say to them, "Believe me, I'm the last person you'd want inside your church". They quickly vanish upon hearing those words, religious tracts and all. Jane Anne Stamper be damned. That's a favourite line from one of my favourite books The Moonstone, when one of the characters gets fed up with Miss Clack, a religious fanatic who was in the annoying habit of giving people tracts, whether they wanted them or not.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
When the Jehovah's Witness visit me? I convert them. They leave walking like Groucho Marx. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- And if they're female, they leave walking like a cowboy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Only the sexy gals. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- They're all sexy after you've worked them over.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Quite true. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Departed celebrities
Jumpin' Junipers: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson & now Billy Mays (the pitchman). GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, doesn't this image bring tears to your eyes, pull at your heartstrings, make you yearn for the earthly paradise of matrimonial bliss?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Who's the couple? GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- How sweet, do they have a 'twin-loo'? Tfz 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean twin latrines or jakes? Plumbing was rather primitive in the 14th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- How sweet, do they have a 'twin-loo'? Tfz 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- They had 15 kids together so I'd say they were rather attached to each other in life.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
15 yes, but were they all the Earl's? GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say so. The penalty for adultery was extremely severe back then.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Boiling in oil was the punishment back then, although that would not happen in Ireland under Brehon Law, it would be a cause for divorce. Last woman to be boiled in oil for adultery in Britain was circa 1800 AD. Yes AD. Tfz 16:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say so. The penalty for adultery was extremely severe back then.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe beheading was the penalty for adulterous wives until the 17th century; it was strongly enforced by Henry VIII; see this article here:Anne Bourchier, 7th Baroness Bourchier. Boiling in oil was commonly used for poisoners. In England up until the 18th century, harlots and women who bore children out of wedlock were forced to walk the streets naked, holding a candle as a symbol of penitence, while clergymen walked in the procession, reciting prayers. Obviously devised by celibate priests in order to get a free glimpse of a naked woman. Those were the days, my friend.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That's relatively a small family, for those times. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd wager many were twins, although without refs, it's OR.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Imagine the headaches for the babysitter(s), over the years. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Judging from the effigies, I'd say Thomas and Katherine de Beauchamp were the Paul and Linda McCartney among the 14th century aristocracy, I love you.......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- It would help prove one had an affair with someone famous if they had the foresight to take a photo of their lover in the bedroom, preferably half-undressed. Had Judyth thought to bring her camera along with her when she rendezvoused with Oswald, her article wouldn't be up for deletion. In point of fact, it would be one of the hottest articles at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
RE: SVG map of EU
Hi there. I've taken the liberty of updating the EU locator map showing internal member borders, but there seems to be ... resistance to exhibiting them. Having noticed that you were previously involved in a related discussion, I invite you to weigh in again. Thanks! Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- TY! Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Conclustion
Hello GoodDay regarding your previous post.In relaity you dont really have any documented Historical Fact that says Henry VI was Not King of France.I just want to give a conclustion of the resaults.Henry VI and Charles VII were disputed de jure Kings of France.Saying that Henry is at best King of Northen France as an argue to say he wasnt a French King is weak since Charles VII was only King of the South.Both were in fact Kings of France within there own Territory of Control and Henry had also a legal basis to follow.I have decided to abanden the de jure stuff since it is pointless.Both Henry and Charles were de jure Kings of France.P.S Historions do recognize Henry VI as King Henri II of France.I already gave an endless list of sources saying he was King of France.C'YA GoodDay--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Henry was not King of France. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with GoodDay on this, Henry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why.Both French and English historions recognize Henry VI aS King of France.Louis XIX does not feature on the official regnal template of French Kings but he is still a King of France.You both say Historions dont recognize Him as King of France when they do.Even books about Jeanne D arc point out that both Henry VI and Charles VII were Kings of France.Here are the ref:
Here are the refs:
- 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:
lol I think both Oxford and Cambridge agree Henry was King of France as mentioned in these sources. I mentioned countless and countless of sources.I am using refs but as I said to you both before do you have any book in a modest Point of View which spells out "Henry is not King of France".I searched myself and no such source exists.Neither do sources say Henry was a mere pretender.He was a King of France.If you want to Know why Henry VI is not featured in the French regnal template I advise you to read this book here:http://books.google.ie/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PA23&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+became+King+of+France+regnal&lr=&as_brr=0.As we all see Wikipedia takes sources from Historions and what Academics anknowledge(Quote from Jeanne).IT is ok to say contrevertial Facts like Charles VII was the Rightfull King of France but by making a statement that Henry VI didnt rule as King of France is Original Research since no Academic anknowledges this.It is like saying the sky is not blue.Goodbye to you both and have a Nice Day.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oxford & Cambridge are British Universaties, thus having there's not reliable sources on that topic. Henry, was not King of France. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry GoodDay can you please rephrase your post.I didnt understand what you said.I mentioned both English and French academic sources.And yes Cambridge I mean university.I mentioned a source from Cambridge.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay you should notice that it is the Anglophiles whom given the title Henry II of France to Henry VI.The future french king Henri II of France was a descent from Charles VII not Henry VI of England so he cant retrace his legitimacy in terms of the numbering regnal template to Henry VI.Again check out the source I gave explaining why he is not featured in the official regnal template.None of my sources denyCharles VII kingship and reign in 1422.They recognize both as disputed french claimaints,A claim later secured by Charles VII.I dont get it GoodDay when it spells out in front of you Henry VI is King of France,by saying that I am not denying Charles kingship.That is what you hace to understand.C'ya.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is the source from Oxford:
lol.GoodDay are alright.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
and Cambridge:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+dual-monarchy&lr=
Thus Henry VI is King of France.Please check all the refs.Some of them are from French Academics.I see I might have to make a seperate section for sources from French Academics
Here are the Refs from French Academics:
Page 128 http://books.google.com/books?id=Mbfm1_q_zqQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3
Page 168 http://books.google.com/books?id=AYF4LIAMRMIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3
Pae 18 http://books.google.com/books?id=NG9DRSg5dYMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZD_1zbyU5jsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3
Page 35 http://books.google.com/books?id=tky-kvB0rdAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 23 http://books.google.com/books?id=YJsMaEvgZzUC&pg=PP1&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 28 http://books.google.com/books?id=0hYWzuecyHMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3
Pge 167 http://books.google.com/books?id=560fPSrm2hwC&pg=PA165&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 246.Enclodopedia http://books.google.com/books?id=MziRd4ddZz4C&pg=PA246&dq=Charles+D+Orleans+recognized+Henry+as+King+of+France&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 129 http://books.google.com/books?id=tplzx-OCEicC&pg=PA36&dq=Joan+of+Arc+and+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 7 http://books.google.com/books?id=eo9RW7jWxyMC&pg=PA7&dq=Joan+of+Arc+and+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3
Page 206-217 http://books.google.com/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA206&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3
Thus Henry VI IS King of France.Wikepedia only accept what is accepted by historions as you said.Your arguement that Henry VI is not a French King is Original Research.Sorry GoodDay but both French and English historions recognize the fact that Henry VI is King of France.C'YA and have a nice day.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, you haven't presuaded me. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Henry, do you honestly believe GoodDay or I could possibly find the time to Google so many books?! Whew! Henry VI was not Henri II of France. Some Yorkists even dispute that he had been the legitimate king of England, due to his grandfather having usurped the throne from Richard II, and bypassed the rightful Mortimer claim.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Besides HENRY, why are you trying to persuade me? I haven't been trying to delete the The Dual-Monarchy of England and France article. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I dont find your Aquisation' of Henry VI not bieng styled King Henri II of France in any source thus you are both implying Original Research.Also Henry VI was legitimaite King of England since he was 100% accepted as Legitiate King by the English and so did York.I advise you to read this book.http://books.google.com/books?id=ubXnWRMt6uoC&pg=PA141&dq=Henry+VI+and+the+Mortimers.It was weakining royal power that revived the Mortimer Claim.Thus what you are saying Jeanne(no offence) is that the Mortimers or Yorkists Didnt recognize Henry VI as King of England even though they fought for Henry VI as King of France and the fact Rchard was lord protecter for Henry in 1454.Sorry Jeanne I think your mistaken on this point.The Yorkists generaly accepted Henry VI as legitiaite King of England During there hayday victorios in France.You should also know that Richard didnt proffess his claim until 1460 as King of England.The problem with your arguement Jeanne is that the Yorkists never proffesed there claim at any sence from 1422-1460..There is Not one source in the world that will say the Yorkists didnt recognize Henry VI as King of England or France for that matter from 1422-1460.Please give me a source.It was Yorkist dissapointment that made them declare there claim as a pretext to take the Kingdom.You should know Edward IV took the role of a Usurper and he deposed Henry VI as King of France.If Richard was part of the regency council of Henry VI in 1454 then he recognized him as King of England.
