User talk:GoodDay/Archive 22

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.

They're all out today, I was thinking there must be a full moon tonight. See here and here. What next?! A grilling by Torquemada?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It can be rough. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well what can I do? "I'm a mess"!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe the arrogance of some people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

'Tis merely a human trait. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sad but true....alas...(sigh)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Next time the OP asks about a song, someone should tell him to phone his local radio station and put the question to the DJ!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

He might get visited by that gal who likes the song Misty. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a surprising event, The Gores (Al & Tipper) are seperating. Apparently his kiss at the 2000 Democratic National Convention wasn't so hot. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

'by each Senators team'. ??? You could spend more than two seconds on an edit. :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The way it was seemed to suggest the same franchise. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just razzing you over some clunky wording. On the topic, it said Ottawa won both times. What's wrong with that? I think you are reading into it too much. The phrase 'modern Senators' is really nearby too. The main point was that a guy saw the two games 80 years apart. I don't think he attended the next game, and based on playoff performances lately, I don't think he's brought his good luck to current games. :-( ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No probs, I just had an anxiety attack. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

in having strict gun control if they keep handing out licenses to

Pro-gunners will tell ya, "guns don't kill, people do". Though having a gun helps them in their killing attempts. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case, he got his fire-arms certificate 20 years ago. Not an excuse (why didn't they check up periodically, etc...) I've always thought that the RKBA was a good idea (in that it was intended to prevent a strong, abusive government) but that it was somewhat irrelevant in this time of

weapons not available to the likes of us. TFOWR^{idle vapourings}

13:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Same thing in the USA. The right to bears arms, was more for when there was a threat of a foreign country invading (mainly the UK). GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It was the US I was thinking of, to be honest. "My radical demands for the UK" sound quite tame in comparison with the US: an elected head-of-state, a written constitution and (and this one is way too radical to catch on anywhere...) the right to arm ourselves and overthrow the government if they become abusive... what's not to like (except for the huge number of fire-arms fatalities every year...) As I understand it, the founding fathers recognised that a US leader could become as bad as Good Ol' King George. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If a US President went that route, Congress would have him declared unfit for his duties. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a gun enables a maniac to take out more people than if he were armed with a knife, crossbow or axe. Howver, I fail to see the wisdom in an unarmed police force. How can they apply the latter sans firearms?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A police state is impossible in Canada, USA or the UK. The time for such a thing to occur, would've been in the first few years of each country. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In practice the police are armed, when they (feel that they) need to be. Ordinary police - "bobbies on the beat" carry truncheons (or the modern, plastic, telescoping, kevlar-coated, radar-invisible equivalent) and similar "non lethal" weapons. But armed police can be deployed when necessary. In the UK (England, Scotland and Wales - I'm assuming the Police Service of Northern Ireland is still armed? Could be wrong...) there are permanent fire-arms officers; in New Zealand ordinary cops volunteer as "Armed Offenders" (in that they deal with armed offenders...) and are armed and deployed as needed. Someone remarked in relation to this guy's killing that an unarmed police force is a wonderful thing, however it was even more remarkable that an unarmed police force managed to shoot and kill so many unarmed civilians. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always visualized the bobbies clunking trouble-makers on the head, with their huge helmets. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, romantic notions! I've always thought the ideal police force would be these guys (mostly due to the horses). I'm guessing you might have a slightly less rose-tinted view...! TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How about the fashion police? Hmm, not sure if they're armed though....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, they're armed with "fabulousness".

Janes doesn't provide any information on this terrifying new weapon, though. TFOWR^{idle vapourings}

14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Imagine the fate of anyone daring to comment at AN/I in the 14th century?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Doing so in the 21st century AN/I can be dangerous, too. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell. They needn't take someone's head off when they comment like in your case!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's no prob. I just don't agree with the observations there, that an editor (GR) had special powers to avoid getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, I argued that Giacomo didn't have special powers & ended up in dispute with those who wished him blocked. Go figure. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I should be minding my own business, however, I think you should look carefully at the last image I uploaded here. Do you see the pack of wolves circling, but not attacking the bison? That is because he is holding his ground, not budging an inch. My advice to you is not succumb to put-downs and dismissals. You have the right to your POV, opinions, and observations of any given situation. You also have the right to be naive. Stick to your guns. Don't apologise, explain, or seek to please. Your insights and input anywhere carry as much weight and validity as any other editor's. Don't back down, otherwise to wolves will sense weakness and move in for the kill. Believe me, GoodDay, I know human nature; it's not so very different from that of the canis lupus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like I'll have to return to ANI, as I see another dispute of British Isles usage, has erupted. As for the 'Giacomo vs Administrators' stuff, it was mostly drama. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, you have the right to comment--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

Until I get blocked, of course. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Even - especially - when it's a "kill them all, let God sort it out" comment. Not that there is or isn't a God or gods... Some areas eventually lend themselves to the "bang their bloody heads together" approach. I don't think your head should be banged for commenting, though. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness there's no edit-warring over the usage of Irish Sea, which is odd. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your fangs are bared today, GD. Remember the bison. SYG!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ain't nothing angers me more then edit-wars. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only have they resulted in good content editors leaving the projecct, but I am sure they have prevented good editors from joining the project. My pet peeve is the deletion police, which is what sparked the previous debate at AN/I.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That Fastily bloke, seems to have alot of editors peeved. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't blame them as he nominated a user's school photo for deletion when it is clearly in PD-Pre1978. My school photos are all PD-Pre1978 as is my yearbook. They were never copyrighted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fastily seems to be the ignore their complaints type aswell. That really riles editors. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of a school photo which is PD-Pre1978.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an administrator be stripped of 'roll-back' duties? GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe they can't. Administrators get roll-back automatically when they get "the bit". There was a discussion somewhere recently about this, I'll dig it out if you're interested? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I'd like to see that. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyroad, all school photos published before 1978 such as mine and the user in question are in Public Domain because the school photographers did not renew copyright and the yearbooks didn't either.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness my 'Groucho Marx' image is safe. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an editor who makes a point to chide me over at Ref Desk Humanities. He pointed out something about Regent Moray unaware that I had only last year created an article on Moray's wife!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's the editor-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly

in this ANI thread and the two following comments (you've probably seen this already). I'll dig around, I'm not convinced that was it. TFOWR^{idle vapourings}

