User talk:GoodDay

Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. Be assured I'll be as courteous as possible & hope to provide worthy answers to your questions (about wiki edits), I'm looking forward to meeting you. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).

You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talk-page's 'history'.

I've a secondary userpage called User:GoodDay/My stuff, which is where 'my stuff' has been transfered from my Userpage.

Some VP questions

GD before I go out I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. OK, was it true that JFK was going to drop LBJ from the ticket for the 1964 election as soon as he returned from Texas? If so, who do historians believe he would have chosen? A third question. Had Kennedy not chosen Johnson in 1960, do you think he'd have chosen Adlai Stephenson?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer #1 - there's no reliable proof, just heresay. I know that AG Bobby Kennedy, wanted LBJ dumped (RFK didn't want LBJ in '60). Answer#2 - I'm not sure, perhaps Al Gore's father. Answer#3 - Nope, Stevenson wouldn't have accpeted (IMHO), since he'd been the prez nominee in 1952 & 1956. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I believe that JFK relied heavily on Bobby's opinions and advice. If Bobby suggested John should drop Johnson from the ticket, John would probably have done so. His re-election in '64 was a sure thing, therefore he wouldn't have needed Johnson to garner the white southern vote. It was common knowledge back then that there was no love lost between RFK and LBJ. Their mutual antipathy glowed like atomic radiation; one can see it in photos and film clips. Oh BTW, today Adlai would be 110 years old. Check for daily birthdays at the top of my talk page, below my advert for WikiBlitz!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Had JFK lived & Stevenson joined the '64 ticket (and they were elected), he wouldn't have been Veep very long. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you reckon that? When did he die?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson suffered a fatal heart attack in July '65. Indeed, the stress of being a heart-beat away from the presidency, may have brought that heart-attack on sooner. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm convinced that JFK would have dropped Johnson and that he would have gone on to win the 1964 election. Whether or not voters would have become disillusioned by him would have largely depended on how he handled the war in Vietnam. Perhaps his womanising habits would have become public knowledge, thus angering the conservatives in the Democratic party. Who knows how world history might have turned out had he remained in office til 1968!!! The idea is mindboggling.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Err, ya mean 'til January 20, 1969. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Jan. 1969, then he might have been followed by his brother, depending on the Kennedy popularity ratings by that time. What do you reckon?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Back-to-back brother Presidents? I can't picture the USA going along those lines. Had JFK lived, I'm not even certain RFK would've gone into elective politics. If my theory is correct, RFK never seeking the presidency, would've meant Ted not getting into the Chappaquidick trouble. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh now this is getting verrrryy interesting. Do explain your theory about Ted and Chappaquidick.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary-Joe Kepechnie worked for RFK's '68 presidential campaign. Had she not, it's quite possible she wouldn't have been at that party in 1969, that she & Ted left together. It's strange when one considers how a moment can change stuff. Had JFK lived? LBJ may never have been Prez. If the American had left Vietnam sooner, the Democrats would've won in '68, thus Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford wouldn't have been Prez. No Watergate scandal, no Jimmy Carter to follow. No Carter & Iran hostage crises? no Reagan. No Reagan, then no Bush (elder). No Bush (elder) with economy in bad shape in '92, then no Clinton. Again, no Bush (elder) then no Bush (younger) in 2000. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have ya ever seen the 'Star Trek, Next Generation' episode Tapestry? Wowsers, it dives right into what ifs theories. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy definitely had problems in the South, and would probably not have ditched Johnson. If he had, picking a Yankee like Stevenson would have been a terrible idea. Also, if Kennedy were going to pick someone else, he probably wouldn't have made a decision until much later—perhaps not until most or all of the delegates were chosen. Keep in mind that conventions mattered back then more than they do now; presidential candidates often ran with the person the convention stuck them with, who was not necessarily their first choice.

Thinking about RFK in 1968 if JFK hadn't died requires assuming JFK would still be popular. It also assumes that the party would have been willing to nominate a second Kennedy in a row. It is interesting to wonder whether Kennedy would have been able to get the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Medicaid passed. LBJ was able to get the fist ones through in part because he was able to use Kennedy's death. All of them took LBJ's considerable skills to get through the Senate. If Kennedy were still alive, I have to wonder whether LBJ would have put anything like that effort into something that would give the Kennedys credit. I have serious doubts that Kennedy would have gotten it done himself. -Rrius (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Due the to status of the Vice Presidency (during the 1960's), JFK getting LBJ to push through the Civil Rights, Voting Rights Acts & Medicaid, for the administration would've been highly unlikely. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative history

Another fascinating what if is what if Barry Goldwater had won the 64 election instead of LBJ?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All kinds of possibilites abound. Could Goldwater have beatend an scandaled JFK in '64? If so, would a Prez Goldwater run again (most likely) in '68? If he & Miller were re-elected, would VP Miller run for prez in '72? Indeed, alternative history can be fascinating. I can't quite remember it, but there was a book out once, asking the question, what if the South (Confederate States) had won the American Civil War. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How's this for alternative history: What if the Spanish Armada had succeeded in invading England?!!!! Think how the course of world history would have changed? Philip annexing England as a Spanish possession, no English colonisation in the New World, the Protestant church banned forever, the Spanish as the supreme European and global power.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, had things happend that way, we'd still be asking ourselves 'what if'. Though, we'd be asking it in Spanish. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Oh do you want to hear something incredible? My cat sent my son's friend an e-mail with his paw on the keyboard!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's purrrfect. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that wild? This AM, my son and I went out to the shops, he left the PC open, when he returned, his friend sent him a message asking him why he had sent the message:PPPPPPOOOOOOOBBBB.........LLLLLA and other weird characters that made no sense at all. LOL. The cat did it as he was the only living creature in the house at the time the message was sent. Mad, bad, Tony!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I read an article about what would have happened if Harold had won at Hastings. One conclusion was that Germanic/Scandinavian Europe would have dominated the Middle Ages because England would have provided the warm-weather ports lost by the period of global cooling that cut short their power. It was also put forward that they would have continued colonizing in the Americas, and likely come to an accommodation with the Indians because they were technologically better matched (i.e., no guns). Interesting stuff. -Rrius (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One moment changed, can set off a chain reaction in many directions throughout history. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And none of us would ever had been born. I always have to remember that when I feel sympathy for history's losers. -Rrius (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Having tried to change the past a number of times, I've found it's only really possible to a limited degree. ðarkuncoll 00:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps things are set in stone. Maybe one (via time machine) can't change history, at least not the big parts of it - See the Twilight Zone's episode Back There. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago me and some friends made a determined effort to change the date of the Battle of Hastings from Friday 13th (an unlucky day) to Saturday 14th of October (to give us a better chance of winning). I never bothered checking if it ever worked, though. ðarkuncoll 00:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the calender date could be changed from Julian to Gregorian. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Friday the 13th in a year with Halley's Comet is just bad mojo. Harold should have tried to avoid that. -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