Page 214-215. http://books.google.com/books?id=sqqpQvfa1UgC&pg=PA214&dq=Edward+IV+in+1460+claimed+the+throne&lr=&as_brr=3
Henry was styled as King Henri IIof France by the Anglophiles.C'ya GoodDay and Jeanne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is my Userpage. If I choose to deny Henry's French claim, I can. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please, don't post anymore references. At this rate, you'll have my talk-page archived daily. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Henry, you are confusing Edward IV with his father. It was Richard, Duke of York who headed the Regency Council in 1454 because Henry VI was insane, thus Margaret of Anjou was de facto ruler of England and the head of the Lancastrian contingent. The Yorkists backed the Duke of York's legitimate claims to the throne, hence the name Yorkist. Read this article:Wars of the Roses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I got one point mixed up with the date.Sorry but I did mention Richard.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jeanne.Richard of York I meant renounced his claim as King of ENGLAND and took the predescent of the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 whereby Henry VI woud stay as King of England and his 6 year old son would be dissinherited in favour of Richard duke of York as hs Heir.This was known as the act of accord.Based on the same priciples of the Treaty of Troyes this meant that he would have had to recognize the Lancastrians as the Legitiamite ruler of England in order to becomome his Heir.Therefore because of the act of Accord in 1460 Henry VI was the legitiamite King of England.Edward IV thus had no right to depose Henry King of England in 1461 and is a Usurper making his claim nothing since his father ended his de jure(claim) in 1460.Anway Henry VI had beeen recognized as Both King of England and France all over England and Northn France as the legitiamite ruler.Again there is no source that will say any mortimer or duke of York didnt recognize henry as Legitiamite King from 1422-1454.C'ya.
Harry Schmarry
Hello GoodDay I gave a reply to you above.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually.Just forget about it.Both English and Frecnh Historions recognize Henry VI as King of France.You believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe in.C'YA GoodDay--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say Charles VII was not King of France.They were disputed and both reign began in 1422.But what you are arguing about is that Henry VI was never King of France which is pure Original Research since you have no source to back up your Aquisation rather then calling it an arguement.C'ya GoodDay.P.S believe what you wish but I am quite tired of this since I mentioned both French and English sources.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay????--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it's pure Political PoV on my part (I've never denied that). From my PoV, Henry was never Henry II of France. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody would consider Henry VI to have been Henri II. There couldn't have been two kings of France bearing the same name and number.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
As aid in multiple refs I have given.Henry VI was formally(internationaly) recognized as King of France(Henri II) in 1422 rather then Charles.But Charles reign still began in 1422.As for GoodDays post that Henry VI wasnt aware he was King of France is not an arguement.John I of France dies as a baby but he was still King of France.And anyway Henry VI knew he was King of France since he wa crowned at the age of 8 in Paris.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- You continue to forget, that no matter what you say or how many times you present proof; I still don't accept Henry as King of France. In otherwords, you're beating a dead horse. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jeanne.Richard of York I meant renounced his claim as King of ENGLAND and took the predescent of the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 whereby Henry VI woud stay as King of England and his 6 year old son would be dissinherited in favour of Richard duke of York as hs Heir.This was known as the act of accord.Based on the same priciples of the Treaty of Troyes this meant that he would have had to recognize the Lancastrians as the Legitiamite ruler of England in order to becomome his Heir.Therefore because of the act of Accord in 1460 Henry VI was the legitiamite King of England.Edward IV thus had no right to depose Henry King of England in 1461 and is a Usurper making his claim nothing since his father ended his de jure(claim) in 1460.Anway Henry VI had beeen recognized as Both King of England and France all over England and Northn France as the legitiamite ruler.Again there is no source that will say any mortimer or duke of York didnt recognize henry as Legitiamite King from 1422-1454.C'ya.