15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a possibility, Fastily may loose his administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why he was so gung-ho to nominate a good content editor's images for deletion, especially that school picture.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, he doesn't seem to want to devulge his reasons. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there are too many editors' personalities clashing. It's disrupting the project and preventing a lot of work that needs to be done.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's alot of strong egos out there. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll drink to that!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of them, hehehe. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sure if you we saying "sorry" to me too or not, but in case I was too unclear, I was just joking; I don't think there's anything wrong with your post there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was apologizing to both of you. That's OK though, I got my point across in expressing my concerns about the growing edit war. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

doppelgangers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, both Italian descent, eh? GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, both are Spanish. See this:

Federico Garcia Lorca.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk

) 15:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, both are from Andalusia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

They do resemle each other. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It just goes to show that people are pretty much all related to one another. You said you resemble George Fox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do resemble him. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Better that Fox than this Fox!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He was the red haired guy, who chased chickens. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox on the Run........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believ the state of this article:

There's some kinky stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm out of there, man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the fur is still flying over on AN/I. I just had a fight with my kids. I've enough problems in my real life without adding to them here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, perhaps the Lennon song would help there ("Give Peace a Chance"). GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment it's more like Helter Skelter!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Never a dull moment, drama is always present. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to edit articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my main habits are little fixes, here & there. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wanna hear something strange? Today is the anniversary of D-Day; it is also the anniversary of my first marriage; my second marraige occurred on Hitler's birthday! See a pattern somewhere?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Were your husbands German? GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nein. The first was Irish (from Dublin), and the second is Italian (from Sicily).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Catholics, I assume? GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although Anto (my Irish husband) is now a

Zoroastrian like the late great Freddie Mercury was.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk

) 16:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe in marriage. It was 'originally' a way to enslave a woman, with the Church's blessing. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it was actually a business arrangement to unite property and form alliances between families. It also served as a means to pass property down in a legitimate line of descent to keep rival offspring from killing each other when their dad died (well, that was the idea anyway!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There was that line "...to honour & obey". Anyways, catch ya later. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right in that the Church instructed women to obey their husbands; but the wives didn't always follow the Holy Writ! Bye bye.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think there's a need to name anything in the picture besides the moon, we don't have to spoon-feed our readers. All we have to say is that the image is a "to-scale size comparison", they'll recognize the comparative land masses and topography it's being compared to.

Quite true, no caption is best. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, probaly some basic, neutral comment on the "to-scale size comparison" nature of the image. Don't want readers to think the moon crashed into the chunnel... :)

Dreadstar ☥

22:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, thank goodness there's no fighting of the inclusion/exclusion of the term Irish Sea. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Only at Wikipedia could an article about one of Saturn's moons turn into a British Isles debate!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For sure, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL. (Shakes head)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thankful that Encaledus appears as white, not (British) blue or (Irish) green. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

White?! After my little drama today that could also cause problems. Why can't it be a neutral grey?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The wolves aren't just after your blood. See here: User talk:Sarah777. I made a few observations and I get fucking accused of being everything short of Attila the Hun! Why is it one can speak freely and frankly around anybody but white liberals?! The hours I have given freely to the project, my red eyes....Bloody hell, I'm really pissed off with this place. Jack1755 has retired, everyone is leaving.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Israel-Palestine relationship & the American Civl War can be very touchy topics. I avoid the former, as I'm pro-Israel. I avoid the latter, as I'm pro-Union, "down with Johnny Reb". GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to justify or apologise for the Southern cause. Bloody hell, can't the guy comprehend what I'm saying? If he hates southerners that's his problem, not mine. I've got my own 21st century problems without having to worry about the gripes of my ancestors. It's interesting how so many white liberals resent blacks with wealth and power. For instance, I wonder if he ever heard of the free, upper-class black communities in 19th century Baltimore and Washington DC? Be careful about citing Marx lest he acuse you of anti-Semitism. Oh, did you read where he likened me to Holocaust-deniers, BNP-supporters, KKK members, Bible-bashers, etc. Why doesn't he just go the whole hog and accuse me of being a time-traveller who gives assembly-line blow jobs to the SS?! Jesus wept.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (aka Jenny Reb)

Don't let'em ruin your day. React in

Jeff Spicoli style. GoodDay (talk

) 14:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey maaaan, you like, are you like making fun of me coz I'm from California? That's like totally uncool. You need to like mellow out, relax, and not bum me out. This rap session is like gettin too like heavy...I'm outta here, man. Whoooooaaaaaa!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (aka Jenny Reb)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad about Jack1755. Perhaps one day, he'll return. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope so as he's one of Wikipedia's most promising editors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess just mark it "resolved" should do. The mechanical sock drawer - the checkusers - seem fully activated, I'd guess any stray socks will be laundered soon.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspected MF & MBM were the same bloke, about a month ago. But, it was best to let'em get himself caught. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What was that all about? I've been so caught up in my own little Wiki drama that this passed right by me. What's the story?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a part of the dispute over the usage of British Isles on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You asked another question on ANI, I think, regarding part of the resolution. I'm

assuming that someone good posted an update while away from their main computer. No real reason for me thinking that, and I know there's been some nonsense over at SPI, but I figured if I'm wrong these things eventually resolve themselves... TFOWR^{idle vapourings}

16:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Which question was that? GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Never a dull moment on Wikipedia. Jack forbes (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll drink to that!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, never dull. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I still see that my comments are being misunderstood. Had I conducted the discussion with a black person my remarks would never have been misunderstood. Does it ever occur to white liberals that blacks just might not appreciate being used as pawns in their arguments against other whites? That's how I see it anyway. I tell you, GoodDay, I shall think twice about commenting on other editor's talk pages lest I get bitten by a mastiff. Yesterday Wikidrama segued into my real world, and my son was involved in a minor car accident last night while he and his friend were going to get pizza. Luckily nobody was hurt but I was shaken all the same. A group of bitches rammed their car into my son's and then had the temerity to scream at him!!! A good thing I wasn't in the car otherwise it would most likely have turned into a brawl, given my no more Mr. Nice Guy mood yesterday!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's good to hear that your son is alright. That discussion at Sarah777's is best to avoid. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the heated topics at Wikipedia which are best to avoid are the Middle East, Balkans, US Civil War, 11 September attacks, British/Irish/Troubles disputes. Whenever there's a discussion involving any of these issues, it's best not to enter the debate except perhaps as a non-conbatant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, some take it too seriously. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay, you're a bit of a gloater on these things so I'm wondering what you make of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HighKing/Archive. It seems that HighKing has held up his hands to socking but the community has swept it under the carpet. I must say I'm very surprised at this, given as how he's always strongly denied socking. Do you think I should try and get the case re-listed. LevenBoy (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Did HK admit his sock-puppet upon its creation? If not, he must be given the same treatment as MBM. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully now that MBM has been blown out and HK has been seen for what he is, he may just disappear. He's been quiet lately and so has Bjmullan. With a bit of luck none of them will ever be seen again and this place will be all the better for it. LevenBoy (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"held up his hands to socking"??? Nope. "has been seen for what he is"? Pray tell, elaborate. "he may just disappear" - nope. It's extremely coincidental that the day MBM-MF gets blocked, you reappear full of bile. What exactly is your link with MBM-MF? --

HighKing (talk

) 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I hear detective music. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there an article or section somewhere regarding the parade in Chicago yesterday? My understanding is that the turnout was substantial (~2million). Would you be willing to get some free images of the parade on flickr, or somewhere else? Thanks in advance for the help! ---

Images hunting isn't my strong suite. I'm not a photographer buff. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

these past few days? The party cannot start without you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just haven't had the time lately, been taking care of brooks & streams, planting trees. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds absolutely bucolic. And tiring.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The muskidoes are the worst of it. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Here where I live we not only have mosquitoes but endless swarms of flies throughout the summer. Oh, I forgot to mention ants. Fun.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ants in your pants, will make you dance. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Get into the groove baby......"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Groovin'..."'. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

La la la la la la la Feelin Groovy.........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've forgotten who does that tune. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

these guys.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk

) 06:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah hah. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You know there is a big difference between dishonest use of sockpuppets such as Flash and Midnight, and someone who creates accounts to provide valuable content but does not disguise who they are. It doesn't make it right, but it is a very different behaviour --Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unacceptable behaviour. PD must respect his indef-block, if he wants any chance of his original account to be freed. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the edits GoodDay --Snowded ^TALK 21:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

PD knows what he must do to get unblocked. He must show the community that he's changed his way & this can be accomplished by respecting his indef-block (i.e. no more socks). GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If PD is Þjóðólfr (i.e., Þjóð (people) ólfr (wolf) ) then he must follow the procedures like everyone else. I put "my ass" on-the-line with JUST ONE UserAccount ... ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Was that an in joke between you and MickMacNee, or an imposter, or you don't know? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's more likely a prankster account, trying to get Mick into trouble. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mick just confirmed, blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fully certain as to what's been bestowed onto me? I don't see any extra things on my account. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Reviewer is a new thing you should look at. Starting soon, if it hasn't started already, new edits will not show at certain articles until they've been reviewed by an editor. Because the level of trust for Reviewers is the same for Autoreview, you've been granted the new tool so that as many trusted editors as possible are able to contribute to the new scheme once it goes live. -Rrius (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it hasn't been activated yet (not yet 23:00). GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

^What Rrius said =) –xeno^talk 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

On being accepted as one of the 'In' Crowd! I'm in with the 'In' Crowd baby......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean that Reviewer thing administrators gave me? I haven't a clue as to how to make that thing work. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that! Besides the club isn't that elite as they're handing out the rights to virtually everyone at Wikipedia like condoms to sailors on shore leave.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Any idea as to how this Reviewer thing works? GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it means our edits on flagged articles will go straight through and also we can review other people's edits on said articles, looking for vandalism, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of cool, check out the outfit this Princess is wearing!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