He certainly should have. That's why we sent a message back to him to feel a bit off, that day, and postpone it to the next. ðarkuncoll 00:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember in the M*A*S*H episode (Crises), Frank growled about their complaining of lack of supplies. Frank said, "what if the minutemen had complained about no toilet paper?", Hawkeye responded "so we would've had independance 20 minutes later". GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I like to imagine how history would have changed had Anne Boleyn carried her son full-term in 1536?! Henry wouldn't have bothered getting rid of Anne (providing the boy survived infancy), there would have been no King Edward VI; Mary and Elizabeth would have most likely married foreign princes, and the Tudor dynasty might have gone on for centuries! Another alternative historical scene is what if Richard III had heeded the warning pinned to Norfolk's tent and challenged Henry Tudor to single combat at the Battle of Bosworth instead of falsely relying on Lord Stanley with his force of 3,000 men which turned the tide against Richard when they treacherously went over to Henry's side after Richard had slain most of Tudor's body-shields. It's a foregone conclusion that Richard would have killed Henry and retained his crown. He'd have remarried quickly, fathered an heir or two and the magnificent Plantagenet dynasty could have lasted forever!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Had that Edward lived to be King, Mary I never would've ascended the throne & Elizabeth might've if her full brother had no children & predeceased her. After Edward V & Richard, duke of York were deposed, the throne should've went to George, Duke of Clarenece's son, Edward. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it rightfully should have passed to Elizabeth of York. Anyroad, had Richard III emerged the victor, he would have wasted no time in marrying and siring an heir to secure the throne from further attemps to usurp it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about 'Liz. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tragically, Richard III (who was married) had a son & heir-apparent, who predeceased him. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

His wife Anne Neville had died in March 1485, 5 months before Bosworth. There had been rumours that he hoped to wed his niece Elizabeth!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Had Richard's son lived, would Henry still have attacked? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. One can readily understand Henry VIII's preoccupation in 1525 with his lack of a male heir, and one rather unhealthy daughter to succeed him. Had Prince Edwrad (Richard's son) lived, there would have been a rallying point for the English against the Tudor invader.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed in those days (and for centuries after), it was believed that females would be weak/controlled monarchs & therefore their successions were usually opposed. Also, men didn't like the idea of being ruled by a woman. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Although a monarch had to be a warlord, history has shown that men often followed women leaders in battle such as Margaret of Anjou, Joan of Arc and even back in the 12th century, men supported Matilda of England against her cousin Stephen. The two major objections to female sovereigns were the risk, as was proven in the case of Mary I and Mary Stuart, that she would be dominated by her husband, also there was the high risk that she would die in childbirth along with her heir, leaving the kingdom in turmoil. That was Henry VIII's fear. He saw Mary being incapable of holding onto her throne and the realm plunged back into the civil strife of the previous century with all the Yorkist claimants brandishing swords and their Plantagenet coat-of-arms.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If only Henry VIII, could've seen the future (Elizabeth I of England). -- GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she was probably England's greatest monarch, yet Henry's line died with her, and his enemies, the Scots inherited the throne, despite his will which explicitly debarred them from the succession. He wouldn't have been too pleased to see that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It can't be all bad, James I/VI was a great-grandnephew of Henry VIII's. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In his will, Henry expressly debarred his eldest sister, Margaret's descendants from the throne, in favour of his younger sister, Mary's descendants. That was how Jane Grey was catapulted onto the throne by the machinations of her father-in-law.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It was the wrong thing for Henry to do, as far as succession go. But, I suppose he'd have preferred an English monarchs succeeded to the Scottish throne, then visa-versa. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he tried many times to invade Scotland in an attempt to capture the infant Mary, Queen of Scots and wed her to his son, Edward. That was why her mother, Mary of Guise had her sent to her relations in France. Read this article here: War of the Rough Wooing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's ironic, after all those centuries of English monarchs trying to assume the Scottish throne, the visa-versa occures (though no as a military conquest, as with a English descended Scottish King). GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

History is full of many ironies such as the French toppling the Bourbon dynasty only to eventually replace it with the decidedly unroyal Bonapartes!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Then to restore the Bourbons, then the Bonpartes again & finally getting rid onf monarchies permanently. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but France sans monarch lacks something. France needs a monarchy IMO, to provide a living thread of continuity to its glorious past. Call me romantic, but it's the way I think.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nay, it's the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

E dopo?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What's that mean? GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine mondern France with a monarchy. It would be so artificial. -Rrius (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they've had Presidents non-stop since 1870, let's not break the streak. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, e dopo? is an Italian expression that roughly corresponds to the English and.....? The Germans have their own equivalent which they apparently use a lot to combat a person's statement. I can imagine a restored Bourbon monarchy putting the singing/catwalking "I'm too sexy for my shirt" French Republic's First Lady Carla Bruni in the shade. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Bourbon monarchy was restored, who'd be the Monarch of France? I think there's two claiments. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Spanish Borbons have a good claim to the French throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, John Charles I of Spain and France. Perhaps, that's what's hurting the French monarchists. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is GoodDay prissy?

I had to laugh at how the other editors reacted on AN/I, calling people who rightfully object to unrestrained usage of profanity prissy, and adding how it's perfectly acceptable to say F..k off where they come from.! What a load of BS. If someone told their boss in England or Ireland to go get f..ked or something to that effect, they would be quickly given the boot, same as in the USA or Canada. I'm so sick of this we Europeans are so sophisticated and cool, while you Yanks are all uptight geeks crap. I can remember how my language used to offend my English friends. When I was 17, I was in Brighton, England, and when I accidentally used the word wank on a crowded bus, my sophisticated, trendy, liberal, socialistic English mate nearly fainted from shock. Who was the uptight, prissy one, I ask you? Tut-tut (shakes head) BTW, I have left a comment on the AN/I page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a good chuckle at that one, too. I chose not to comment on it there, as who knows where the discussion would've evolved to. Guess I shant be welcomed on those editors' talkpages, likely just as well. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already commented on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. Naturally my comment was met with the typical barrage of feeble anti-American insults including a tirade against American-style shopping malls juxtaposed with repeted f..ks. (Shakes head in amused bafflement).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The constant use of the f-bombs there, is merely them claiming "we'll say what we want, try and get us blocked, if you can" stuff. It's all entertaining, eh? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

When I joined my place of work in the US I was rather surprised at the persistent and casual swearing, including f--k, in the professional environment. I once has a robust difference in opinion with my boss and she finished our conversation with: "well, f--k you then." Having previously worked in a similar position in the UK, I can confidently say that that sort of language was never used during professional exchanges. I think the European impression that our American cousins are overly offended by rude words is a rather naive one, based on US television and one visit to Orlando, Florida as a kid. The situation on the ground is very different. Rockpocket 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The "..it's the way we talk.." excuse, by some of the pro-foul langage usage editors, is unconvincing. That Parrot fellow (IMHO) is using foul-language deliberatley, to see how far he can take it (makes'em feel tough). GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's my opinion exactly. All that shrapnel of f...s is a verbal form of stuffing a sock down one's crotch and miming to old Led Zeppelin records. Pathetic and embarrassing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, stay AWAY from Malleus and his possy; they're, to say the least, somewhat unpleasant. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm too old to be intimidated by profanity posting editors. Don't worry, I rarely bump into them anyway. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think to successfully edit at Wikipedia one needs a US Marines crewcut and a balls-out, Robert Plant swagger.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Howabout a mixture of Groucho Marx & Gunnery Sergeant Hartman? GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, babe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn's new look