What am I missing?
Just thought you might want to cast your eyes upon User:Jza84/Sandbox5 and let me know what I'm missing. They are of course draft "revamp" leads for the Cornish people and English people articles, but there are still gaps. Am I on the right tracks? Do they read comfortably for you (as a Canadian... of course!). Hope you can help, --Jza84 | Talk 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I agree that something needs to be done about the Scottish and Pictish template as it currently stands; if you think splitting is the best way, go with it. I still don't like the idea of splitting the English and British template though, since templates are meant to be inclusive, and many layman (Americans) would think Elizabeth II, for example, is "Queen of England".
How about, as a compromise solutions, we keep the post-union English monarchs on the English and British template, but remove the template from the pages of post-1707 monarchs, if you think it could be misconstrued. I'll obviously post this idea of the talk page of the English and British monarchs template. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Proofs
OK GoodDay you dont have to recognize Henry VI as King of France but you have just refuted your aquisation since you denyed the proofs.In both English and French Point of Views nobody denyed Henry VI dual-Kingship.I even did a Google Books search looking up the following words "Henry VI is not King of France" and no book or source came supporting that aquisation.Because a King does not feature on an official regnal template that does not make him unaccepted as King.You should know that Louis XIX of France does not feature in the official regnal template but that does not deny his 20min Kingship.Apparently the sourced reason why Henry VI is not mentioned in the French monarchs regnal template is because Charles VII was closer of Blood to Charles VI rather then Henry V since he was the adopted-son of Charles VI by the Treaty of Troyes.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unexceptable, in my world. Oh, Louis XIX was never King of France, either. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL.GoodDay it seems you have the power to declare what is legitimite and what isn't.You are truly the King.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the Emperor of Earth. I just don't have any (other then myself) believers. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe you, Imperial Highness, and I swear fealty to you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay I cant understand how you say Henry VI was not King of France when I presented my proofs and refuted your aquisation.Louis XIX was King of France for 20mins as is proven and is accepted by Historions.Therefore you have no part to deny them unless you have in least one historion whom supports your point that Henry VI or Louis XIX for that matter isn't King of France.Here is the new challange,give me one source that denys Louis XIX(Louis-Antoine's) kingship.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- None of those blokes were Kings of France. Trust, me Louis XIX & Henry V (d. 1883) supposed reigns were disputed. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello GoodDay because a King is disputed that does not unking him.Both Charles and Henry were disputed so I cant anknowledge that arguement.So according to your understanding Charles was King of France from 1453-1461.That is basicly your understanding.GoodDay I am sorry but Henry VI(II of France) was a King of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I'm The Great Pretender, pretending that I'm King of France........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- HENRY, I fail to understand why you're wasting your time trying to convince me of Harry's French title. As I mentioned numerious times before, you don't need my approval. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nor mine. Remember Henry, I am not a Lancastrian supporter (despite my interest in Margaret of Anjou). I am a Yorkist, Now is the winter of my discontent made glorious summer by this son of York. I even own a silver sun in splendour pendant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jeanne.I also proven that Edward IV s a usurper.Go to your talkpage.And no Henry VI is a Regnal King of France surely no pretnder.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- In my songbook Henry VI was a great pretender, pretending to be King of France.......and England. God save King Richard!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Henry VI is not a Great pretender he is a regnal King of France.Richard is a usurper lol.C'ya.
P.S.To add in 1404 York agreed to Henry IV that his succesors would be the legitiamite Kings of England.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Usurpers Rule! Yeah!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)