She'd be a handfull, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you handle it, GoodDay? LOL--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I could handle anything she's got. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hot Scandinavian royal, hottest Scandinavian royal, or only hot Scandinavian royal? -Rrius (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hot Scandinavian royal, for sure. The Princess of Asturias is quite a looker too. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If Wills ever gets around to marrying Kate, there will be a genuine beauty in that family too. -Rrius (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The rich pregnating the rich, generations of it are bound to bring forward preffered genes. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And rare blood diseases! -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've often wondered, who was the last British royal to have that condition (PS- Thanks for fixing up my message header)? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The fact that George V had enough boys to help weed it out a bit; if they'd been hemophiliacs, we'd know about it and they probably wouldn't have mated. Since they were not and appear not to have married other descendants of Victoria, they may well have tamped it out. -Rrius (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, I've always been partial to

Zara Phillips.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs

) 11:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

She's sexy, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For me, the problem with Zara is that she looks too much like her uncle Chuck. Every time I look at her, I think of him, and that does not exactly get my engine revving. -Rrius (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I strange for thinking that Prince Charles is sexy?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean this in a bad way, but I'm too young to remember him as the World's Most Eligible Bachelor, and I'm sure that to some extent, you still see that when you see him. He was pushing 40 by the time I was really aware of him. Plus, if I were into men, I don't think he'd be my type. -Rrius (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks better then her mom, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it make me a bad person that I keep thinking about all the articles that will have to change when Queen Elizabeth dies? I mean, some one will have to run a bot just to change all the [[Queen's Counsel|QC]] references to [[King's Counsel|KC]] for living QCs without changing them for dead ones. Actually, there may have to be a debate. If someone was made a QC during Elizabeth's reign, is it appropriate to change the sentence to "He became a KC in 1998"? She could really do us a favour by living forever. -Rrius (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually that applies to all articles on living people. If they die, we have to change the grammar; when they marry, have kids, make a new film, record, etc., their respective articles have to be updated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that when she dies, the work will reach out into so many articles and in ways you wouldn't necessarily think about. -Rrius (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean; everything with Queen will have to be changed to King and so on. I certainly don't envy whomever takes on the task of making the necessary alterations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lilibet can't live forever. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, good for you. Her being gaffe-proof and affection for her are a big part of why people who aren't avowed monarchists either support the monarchy or are at least indifferent. If Charles says something stupid about Canada or offensive to Canadians, watch out! -Rrius (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping Charlie won't let us republicans down. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's really a closet republican. Or maybe he wants the Crown Estates back. -Rrius (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so. The guy's lived a pampered life. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh GD.... Willing to allow Quebec and Alberta full and unrestricted access to the hold the Federal Government up for ransom during consitutional talks to remove Her Majesty, and/or His Majesty..? For shame... For shame.... ;) Dphilp75 (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Viva Republic. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

...in this. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 00:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you've that one wrong..... --

HighKing (talk

) 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry HighKing what are you trying to say? --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 01:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that LB isn't the same person as MBM/MF ... --

HighKing (talk

) 09:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

'Tis best to end any suspicions. If one is innocent, one has nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmm ... perhaps some more thought is needed on this one... --

HighKing (talk

) 22:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That new account's MF in its title looks quite familiar. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That is being held on my talk page to celebrate my birthday today? Actually my birthday is at 22.59 as that's the time I was born (Pacific Daylight Savings Time). Bring plenty of Red Bull!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe how short this article is! There is virtually no section at all about her eight years tenure as US First Lady!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, only a few of the early US First Ladies got alot of attention from historians. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but at Bill Clinton's inaugeration, I recall the tv announcer discussing early First Ladies and Elizabeth Monroe, due to having lived in France, was said to have brought elegance to the White House during her tenure. In fact, she was descibed as another Jackie Bouvier in regards to style, fashion, and sophistication.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

She's remembered better then Louisa Adams, Anna Harrison & Caroline Harrison. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I already added the section on her tenure as First Lady. It needs to be expanded though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Jimmy & Liz have any living descendants. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Weight re-sign for next season? Raul17 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have transferred here for the summer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not my kinda weather, I prefer the winter. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, you would have hated it today. IT WAS BOILING HOT!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the snow & ice. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Date format on

I wish we were discussing the abolishment of the position 'Governor General of Canada'. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're stirring again, if you don't understand the significance of the Ansoff Prize in Management Science then fine, but please stop making casual throw away comments when things are sensitive. --Snowded ^TALK 15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ye are way too sensative. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case no (and in some others as well)  :-) --Snowded ^TALK 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I've struck my comments from the article-in-question (-perhaps, I'm too sensative). GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. I appreciate that the answer may or may not appear obvious to some people, but it's more often not obvious to an outsider who will eventually close this.

Ok, you need to disengage from the template now. Both you and the IP are up against 3RR, and if it continues, I will have no choice but to send both of you to the showers. Just walk away from it for the time being, man. Resolute 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall comply. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Resolute 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So I see. Honestly, I think at this point there isn't really any reason to worry about it. It's a trivial note, and an issue that will resolve itself if Lehtonen signs elsewhere or the season begins. Given time, the IP will ultimately forget about it. Resolute 00:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, I'll delete the ANI report. The IP has gotten under my skin. I may just have had a Wrath of Khan moment. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is annoying, but some times it is easier to let a trivial half-truth pass than fight an ultimately pointless battle. A single letter "A" is not something worth getting frustrated over, imo. Resolute 00:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could ya block'em for a year? just for kicks. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, just noticed that you support the proposed topic ban. I'm surprised (understatement). Have I breached policies? Been uncivil? Edit warred anytime in the last year in terms of 3RR or against anyone that wasn't a sock? Where's the diffs of my misdemeanors? Do you think its a fair and equitable suggestion. Or think about the longer term patterns. Do you believe I'm on a systematic campaign to remove British Isles from Wikpedia? You've been an observer to the disruption over the past 18 months - ask yourself if the sock farm had been exposed 6 months ago, would we be here? Would we have made progress? What's the very worst thing I'm being accused of exactly that might merit a topic ban, and do you believe that to be true. It's a difficult topic, but is this the right and fair answer? --