He's full of (for GD's benefit) it. There may well be a difference in the particular curse words used, but he is an idiot to suppose that his experience in telling his boss to f--k off is somehow typical of British workplaces or that exceptions such as his would be unthinkable here. I am well aware of professional offices (law offices) here in the US where telling your boss would be not only acceptable, but expected. On the other hand, it would be unthinkable in most. It is all down to the type of workplace it is, the particular people involved, and the relationships involved. His anti-American nonsense would be laughable if it weren't so sad. I worked in retail for years and never said, "have a good day!" and rarely used a fake smile. When I did, it would have been as part of humouring some idiot who thought he was clever. Americans lament the effects of shopping malls and Walmart-style discount stores on small shops at least as much as Europeans do. The impression that idiots like him have that Americans are all cows happily grazing at the local mall is absurd. Some are, sure. But then so are many Europeans. Instead of looking at malls as some sort of evil American invention that we are inflicting on the world, it should be understood as what it is—far from being cultural, they are an obvious result of the economic system we inherited from the Brits combined with our large spaces and the automobile. I shouldn't have even read the stupid thread after seeing the discussion here. I knew it would irritate me, but I went anyway. The thing that really pisses me off about anti-American Europeans is that they usually hate us for stupid reasons. There are plenty of good reasons to be frustrated with Americans, but they usually get it wrong, and the English are usually guilty of exactly the same things anyway, so they have no room to talk. -Rrius (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The United States is the most powerful country (militarily speaking) on the planet. There's bound to be resentments out there. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and there are plenty of reasons to dislike America and Americans, but people like Mal pick such bad ones. -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: I wonder did anybody watch the George Carlin clip, I mentioned there? GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When I read it, I thought I'd seen it before, but now I'm not so sure. I guess I'll go look for the link again. On second thought, could you link to it here? -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You expressed my sentiments exactly, Rrius. Ever since I first moved to Europe in 1980, I have had to put up with various forms of anti-Americanism, which as GoodDay aptly points out is mainly due to our usurpation of Britain as the premier superpower while the French resent us for cultural reasons. Prior to the 20th century, France was the arbitrator for fashion and culture, which is no longer the case as McDonalds has sadly but inevitably eclipsed Maxims. I am primarily angered at anti-Americanism for these reasons: namely when they put down my country, they aren't just knocking the government, but its history, its people (including my family) and their values, and last but not least, the countless American soldiers who died on European battlefields saving Europe from itself. My response to snarling or sneering anti-Americanism is to inquire why if they hate American people and their culture do they continue to wear jeans, fly in planes, listen to rock and jazz music, use the Internet, eat at fast food restaurants, dress like American hip-hop artists, lust after Sharon Stone and George Clooney, and use American slang (which has pretty much infected Britain and Ireland in the last 20 years). Normally they are unable to respond. As for shopping malls, I have seen Europeans become absolutely orgasmic upon entering Walmarts. I also need to add that rarely does one meet with anti-Americanism from Romanians, Russians, Moldavians, etc., and the Albanians love America and Americans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out [1], for George Carlin's views on 'having a nice day'. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free

Thanks for adding Pesci's name. An oversight on my part. Please, please feel free to add names to my daily list. It's fun doing the birthdays, but I didn't feel the need for death anniversaries.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I assume it was allowable, so I went & added him. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's allowable!!!!! Oh I've been working on this article. Practically everybody there is related to me! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems a nice place. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't wish to add too much about my great-grandfather, lest it become a vanity piece. Anyroad, I'm glad your server problems have been sorted out. Place would be too dull without you lol. Speaking of ancestors, you seem to have quite an interesting heritage. What are you Scottish, French, English and black if my memory serves me right? I didn't realise there was a black community in PEI?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, one of my great-great-great grandfathers was black (not sure exactly). You can't tell though, if ya seen me. Yep, I've got Scottish, English, Irish, French (presumably Welsh). GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You should list your ancestors the way I did.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nay, though I do have a distant ancester with a Wikipedia article. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If we only had the info I'd say many of our ancestors would be worthy of an article or even novel. For instance your black ancestor probably had an interesting story to tell; what was his name, was he a slave or freedman, how he ended up in Canada, etc.? Did you know that in the US, Brazil, and the Caribbean many blacks themselves owned slaves?!! I find genealogy a fascinating subject; to think we are genetic links to other times, places and cultures.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

With each passing generation, humans become more genetically complexed. Enhancing our gene pool every cycle. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it true?

It's baaaack! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's back. One can never overcome the Wikipedia addiction, I'm a prime example. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he needs a good rehab, then; for all our sakes. Wiki Rehab With Dr. Drew? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Who needs porn

When we have Wikipedia! Check this page out?!!!!! My God O Tempora! O Mores!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the top image at this page. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But that's not obscene! It's normal. What I'm curious about is who modelled for that photo?!!!!! Jesus wept.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I assume the person gave permisson for the addition of that image. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only did he give permission but he probably had it taken on purpose to have it placed in the article. Hmm...nobody has mentioned personality rights....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya never know what people are up to, these days. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a hilarious bit: Husband comes out of the shower & says to his wife the following - "Wow honey, I feel as clean as a whistle. Wanna bl-w me?". GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you like that, you two should check out the treasure trove of (mostly) soft-core porn and nudes at Commons. -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

An x-rated Komodo. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Sorry, I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. From what I can tell, a merge and a redirect don't differ by anything more than the fact that typing a term into the search box will result in a user being sent to the merged content, in this case, Brian Burke (ice hockey) with a section entirely devoted to Brendan Burke. The difference is that a merge doesn't include the redirect quality. Am I wrong? If so, what exactly is the difference?Luminum (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In a redirect, one types in Brendan Burke & is taken to the Brian Burke (ice hockey), which has little to nothing about Brendan Burke. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi GoodDay,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed my primary choice from 90% to 85% in hopes of helping reach a compromise. My secondary choice 'None' was the belief it meant buerocrats discretion. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

trial run

Hi GD, thought I'd try this out on you first if you don't mind (as you voted here too). I've got about 77 people to post it to. I tried to make it shorter, but I'm worried about further ambiguity. There are only so many times you can query things like this. Personally I can't see any realistic ambiguity over the "none" vote at all, but as long as it's there, there will be a hitch I think. What do you think? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Establishing clarity, is always a good idea. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've given it another slight adjustment to make it easier to read, and I'll post it now. Fingers crossed it will do the trick. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Friendly word in your ear

Flip-flopping [2][3], and commenting for the sake of it, with little or no constructive purpose [4] reminds of a certain editor of old. Not the new, improved GoodDay. Rockpocket 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's partially why I exited from the AE discussion. My inner demons were beginning to take hold of me. PS: Thanks for the reminder, I was weakening. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope Gooddday (talk · contribs) is not one of your demons. I reverted his change to your user page, and have ratted him out on ANI as imo your stalker. MickMacNee (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I've no socks. Just admirers who have a funny way of expressing themselves. Thanks for the help, Mick. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Dealt with ;) I protected your userpage, GoodDay - Alison ^❤ 01:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If an editor wishes to change their mind they are allowed with out comment, didn't see you running here Rock when he said he should be unblocked, wonder if he had have changed his mind from block to unblock would you have posted here, somehow I doubt it. BigDunc 15:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gooddday?

Your stalker suffers from a chronic lack of imagination!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The dope could at least have capitalised one of the Ds! -Rrius (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I don't understand what his/her game is? Once I asked GoodDay (partially in jest) if it wasn't some former one-night-stand whom he forgot to call!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the price of being a celebrity. Remember that stalking movie, starring Jerry Lewis? -- GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, King of Comedy with Robert De Niro and Sandra Bernhardt as the stalkers. Great film. Oh thanks for adding Lorne Green. How could I have overlooked Ben Cartwright?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs, he also is remembered for being Adama on Battlestar Galactica. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I never realised he was Canadian. One learns something new everyday at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a spooker, see The Canadian Conspiracy. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They left out Celine Dion, Barbara Parkins, and Pamela Anderson. LOL!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The latter generation. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Most people don't realise the latter two are indeed Canadians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't realize the Canuck Luck. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should have been born in Canada then, seeing as I have rotten luck!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your luck can't be all bad, you're gorgeous. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I needed to hear that as I haven't been feeling too good of late. I suppose a trip to the hairdresser would drag me up out of the blues I seem to have sunk into. Or maybe I just need to create a new article. Lol. Anyroad, I'm signing off for a while as I need to go to the chemist and buy a thermometer. My daughter appears to be running a temperature. See ya. Bye bye for now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

An Italian lover, 'tis what's needed. Okie Dokie, see ya latter. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No comment. (Uh-hm...) BTW, Tatiana has a temp. of 37.1. Not too high but still a fever.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

She'll be alright, I once had temp of 'bout 40. I had a Robert De Niro schizoprenia attack, kept saying to myself "Am I talkin' to me?". GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Her fever has passed, but she still has a bad cold so I've kept her at home today. Were you looking into the mirror as you recited De Niro's lines? When I was a kid we had this huge rectangular mirror and I used to carry on intense conversations with my reflection. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's great, she's on the mend. Nope, I didn't use a mirror. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment at WP:CDA

I still think more cooks is harmful, but I won't object to them. GoodDay (talk) 10:48 pm, Today (UTC+0)

It's one of your classics I'm afraid! The idea of "too many cooks spoiling the broth" is not particularly Wikpiedian anyway, and the only thing me and Tryptofish actually agree on right now is that we both accept a there is a serious need for more outside input. As Ohms notes, people tend to bicker amongst themselves when the room is too small. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"..but I won't object to them". If you all feel more editors are required to get the CDA proposal moving to a conclusion? then select a spot to place such a 'request' & then place it. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We have tried this type of thing, and it hasn't worked when the page is so long. Re me pulling you up: it was the first and second comments combined really - the first "just enough cooks" was your opinion, but the second wasn't really needed. Nobody would expect you to really object to more people in a new sentence - you probably should have placed in near your first comment in the section above. Do you see? It just seemed needless on its own. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I messed up on that one. I'll scratch it out, then. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

e/c Your comment on compromising btw was a really good one - it really should be as simple as you said. We don't need too many lighthearted giggles though - the page is waay too long as it is, and I'm not being allowed to archive any of it until the percentages are sorted. Very frustrating. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've accepted 85% as my primary choice, for the sake of compromise. If others can't make similar concessions? the road will be rough. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping it's just Trypto (he's the only one who's said he finds above 80 totally unacceptable). 85 is harmless in the scale of things, and has some symmetry with 65, so no one will compain that it has a 5 in it. It's amazing that with all the theoretical edits that can happen on Wikiepdia, things so often come down to the battle of a few of egos. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobodys claiming what you guys are attempting to put together, would be easy. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No one with any sense anyway. I think a few people wanted it to be though. That was totally unrealistic - CDA at the Rfc in early Jan would have been massacred. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just stay calm, the waters are gonna continue to be rough until the CDA ship makes it to dock. You've got alot more patients then I. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

GD! Don't scratch the jokey comments inbetween the jokey replies - it looks bizarre and you'll get me into trouble! (I have enough heat already right now!). You don't really need to strike anything here. I've just realised you don't know how to use strikes. The are generally for referencing. I'll try and explain:

• If a 'mistake' comment is totally unneeded (not even for reference) and has not been referred or replied to - then it is best just to delete it. Strikes are really to denote specific and relevant changes of mind, and you do not need to visibly archive (ie strike) and then explain a completely unneeded comment.

• If a 'mistake' comment has been replied to - just leave it, unless you need to reference it with a strike and write a new comment next to it. Just striking will make the replies look weird, and could upset the replier.

• If a 'mistake' comment is fresh and has no reply, just scrub it and start again if you do need to say something.

• Strikes are generally for referencing, and tend to need to be explained.

• Sticking to indented comments within each relevant conversation, could reduce the need to strike an old comment after you've put a new comment further down. Don't over-worry about indent rules - nobody cares that much.

Matt Lewis (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've unscratched them, as you've requested. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think when you get the hang of scratching, things will be much better for you. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

'Tis cool. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The other thing about making then removing comments (whether by striking or deletion) - people can (and often will) still see the diffs! The ought to know that the only person who will likely get crap for this is me! You've seen the way people are collecting all the supposed 'discontented' comments and putting them at my door. It has just been claimed that I am personally making people disinterested in CDA - and then you say you are now becoming disinterested in CDA in response to one of my comments! People are just looking for a little wider support against my consensus-first stance, then my footing will completely go I'm afraid. Whether it is fair or not, there is obviously only so much I can withstand.

your new section

I've deleted you re-stating your discontent as a new section. It could get me in serious trouble, but I do hope you understand. I've got my fingers crossed it will go unnoticed. It is repeating the exact same discussion of the sections above it - you do not need to start it again as a new section, giving a statement without any constructive element at all. Pleeeeaaaase don't help break CDA. I've spent well over a hundred hours on it now. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My time at CDA is up (marginal though it was). It's become a distraction for me (we both know I'm easily distracted) & has the potential for feeding my demons. Good luck. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. As your edit note was 'FWIW' I think we will get away with it! Why don't you come back when most of the over-long draft page is finally archived? (ie all the threshold precentage stuff). Everything will be a lot less stressful when that is finally settled. You comments on Canvassing (the next, and maybe final, CDA topic to discuss) will I'm sure be useful. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, that's best. PS: Like I said, you've more patients then I. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you good doctor. With luck I'll start a section on Canvassing in the CDA draft Rfa page tomorrow - it's better there than on CDA/talk I think (where it currently resides). I hoped we could move on to it tonight, but I'm still sorting out the VOTE 2 queries unfortunately. We desperately need to finish the 'consensus margin' and get it behind us. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs, keep hanging in there. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've re-entered (ever so slightly) the CDA thing again. I've better self-control this time. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