You both (you & LevenBoy) have an obession with the term British Isles. Very well, I'll cancel my support & let the two of you work it out. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Newer editors to this topic might believe this. But you're not new. Your support for a "topic ban" on me is noted, and shall be remembered. I used to expect more from someone who spends so much time on WP, but there's been a few incidents lately that have shown you in a different light, and I'm not impressed. I'll remind you that I haven't breached policy. I haven't edit warred. I was asked by a number of editors (Black Kite and Snowded mostly) to "volunteer" to place my edits at the

HighKing (talk

) 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Any particular edits that prompted your change GD? RashersTierney (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(to HK) If you'd all take a break from deleting & re-adding British Isles, the community just might change its views. If a usually calm bloke like me feels this way, others will feel even more strongly. I'll repeat - take a break from the issue, before the community forces you (and LevenBoy) to. I wont be badgered by this anymore, so if you (and LevenBoy) feel wronged? get an administrator to remove my comments from the ANI report-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• You* feel badgered. :-) Made me laugh. I repeat - if you could be clear on exactly what I'm doing wrong, I'd appreciate it. The clearer the better. --
  HighKing (talk
  ) 17:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you stop deleting 'British Isles', LevenBoy will stop reverting. As mentioned before, it's become an obsession with both of you. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As I thought. Your POV is clear. --

HighKing (talk

) 18:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(to RT) None in particular. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My country is on a continent called North America, Grr, those Americans. Also, we've provinces sprinkled with British linked names - British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia & (wait for it) Prince Edward Island. Grr, those British. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. So you're American, right? --

HighKing (talk

) 17:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's possible. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay,do you remember this conversation and your request of certain users to give you a nudge when they thought it appropriate? I've noticed you have been given a nudge by a couple of those editors lately. Just thought I'd give you a reminder. It's entirely up to you what you do with it. (Jack forbes) 86.181.188.234 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying yourself, I almost deleted your post. Now, un-retire already. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jack Forbes ... please come back. I'm a devout Constitutional-Monarchist (as ole GoodDay can atest), and I definitely do not support the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

. That being said ... in my opinion you are one the kind, good, and honest people here at Wikipedia. Please come back.

Hello GoodDay ... I didn't post and defend you, the time a while back,when people where critisising your posting style, and musing about any of its possible Troll-like characteristics. I didn't weight-in to defend you because I found the subject patently absurd . You, GoodDay ... never were, never shall be, and never shall resemble in any miniscule form ... a Troll. People who critised you ... especially Snowded ... do not know their-bum-from-a-hole-in-the-ground. GoodDay, you (and Jeanne Boleyn) are one of the kind, good, honest people here ... as well.

Take care, Don (frequently labelled a Troll and have dodged the-Gallows many a time!).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll survive. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the answer to your questions can be found at [User talk:Miesianiacal#Hello]]. It appears the editor in question upset anon and now anon is out for blood. M did not really explain his history with anon and so I didn't realize I was rubbing salt into a wound. However, the date format is just as correctly in American format.

A similar, more mild version occurred to me this morning on my talk page. The main difference is that between a bored student annoyed that wrecked their joke before all of anon's friends could check it out (mine) and an angry professional who wants to destroy (M's). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to peek more at this IP stuff (tomorrow). Grudge reverting is annoying. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! The statement in that article is unsourced and quite dubious. It makes me wonder - who was King of the Belgians between 31 July and 9 August? Is it possible that the kingdom had no head of state for ten days? And what was Albert exactly for those ten days - a prince or a king? Surtsicna (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The throne was vacant from July 31 to August 9, 1993. Albert was still a prince 'only', during that time period. There was a vacancy between the reigns of each Belgian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that but we'll need a source. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

but not quite. Another week of fun in the sun and then I'm back in the Wikipedia groove!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I await your return, my lovey. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be patient for another few days! Today was so infernally hot at the beach that I kept expecting to meet the devil.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You're worth waiting for. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Minority governments Yes, it's interesting isn't it? It seems to be a trend in the Westminster governments - voting in socialist governments with large majorities, then voting against them but not so decisively as to replace them with conservatives. It is still remotely possible that the Liberal/National Coalition could form a marginal majority. But it's unlikely. In which case the power brokers of the nation are three conservative independents and a Green. Fascinating.Gazzster (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, let me be clear my "issue" is not a nationalistic point of view but an academic one.

Essentially the academic point of view versus a populist political campaign being pushed by HighKing and others.

My "issue" is that academia uses the term non-politically and those are the area in which I want to edit free of any politicking and to ensure that others are equally free from having their time and energy wasted by these individuals.

At some point, the greater Wikipedia has to wake up to what is going on and see it for what it is.

If that does not happen in the short-term, hopefully responsible users such as Snowded will tire of all the snitching and gaming that is going on.

There are some users though that I have no hope for. They are not here to learn. Their involvement has sunk down to the level of having to win this one territorial game. Their MO is as subtle as a hurley stick to the head after a night on the black stuff.

If the greater Wikipedia goes along with that, if that is the level of the greater Wikipedia --- then it has no future.

At least in the meanwhile, I hope someone's will realise this. --

Political motives are irrelevant to me in this matter. You may have noticed that I've been accused of being both pro-British Isles & anti-British Isles (which I take as a compliment on my NPOV stance). Edit-warring is unacceptable by you or anyone else, even more so for you as you've been sanctioned from such editing (adding/removing British Isles) in the BI area. If ya wanna let loose on the discussion pages with your arguments (colorful posts never bothered me), that's fine IMHO. But, duct-tape that blasted edit-button finger of yours, until (atleast) your sanctions & possible topic ban have expired. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Triton should stick to the talk page in matters relating to the BI to avoid getting into any more trouble lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think Triton is a sock? LevenBoy (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

He reminds me of Irvine22 in his refusal to get it. Anyways, I've no plans to start a SPI on him. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But there are lots of editors like that. LevenBoy (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possible that I'm paranoid these days. Besides, an innocent editor has nothing to fear, right? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Wikipedia has this absurd concept of

WP:DUCK where some half-arsed admin, usually a clerk, can sentence you for sockery just because he thinks you're one, and you're not allowed to request an SPI to prove your innocence due to another perversion of Wikipedia. What a place eh! Anyway, maybe all protagonists at BI should be SPI'd on a routine basis. I'm sure it would throw up some amazing stuff. Some of the anti lot are deffo socks. LevenBoy (talk

) 22:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton has little to fear (as far as SPIs go). He's rarely unblocked long enough to face one. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the weather like on the island at the moment? It's well dark here, and not so warm, so I'm off to bed. zzzzz LevenBoy (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's 7:17 pm AST, overcast & getting darker, there's thunder in the distance & lots of rain. PS: see ya in the morning. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton's latest behaviour at his talkpage, has made me even more suspicious. Snowded is correct, it's SPI time. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that AfD "it's notable" votes will probably be discarded by the closing admin, can you explain how you are sure that all 1,452 Transformers articles are notable? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that all aninmation characters are notable. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I should have known that I can't leave it at such a throw-away comment. I hope you got the main point of what I said: That there are contexts in which it is not OK to use offensive language, even if it's descriptive and there is no other way of saying it succinctly. Internal Wikipedia discussions are one such context, and article space is another. What we often can't agree about is what terms are offensive. That is no excuse to be insensitive, and even if it were, there would still be the practical problem that you simply can't get peace at the Ireland article if a number of the Irish editors feel offended by a word and the others feel offended by the fact that the minority's feelings are ignored. And peace is what we need to write this encyclopedia, our main goal. (The

I have put a lot of thought into my comments at Talk:Ireland. Many of the editors who are discussing there have an agenda, some of them more openly, others less so. Given the right circumstances, they are perfectly able to fight each other ferociously. That's not to say they want to do that, but it's an explosive environment. Someone has thrown a bomb into this environment, and I am trying to defuse it. Here are some of the things I must consider in this situation:

• I must stay neutral.
• Even the most extreme editor on either side must see and accept the fact that I am neutral.
• I must make concrete proposals, because every proposal has some defect or another, and the slightest suspicion that a proposal contains a Trojan horse or will move current demarcation lines (a suspicion that comes up automatically when an editor suspects the proposer to sympathise with the opposite camp) leads to rejection that is extremely hard to overcome.
• It is of critical importance that no editor gets an excuse to show anything but their best side. As soon as one side starts acting a bit rough, the other side is likely to escalate further, and within minutes we are in an uncontrolled brawl.
• Such an escalation can be inadvertently started by me or any other third party just as well as by a member of one of the two main conflicting parties.

Now imagine you are trying to stay very calm while mending a huge hole in the fence that separates a lion cage from a bear cage. One sudden movement, and either side may become aware of the option to climb through and have some fun. Imagine that in this situation a visitor of the zoo, obviously amused by the situation and in no way feeling responsible for anything, comes close enough to see that the hole is still f-cking huge, and asks you whether you have finished mending it. If he then proceeds to throw a used bottle into the bear cage it might be that you snap and no longer worry about the animals. That's exactly the kind of thing that happened to me. Hans Adler 20:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs, we all get emotional over this topic. I just got fininshed 'striking' comments I've made today, which were inspired by Dunlavin Green's recent posts & his ability to frustrate me. I usually only spend about 4hrs daily on Wikipedia, any more time spent & I become unglued, shamefully mischievious. Anyways, I do understand your wanting to put out the fire. Heck, supposed muslims have been protesting for years over Muhammad's image being shown at Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol you been getting into trouble again GoodDay? :). DGs comments usually amuse me, although they are often against WP rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, I get into trouble. The British-Irish waters can be bumpy at times. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But its a great ride! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, GoodDay. I just thought you might appreciate another perspective on this. I myself don't find your posts provocative, but I have to confess I do sometimes find the frequent one-liners rather grating. For instance, I know (and how could I fail to know?) that you don't believe in pipelinking BI to B&I, but I cannot see the necessity of publishing that view three times a day after meals and twice more on Sundays. By the time I have got to the bottom of something like this my teeth are literally on edge, and it's not because of POV-pushing or allegations of POV-pushing! Some people say "don't speak unless you have something to say", and some say "don't speak unless you have something nice to say", but maybe a good motto for you would be "don't speak unless you have something new to say". Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Repetition by myself, would be less necessary if other editors posts weren't so long, at thos BI related discussions. I'm only around the 'pedia for about 4hrs daily & therefore when I re-appear, my most recents posts are generally ancient history. As result, I fear my voice (posts) have been lost in the daily heavy traffic. The less words printed, the more direct one's posts. PS: Above all, remember to keep your cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just the thing - you're always cool, I've got steam coming out of my ears saying "if he makes that point one more time!" ;-) Seriously, though, your points aren't being lost. And there does come a time (and believe me, I know) when you have to accept that you have said all that there is to be said, and just leave the others to continue flogging their dead horse. In the end, no matter how many times we say a thing, we're each only a single voice. If they don't listen to us the first time, constant repitition won't help. I've learned that the hard way. Scolaire (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya gotta admit though, I'm one of the more infrequent commentators on those discussions (owing in part to my 4hrs daily visits on Wikipedia). Anyways, I'll try to make less repetative posts & have more faith that my comments aren't forgotten. Afterall, the less one posts in such discussions, the more remembered one's posts will be. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. I wasn't sure how else to do it. There have been previous attempts to settle this. Unilateral moves of the articles at "Hesse-Cassel" were tried - this resulted in reverts by Septentrionalis. Then a move request for all those articles was tried - this resulted in no consensus, so they stayed put. Efforts to move