CDA clarification

Howdy, wathcha mean be removing it from CENT, etc? GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The {{cent}} template, which is used to notify the community about centralized discussions. It is designed to inform people of new discussions so only active discussions appear on {{cent}}. People interested in proposals and discussions which have concerns for the wider community will keep an eye on discussions listed on {{cent}} and join in. We maintain it by removing inactive discussions, or discussions which have only a specialised interest. Content discussions or discussions where nobody new has joined in for several days, for example, are removed from {{cent}}. When CDA becomes an active proposal it can again be listed on {{cent}} - but bearing it mind it has been listed on and off since November last year, it will attract fewer editors than if it was a brand new discussion. Does that help? SilkTork *^YES! 00:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What if the US and Canada got married?

Let's imagine a world where the US and Canada were merging and one condition was that PEI either join with another province or be demoted to a territory. What would it do? If your answer is that it would accept demotion, what province do you think it would link up with if forced? -Rrius (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If its only choices are 'join a province' or 'become a territory', we'd likely join a province. New Brunswick or Nova Scotia would likely be the province. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Which would be more likely? Is it your sense that PEIers identify with one province or the other? Are your economic fortunes more closely tied to one or the other? -Rrius (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If Canada and the US got married, who would be the bride? Here comes the bride.....dum dum da dum...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question! Canada is a country that's never *REALLY* had a gender assigned to it in the same fashion as "Uncle Sam", "Mother Russia" or "The Fatherland".. I guess that would make us the ambiguous partner...? ;)Dphilp75 (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It would obviously be the Queen marrying Obama. But, what would their tabloids name be? Obamabeth? Elizabama? Michelle would turn into the Jennifer Aniston of the international community, and Philip... KFed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I be a bridesmaid?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What about Johnny Canuck? Also, the US is a woman: Columbia, Uncle Sam is really just the government. We implore God, after all, to "Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night by a light from above." (I'm sure I fouled that up because I always do.) Then again, there are Johnny Reb and Billy Yank to deal with. Maybe we're crossdressers like the UK (Britannia and John Bull)

This lady Frances Stuart posed for Britannia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though Confederation bridge links to New Brunswick, I'd assume that Nova Scotia would be the choice. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'm trying to figure out what apportionment would look like if the US and Canada united with a Congress more or less like the US Congress. Trying to approximate anything like the Canadian Parliament is really hard, because you'd need about 3,500 MPs to approximate the current population per seat on your side of the border. Anyway, if PEI remained separate and the number of representatives were increased to 500, half the provinces would have just one representative, but Ontario would have as many as Illinois (19). Quebec would have, IIRC, 11. It will take some time to redo the apportionment with PEI merge with NS, but I'll report back. -Rrius (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon that NB, NS & PEI would merge into a state, to be honest. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I decided to assume they wouldn't to maintain influence in the Senate relatively similar to current population. I may run the numbers that way because, well, I'm a dork. -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

An adoption of the US Senate would be preferred, as each state gets 2 (plus they're elected). GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh Goodday, why do you say things that make me want to debate with you? LMAO! Dphilp75 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the there's a majority of Conservatives in the Canadian Senate, hopefully they'll try & make it elective (or better yet abolish it). GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dphilp, what do you disagree with? GoodDay, it's only a plurality, but a better one than most media accounts seem to realize. They give the counts, but forget that Lavigne is on leave of absence pending the outcome of his trial and Pitfield is sick. Effectively, he has 51 of 103, so he needs his caucus to show up and either one other senator to support him or for two others not to show up. The Commons will be interesting. Incidentally, I don't really see the constitutional argument the Grits are making. Changing the term to eight years is one of those parts of the Constitution Act that Parliament can change on its own, as it did when they changed from life terms to terms ending at 75. Actual elections would require ratification by the provinces, but non-binding consultations are not actual elections. It's not clear why it would take an amendment to ask for an opinion. -Rrius (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Err yeah, a pluralty. As for the absentees, wowsers you know more about the Canadian Senate, then I do. Thus my point, Canadians have little connection with their Senate. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was just teasing GoodDay about the an elected Senate in Canada.... Your thoughts about non-binding consultations, I am assuming you are talking about the Senators in Waiting? If so, there really is nothing wrong with it except that its not law, and any future PM can simply ignore it. If I had my druthers on the Senate, it wouldn't be elected in any way, shape or form. Appointments would be made by a committee of the House that was forced to have equal representation from every party that had party standing, and people would put their own names forward with ZERO input from any Political party. Senators would be appointed by this committee through a simple majority vote. Those people would then become Senators for 10 years, with no chance of re-appointment.

I like the idea that the Upper Chamber is unelected in so much as it allows Senators to actually work FOR Canada, and as you likely well know, what's best for Canada is not always what's best for votes. The current problem is not that they are unelected, it's that they are appointed on a purely partisan standpoint, and remain partisan while they are sitting. The job of the Senate is a "Chamber of Sober Second Thought", not partisan bickering, which you will wind up with if they are in anyway Elected... Just my thoughts! Dphilp75 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Make it elective or better yet, abolish it. If the USA & Canada unified? then stick with an elective Senate (2 per state/provine/territory). GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Geez, that wasn't much an answer to my points! :P Dphilp75 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the senators-in-waiting, the plan would be to put the referendums on a statutory footing, but to allow the PM and GG to ignore them. There would obviously be pressure on the PM to follow the provinces' wishes, but no requirement. I'm actually torn over the question of elected versus appointed second chambers. I don't know how well the Canadian Senate works, but the House of Lords actually works quite well. It manages to actually review legislation that just slips through the Commons with little or no real discussion. One thing that helps is having the appointments commission that allows for independent membership, but I do think having partisan appointments is important as well. Parties do matter, after all. On the other hand, there is something that seems wrong with having legislation passed or blocked by legislators with no mandate from the people. I wonder if it wouldn't be best to have each province's senators elected by some form of proportional representation. Anyway, that's where I stand. -Rrius (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always favoured a unicameral legislature with equal membership per province. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with equal membership per province is that you wind up with large segments of the population over-represented and under-represented, which, admittedly, over representation is a major problem with the Senate as it stands. I'm not sure why a Province with 10% of the population should have equal representation with a Province that has 25-30%. (Incidentally, this is also why I am against Mixed Proportional Representation) And I am staunchly against Unicameral Legislatures on the Federal Level as then there is literally ZERO check on the House's powers, short of direct intervention of the Crown. It works well enough with the Provinces as the MPPs/MLAs are much more accessible to the people, as they represent far fewer.

I have a comment about unicameralism and a question about what you call "mixed proportional representation". With regard to unicameralism, you said that because MPs represent too many people, it would be bad for them to be unchecked by a (nearly) co-equal chamber. Presumably, the ratio is higher than is seen in the provinces, but that doesn't really give the proper perspective. California, which has a similar population size to Canada's has a roughly similar ratio. Canada's ratio is smaller (i.e., more representative) than Australia's. Ultimately, if the Senate is to have value, then it must serve its essential purpose: representing the interests of the provinces. If it does not do that, it should be reformed or abolished. I also have a question about "mixed proportional representation", which I assume is another name for mixed-member PR, whereby a part of the house is elected from single-member districts, and the rest is elected from party lists. You suggest that your opposition has to do with overrepresentation of small provinces. What does the one have to do with the other? It is possible to run the lists either on a province-by-province basis or otherwise maintain provincial balance. -Rrius (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Going back to Elected Senators though, can you imagine how the Premiers of the Provinces feel about it? The Senate exists for both "Sober Second Thought" and Provincial Representation. If the Senators are Elected, they would be, essentially, "stealing" the Premier's presence on the Federal Level, resulting in Premiers becoming, again essentially, U.S. style Governors. As it stands, the Premiers can have a LARGE amount of input on Federal Policy, but with Elected Senators, the Senators would then be the "voices" of the Provinces in a much more "real" sense. Dphilp75 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unicameral is my preference, afterall my province is the smallest. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh GoodDay, you're so "Provincial"! :P :PDphilp75 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is an inherent contradiction in what you are saying, Dphilp. If the Senate exists for provincial representation, then surely there should be no concern with "stealing" the premiers' presence in federal politics (to the extent that is even an important and desirable thing). It is inconsistent to say that a primary purpose of senators is to represent their provinces, but if they do so too effectively, they are impinging on an extra-constitutional role of the provincial executives. Moreover, you seem to be conceding that senators don't in fact to an effective job of representing provinces. That shouldn't be surprising. Provinces have no role whatsoever in appointing senators, either directly or through their provincial governments (as in the German Bundesrat, parliaments (as originally done in the US) or federal MPs. Instead, the PM has total control over whom to appoint, with the only guarantee of their having provincial interests at heart being the fact that they live there. -Rrius (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, where to start? LOL! I'd like you to reword your first question/statement, as frankly, I've re-read it several times and I'm not getting your point. It's entirely possible I'm just too thick headed! :)

As for MPR, I didn't state my opinion very well. (It was more thrown in there as a thought while typing!) Over representation isn't my only issue with it, but its a big one. Its much easier for PEI (eg) to vote for both a person and a party who line up in the same degree then Ontario could. The differences between we folks in S/W Ontario and those folks in Northern Ontario are far too vast to ensure that the system won't result in people becoming MPs who are FAR too concerned with getting re-elected, then the business of running the country. Admittedly this is an issue with FPTP too, but until this can be addressed, I see no need/reason to change the system. My other BIIIIG issue with it (Although this point is sort of moot at the moment!) is that MPR is a surefire way to wind up in Minority after Minority Governments. (Italy is a good example) Now, it isn't that I think Minority Governments are a necessarily a bad thing, we got Heath Care and a new flag out of Minorities, but that today we lack Statesmen to run this country properly in Minorities.

As for the inherent contradiction, there really isn't one, in so much as while the Senate was founded as a Chamber of Sober Second thought as well as to ensure Provincial representation, it hasn't been doing the second job for years. I fully concede this fact;I merely point out what the original jobs were supposed to be. This job has been taken over by the Premiers, as, with our current system of appointing Senators is terribly flawed. Thus, no Premier wants the Senate to actually be working for the Provinces; They are quite happy to have partisan shills in there.

This is why I say that the Senate certainly needs reform, but abolish or "Triple E" is not the way to go. Dphilp75 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The provinces abolished their senates (Quebec being the last), so now it's time to abolish the federal Senate. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite true GoodDay, but you have to wonder, in an ideal Upper Chamber, if things like Bill 101 in Quebec, or the HST in Ontario would have passed or passed as easily if the Upper Chambers still exsited? Dphilp75 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Crime bills are my concerns. They'd of been passed long ago, if not for the cob-webbed Senate. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Or Steven Harper killing them himself, twice? ;) If he hadn't tucked tail in 2008 and again in 2009/10, those bills WOULD have passed. Take the Crime Bill, one of the things the Senate sent back was to change the bill in regards to having certain amounts of Marijuana. The Government dismissed it out of hand, even though poll after poll in Canada suggest that the legalization of small amounts of Marijuana is favoured by Canadians. The Fixed Elections Act is another good example; The Senate did send it back once to the house, asking for amendments which allowed the dates to be changed to avoid Religious Holidays ETC, which, again, the Government dismissed out of hand. It really was NOT like the Senate was "gutting" bills like the Tory propaganda machine wants you to believe.

It's a good point you make though, in so much as we are both in agreement that the current Partisan nature of the Senate is appalling! But, take a look at the GST, Mr. Mulroney had to use a little known cause of adding an addition 4-8 Senators to get that one shoved down our throats, or how useful the senate was at stalling the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, both of which were proven to be immensely unpopular in ROC.Dphilp75 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Very few Canadians have fond memories of Mulroney. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well THERE is something you and I are in complete, total and utter agreement about! LOL! Dphilp75 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon Canada & the USA merging, won't be anytime soon. It would be too difficult to interwine a parliamentary & presidential system. Though France could be a model. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You could be right, but I don't think it'll happen until Canada falls apart. There are just too many logistical issues for the two countries as a whole to merger in to one. I am of the belief that sooner or later, we'll wind up more like the "Soviet" states; Each Province an independent, sovereign nation who share an unofficial Commonwealth.

Though, it's hard to say! I truly think we are witnessing the decline of the American Empire right now, and it might well be that sometime in the future, the "Unified North America" with Canada, the US and Mexico might well be the only way we're going to make it economically.. Dphilp75 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an American Empire, the USA is a Republic. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was using the term loosely, not in the Political sense, but in the social/economical sense.Dphilp75 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just keeping ya on your toes. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be that hard. We'd have to pick one and go with it. My preference would be a Westminster system, but I figure the population imbalance makes it far more likely the presidential system would prevail. In any event, that would only be on the federal level. The US Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government, but says nothing else on the issue of form. As such, Montana could choose to adopt a parliamentary system tomorrow if it wanted to. -Rrius (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the presidential system. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get that. The presidential system gives the head of government too much executive power by giving him the trappings of being head of state, by leaving him virtually unaccountable to the legislature, and by allowing him to use the media against the legislature in a way they can't because he is one person and they are many. At the same time, his ability to deliver on promises to the voters is severely hampered by the fact that the legislature is not necessarily of his party, and he has very little control over their futures. -Rrius (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seperation of the executive & legislative branches is cool. The campaigning part stinks, unlimited money & unlimited campaigning. In a span of 4yrs, there seems to be (at least on the surface) more campainging, less governing. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a pet solution for the last bit, and it would ameliorate the cohabitation problem: three year terms for presidents and representatives. So, for example, in 2012, the president, the House, and half the Senate would be elected. Then, in 2015, the president, the House, and the other half of the Senate would be elected. It would get rid of the stupid midterm election problem, and give the President and Congress a solid two years and a few months out of every three years instead of the same out of four years to work on legislation. -Rrius (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's tweak that, single 6yr Presidential & Vice Presidential terms (stole that from the Confederacy idea. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're in good company with that one; Larry Sabato recommended six-year terms with the potential for a single two-year extension in his book A More Perfect Constitution. I don't like it though. I don't like the idea of electing presidents for that long, and the president would be an instant lame duck. I oppose term-limits, though. -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's like anything in life, there's positives & negatives. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As to my initial point, you said, "[Unicameralism] works well enough with the Provinces as the MPPs/MLAs are much more accessible to the people, as they represent far fewer." I don't see the connection between the population-per-MP ratio and the need for a second chamber, and I take issue with your general sense that at 100,000 to 1, the federal parliament has a high ratio.