I don't understand how one letter could cause such a stalmate. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed crazy. There was some agreement to do a straw poll at Hesse-Kassel to resolve the issue a year ago, but then it petered out without anybody actually doing it. john k (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A year ago? I reckon it's time for another attempt. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that you removed the order of service from the info box on first ladies. Are you working on something or is it something else? I was aware of the continuity problem, but not every article was problematic. Could there be another solution, other than removal?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the numbering. First Lady of the USA, isn't an office (elected or appointed), therefore it shouldn't be numbered. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that its not an office, at least it didn't use to be, who knows now. But I didn't see how it implied holding an office. Martha Washington was the 1st first Lady. Thats indisputable. I did see other problems though.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the criteria for FL? I thought it was restricted to the Prez's wife. I've also noticed the Second Lady wasn't numbered. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the criteria is per se, but some might argue it may only be the wife of a President, but some Presidents were in office without a wife and they had others, usually relatives, stand in as official White House/Executive Mansion hostess, so that in itself creates problems with numbering. Honestly it may be wise to just leave it unnumbered, but you know wikipedia. Someone may come along and make a big deal out of it. It won't be me, but I thought I would toss around some suggestions and perhaps get a bit of discussion out of it.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If a criteria is decided on & they're numbered correctly? I'd accept the numbering. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, GD, you know now don't you, like I do, that there's going to be no agreement. Keeps 'em busy though, eh. LevenBoy (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Watcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there will definitely be no agreement because it all boils down to a matter of opinion, and current opinion of the interested parties is poles apart, and it's not the sort of thing that an admin can weigh up and make a decision. As for keeping 'em busy, you watch, there'll be 1000s of words in no time. LevenBoy (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Let it be so. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Play it your way, then. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about, mate.

Having harrassment on your talkpage as a section header, suggests you're paranoid. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just logged on and am going over the latest.

Give me time to sort things out, get up to speed and reply, will you?

If you don't like that I have blanked my talk page, we have covered that ground.

I am allowed to. It means I have read it. I prefer to keep a clean workshop.

See response below. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, as per your user page, can you please confirm to me, what a Canadian Republican is?

A Canadian who prefer a republican form of government for his country. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is that the same as an Irish Republican or an American Republican?

What I am suspecting it means is someone who has issues with Canada

having Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and being a constitutional monarchy?

Having any one as monarch, is unacceptable to us republican canucks. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If so, would not start to suggest something a little less than a

pure NPOV in any issues relating to Britain and "Britishness"?

I seek abolishment of the Canadian monarchy, not the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated clearly, I do not support the hegemonic interests of the

House of Windsor nor the Westminister Government (and we should not

blame the British people for them either by accident of birth).

I haven't blamed anyone. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What I do support is keeping politics, especially nationalist politics,

out of areas that are non-political and nationalist wargames off the Wikipedia.

Which can be accomplished without breaching your sanction. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My interests are non-political. One day good people will start to understand that. --

Triton Rocker (talk

) 15:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Very admirable. This would have a better chance of success, if you'd allow your sanction to expire (by not breaching it). GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting comments from your talkpage, is your choice. Replacing the heading with Harrassment, is a stinker. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your motives are irrelevant to me. The fact that you continue to breach your sanctions (thus not giving them a chance to expire), is relevant to me. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just on your response to his first point, i think some people have a reason to be paranoid. Whilst triton has broken the rules and there for had sanctions against him, its always bothered me he is the only editor with such restrictions. Especially when the sanctions were introduced after a vote on ANI to apply them to other editors. Its understandable why hed feel a little hounded, the current SPI highlights it again. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Others are paraonoid at TR. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, On the monarchy issue whats your main reason for supporting a republic? Is it to have a separate Canadian head of state always there? or do you just feel strongly against monarchy like the lefties do? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A people should be allowed to choose their own Head of State. Monarchy, is a hypocracy to democracy. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks! ;) Voting is a necessary part of democracy, but democracy is about more than voting. To maintain a stable system, the fickle whims of the majority and (especially) the personal ambitions of the elected must be kept in check; constitutional monarchy serves that purpose quite nicely. Presidents are meant to mimic monarchs, but elections taint them with political bias, and with full power in their hands, they're frequently tempted to keep it: Venezuela, Pakistan, Sri Lanka... And "the people" never get to choose their head of state in any case because the people are never unanimous; only the majority ever gets what it wants. (Brought to you by your resident Canadian monarchist.) --

MIESIANIACAL

05:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop, my sides are aching. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Must be the sides of your head from trying to think up a counter-argument. --

MIESIANIACAL

14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya monarchist are all alike, ya suffer from an inferior complex.^{[citation needed]} There are exceptions though, the monarchist who have a financial gain in its (the monarchy) existance. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ack, my above post has been tagged. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

O lol. You can choose your head of state. Vote for the most left wing anti monarchy party in the