You said, "The Senate exists for both "Sober Second Thought" and Provincial Representation," but now you seem to be saying it exited for both purposes, but only exists for the former these days. My first issue with that is the assumption that "sober second thought" is needed. One can assume that under the current system, the Commons relies on the Senate to review legislation. Were the latter abolished, they would simply do that work themselves. A second assumption I find suspect is that a second co-equal branch is necessary to provide that review. Why couldn't a body simply suggest legislation without the power to block it? Finally, I question the assumption that the legislation blocked by the Senate is bad legislation, that the Senate as gatekeeper keeps riff-raff off the statute books.

The minority government problem with MMP has certainly been the case in New Zealand, but not in Germany (which, incidentally, calculates the PR part by Lander rather than federally). The other problem, wanting to get re-elected, is a problem in all democratic systems. There is really nothing you can do about that. The problem (or source of problems) I see is that a good portion of your legislators are going to be beholden to the party, who sets the list order. That can be dealt with to some extent, but not entirely. However, Canadian parties already seem to have enough control over their parliamentary members that perhaps that doesn't matter.

Lastly, we weren't really discussing Triple-E. GD said he wants an equal unicam, but when talking about the Senate, we've only discussed one E. You clearly see the premiers as the rightful representatives to the federal government, so would you want senators appointed by them? -Rrius (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Man! I'm rather enjoying this back and forth with you! I have to scoot out for a bit, but if you don't mind, (I am assuming wish to carry it on?) I'll post everything back on your talk page? We're really sucking up GD's allocation here! LOL Dphilp75 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here, there, it doesn't matter to me. -Rrius (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your input is required

Well, an issue has come up over on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. What are your thoughts as to the opinions of Chief Police Curry pertaining to Oswald's alleged guilt?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced opinions of the man in charge of the investigation into JFK's assassinaition is nothing short of censorship.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a part of the old Conspiracy -vs- Warren report dispute. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

True. But Curry's opinions should be there to give balance to the article. Had LHO gone to trial, his opinions would have been taken very much into account--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On a completely different subject, BigDunc has retired from Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I shall have to investigate. I hope it's not because Mooretwin's block was shortened. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think he'd quit on that account; besides Dunc is never in favour of lengthy blocks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, it's not off-Wikipedia problems. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hope he's not ill or having personal problems. He's normally the type who airs his grievances. Hopefully he'll explain on his talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we are approaching the 1st anniversay of a sad Wiki-day. Having seen 2 Wiki-RIP messages (Padraig & Titch Tucker) is enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of that today. 21 February is indeed a sad anniversary. I really miss Titch; he was a truly fine and sincere person.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

21st would be his time-zone? GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It might have been 20 February. I got his son's message on 21 February.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've checked Titch's talkpage, it says the 20th. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my nitpickiness, particularly on this subject. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to know the exact date. It's important to get dates right.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 30 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Dunc

Big Dunc hasn't replied on his talk page. I hope he thinks it over and decides to come back.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

BigDunc will come to realize that it's not a life/death situation & return. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

British Isles usage on Wikipedia

Please. from Snowded

I'll respect your request & delete. Actually, that was a serious request on my part. I lost faith in the Specifics Examples page months ago, due to the growing disagreements. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed Matt mentioned something there about human rights being infringed (concerning sanctions on editors). Nobody has rights on Wikipedia, we have privillages. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Eventually concern for human rights will be written into Wikipedia. Cyber bullying and all that - it just needs society to advance. Wikipedia won't be an undemocratic potty-mouth freeforall forever - life isn't like that. I even think AGF infringes on our human rights a bit. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but for now it's 'privillages' that we have. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were making good progress - and were close to general guidelines. However Mister Flash and Leven Boy just stalled everything. Their goal is to achieve your proposal --Snowded ^TALK 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the long-run, my proposal may be the only solution. If MF & LB are promising not to add or re-add BI to any articles (if others promise not to delete or replace BI), then the spats over BI usage may end. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Disruptive behaviour can be handled and their record looks bad - hence the ANI. Giving into people like this is always a mistake --Snowded ^TALK 22:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If my proposal isn't adopted, I do support putting the BI usage under the Troubles Enforcement 1RR-limit. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to state that you support a 1RR-ruling for BI usage. It would be a mistake to regard BI usage as part of the general Troubles Enforcement. don't see the same nationalistic passions inflamed over usage of British Isles. Personally, I don't care about the Troubles stuff, or even the nationalistic stuff, and it's a little lazy to assume that all disagreements fall under the "Troubles". Next we'll end up putting the Ireland/RoI stuff into the "Troubles" for the same reason, or heck - let's put anything to do with Northern Ireland into "Troubles". Where would it end? Why not put any content dispute under 1RR? Even Ice Hockey. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fair, leave out the Troubles umbrella, but adopt a 1RR restriction. Afterall, our first priority is ending the edit warring over the topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason a couple of editors (if they are two editors) can cause so much bother is simply down to the problems with the term itself, and the landscape that has come about from it having its fundamental issues. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Above all, the edit warring must stop. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Paris Hilton's doppelganger

Has Paris Hilton got a doppelganger? I see you added her name when it was already threre!LOL--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my blooper. I tend to go by the entries via year-of-birth. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Paris Hilton

And Paris's doppelganger, or is it vice-versa?

Luv the cleavage. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The cleavage has had a 'towering' effect on me, woof. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That was the general idea. Cause and Effect. Yin and Yang.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahahah wooof. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If Paris lights your fire, Dita would cause you to automatically vapourise

I saw Dita Von Teese perform on tv last night! What a performer; sexy, erotic, teasing, without a trace of vulgarity. Lady Gaga and Madonna should study her routines.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I want'em all, grrr. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Last night after the performance, the host was standing onstage with his hand in front of his trousers!!!! LOL, and his girlfriend was in the audience, and she didn't look too pleased. I'm sure the brothels in Sanremo were busy last night.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, did he say what the Vietnamese prostitute said in the movie Full Metal Jacket? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Me sooooooo horrrrrrny...got a girfriend in Vietnam?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That movie line was both erotic & hilarious. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the fact that she couldn't walk in her high heels made the scene even funnier.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Me love you long time, a classic to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

15 dolla--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh speaking of films, did you ever see V for Vendetta (film)? I watched it the other night. It was weird bot good, and extremely watchable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Never hoid of it. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you to watch it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at Full Metal Jacket scenes at YouTube. Another great line is Animal Mother's "I'll skip the foreplay!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy just didn't give a heck. He talked the talk & walked the walk, no doubt gals were crazy about'em. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I love that movie! Natalie Portman (speaking of dopplegangers, she's got one) and Stephen Fry... -Rrius (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Does Portman get nude in the movie? GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No. And they shave her head for part, but she's still hot in it. -Rrius (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon, a fella has his imagination to use. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When the below section was created, the edit summary read, "Paris Hilton's doppelganger: Henry Tudor". I thought that was funny. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. I couldn't get anything at all, even though it was showing in the edit-history. Therefore, I decided to create my own -section-. I'm not sure why Pm's didn't take. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the glitch was caused by the lack of space between this discussion & the 'Henry Tudor' section heading. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Monarchial article names

• I support about half of those, myself; but, for example, Henry Tudor is both ambiguous and ideological; it could just as well refer to Harry the Eighth, and when it refers to the victor at Bosworth, it suggests that his claim was spurious (as it may well have been, but WP ain't a sounding board for my ideology either). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I rather all monarchial article title be consistant. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As an alternative to the status quo (atleast for monarchs). Monarch # is acceptable, for disambiguation Monarch # (country) is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay! You made me laugh so much with your (my edit of your quote): "I voted for it (in fact, "I proposed it") before I voted against it..." I am not a brain surgeon, but my profession enables me to have very nimble fingers, so I can help you with your brain surgery, promising you will survive it, but not promising any improvement in your voting ability. BTW, are you the ghost-writer of some US Senators? --Frania W. (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not certain as to why I opposed my own proposal. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, the problem is that after a certain span of both time & mileage, the discussion gets so tangled up that one forgets what its original purpose was, then ends up voting against one's own proposal, just as you did. Anyway, merci beaucoup for the burst of laughter you caused. --Frania W. (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Having failed to 'sign' my moniker as nominator, also tricked me. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Henry Tudor should not be used in lieu of Henry VII because as Septentrionalis rightfully says, it's ambigious, especially as Henry VIII was actually the most famous Henry Tudor of the two. As for usurper Henry VII's victory at Bosworth and claim to the English throne, the former came about not as a result of superiority in combat (had Richard III and Tudor engaged in single combat, the latter would have been cut in half by the former in one decisive stroke of the battleax-which Richard used in place of the sword), but rather by the treachery of Lord Stanley, and the use of mercenaries by Henry usurper Tudor. Henry's claim was a joke; as it came from the Beauforts, who were expressly debarred from the English succession by Richard II of England when he legitimised them due to his affection for Catherine Swynford. A pity Richard possessed such poor judgement, and typically acted on impulse.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If my 2nd proposal were adopted, we'd have Henry VII (England) & Henry VII (Holy Roman Empire). GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Henry VII, non-King of England? Or even better, Henry VII, Usurper of England?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Jumpers, I'm having a tough time with the those who want Elizabeth II as an article title. They're so anxious to avoid the usage of United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing section in the the CDA proposal

RE new 'Canvassing and discussion rules' section.

Does it make sense to you? (my edit that is current now). Matt Lewis (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's the version that's best & should be implimented. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In the waiting room

You might try wearing a barber's smock next time you go to the dentist. See what reaction you get from the people in the waiting room. Oh, and don't forget to carry a very large pair of pliers in your hand.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder where the barber has hidden his pliers?

Yes, the fear factor would be effective. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And doubled once you got that drill going.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh the fun. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of fun, GoodDay, I'm going to treat you to an eye-thrill. All you need to do is go over to YouTube and type in Dita von Teese Sanremo 2010. Go on I dare you. I guarantee you won't regret it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hassan like, Hassan like". GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought you would. I have been editing her article. Did you see at the end of the clip the man with his hand covering the front of his trousers?! What an advertisement that he had an erection. He may as well have had a large E tatooed across his forehead accompanied by a trumpet sounding the event.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahahah, he was caught pointing at her. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

His girlfriend was watching in the audience. He, BTW, is a famous Italian soccer player. The hand over his groin was really OTT. Then again, how would a man prevent himself from getting an erection; even if he cloed his eyes, the striptease music would have still caused a stirring in his loins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, I liked the way she bounces. So much of her has a good time. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hurray for the lack of censorship of Italian television. Mind you, that was showed during prime time! She knows how to put on an erotic, yet tasteful performance. Pure art! I'm a heterosexual feminist, yet I enjoyed looking at her act, because in my opinion, it was a sensuous homage to the timeless beauty and mysterious allure of the feminine sex.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya'd never see anything like that on CBC or CTV. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No way, Jose! Mind you, I wonder if they'd dare show it on Vatican Television?! LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if they would. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked my priest friend if he'd watched the festival the night Dita performed. He didn't see it as he was away, but I wonder how many priests did watch it?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few, no doubt. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, especially as the Sanremo Music Festival is an Italian national institution-almost everyone watches it-like the World Cup!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As Lord Flasheart would say - wooof. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont, the son of the heir to the Italian throne, is also a contestant! My personal favourite is this guy here: Valerio Scanu. He's only 19, and his song is so full of passion and longing. I like it, anyroad.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought Manny Philip renounced his rights to the defunct Italian throne? GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Blackadder! God, that was a great show. "I have a cunning plan..." -Rrius (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Like the episode with the Scottish play story. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, his dad did, but the son has become an Italian celeb ever since the Savoys were allowed to return to Italy from exile in Switzerland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Long live the Italian Republic. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I like him and his French wife, Clothilde Courau.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If they're are living lavishly off the Italian taxpayers, they should be booted out 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're no fun!!!!!!! Where's that barber's smock and drill?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You've go tot be taking the piss

I've never said this to you before GoodDay, but given your earlier edits today, this was just taking the piss. If it does what?? It's just a dipshit statement by any ones standards. I genuinely think you must have a destructive side. I'll probably be blocked at some point today (at least a couple of admin out there are just itching to do it) and I have to somehow get CDA back on the consensus level, that is actually addressing the concerns that various people (mostly disinterested oppose voters - but still people) have brought up. If I can't I'll just have to ride the block and put it down to a complete waste of fucking time. I am getting to the point where I'm starting to realise why so many people sock in this demented place - it's impossible to do anything being just a Wikipedian. If you don't piss on policy, you can't get anywhere. All you need on Wikipedia is a moderate tone and the willingness to slyly avoid policy when you see an opportunity to get what you want: those two things are together the very key to success. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)