41st Canadian federal election. BritishWatcher (talk

) 16:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Vote for the

BWilkins ←track

) 16:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohh i remember hearing about them. One of my friends in Canada was mad as hell about the other major party there siding with the Bloc Quebecois to try and bring down the conservative government. I remember watching some of the coverage of it at the time. I was very impressed when the Prime Minister went on television condemning the other party for siding with separatists who seek to destroy Canada. You dont often hear in the UK our leaders call separatists: "separatists". Instead they just get called the misleading "nationalist" title. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yes the BQ, a federal party devoted to Quebec independance. The BQ, which gets federal funding, its MPs get their salaries paid by all Canadians & former BQ MPs get their MP pensions paid by all Canadians. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I think you mean "hypocrisy". As they say in Italy, where they do elect heads of state, you can take the Prime Minister out of the prostitute but you cannot take the prostitute out of Prime Minister.

Listen, from a grown up's point of view, I did not breach the sanctions. I did not add the term. The term was added by someone else --- accurately and correctly following discussions. It was then removed erroneously by self-declared "Welsh nationalist" editor. That individual admitted his wrong but did not self-revert. I merely did the work of correcting and reverting for him as a favor.

Do you really think that is a ban worthy sin? --

Ban worthy sin? let an administrator decide that. You're suppose to stick to only the talkpages concerning British Isles, until your sanction expires (whenever that is). In future, when Snowy fails to self-revert? let a non-sanctioned editor do it for him. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to BW it's always concerned me as well that we have a single editor topic banned for no good reason, especially, as BW points out, a motion was agreed to topic ban another editor but he got away with it. TR is a scapegoat. When this vey funny SPI has concluded and the initiator has apologised I intend to raise this whole issue again at AN/I. LevenBoy (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're speaking of HK. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, when does TR's restriction expire? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I still your main gal or is this California girl NOT unforgettable?! How r ya BTW?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing fine, cuz you're still my gal. PS: Where's ya been? GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page: every picture tells a story! What basically happened is that while we were at the beach house which has a very low electricity output, there was a freak power surge which caused the monitor on the laptop which I'm using now to do a Krakatoa. Our other laptop cannot be turned on due to the battery-charger socket not working. My laptop is hooked up to a sepaprate monitor as it would cost too much to replace the laptop monitor. I took it to a technician, who reformatted the whole thing and wiped out all my photos, music, documemts, programmes, etc. without saving them on a pin-drive!!!!! Was I furious. The idiot kept the laptop for 3 weeks and returned it with nothing in it. Krakatoa had segued into a tsunami! I shall get the other laptop repaired as soon as I locate a trustworthy technician.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Eek! that's a stinker. GoodDay (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At least I've got one of them running. It was sheer hell with both of them down and out for a month! I felt totally cut off from the world stuck here in my rural village.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're a Wikipedia junkie? I can't imagine the torment ya went through. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition to editing, I also use Wikipedia as well as the Internet in general for research on my many projects.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It must've felt like the 1980's, eh? GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In this backwater of a village, more like the 1880s!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Giggle gigge, the chuck wagon days. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollin, rollin, rollin.......RAWHIDE!!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahah. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jeanne, luv the cleavage. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Tanx. The dress should have had a navel cut-out as well for all those guys with a belly-button fetish... ahem....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

When one thinks about it, I have a full female body fetish. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That must make it difficult for you to decide which part you devour first.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I always start with kissing, necking, fondling etc, gradually (and hopefully) bring my partner close to the climax & then when almost there? go all the way. I've found that fore-play & then oral sex helps women in preparation for sex. Though not certain (some can fake it) it appears to increase chances of bringing women orgasim. Mind you, the emotional stuff interwined, helps further. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the odd raunchy word uttered at the crucial moment. Plenty of overblown compliments help too.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I found that out on a few occassions. Those words pop out of nowhere, when one's in the mood. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

When I'm looking at a gal, I think the physical stuff. Yet, when I'm actually with a gal, I have more romantic thoughts? 'Tis that good? GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, in my six + years on Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever once come across a conversation as saucy as this one; not even on the talk pages related to articles about naughty things! Just dropping this comment here, I feel like I've rolled unannounced into bed with a randy couple. But, then, you are doing it right out here in public. Not like it would by my first threesome, either...! ;) --

MIESIANIACAL

22:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I avoid threesomes, I just can't divide my attention. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way Jeanne, yes that guy with ya does look like a young Keith Richards. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good lord GD! You shouldn't avoid the threesomes! At least go for it once in your life! But you know, make sure its one of those MFF ones, and not the Devil's Threesome of MMF!!! :P 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs)

Nope, it's gotta be just one woman (at a time). GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with GoodDay, threesomes sound like a drag. One guy is enough for me, and I wouldn't want to share it with another female (little enough to go around as it usually is). Yes, I told him he looked like Keith Richards and he surprised me by telling me he once served Mick Jagger when he worked abroad!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Nena look great for her age?!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, she sure does. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the guy who invented the flush toilet. He reminds me of someone but cannot think who. I became aware of his invention this morning after I created an article on his mother: Isabella Markham, whose husband wrote her some naughty sonnets. Can you guess to what the trobled spryghte refers? Hee hee hee.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, one of the best inventions ever. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, along with the digital camera, Tee Vee, and Internet.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

John Harrington, eh? So, that's where the saying "gotta go to the John" originates from. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That could very well be the origin of the slang word for toilet. Let me ask over at Humanities.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is? I'll always thing of Harrington, when I go. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have just posed the question.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

True, on a search, I found the source. However, your edit to List of current NHL captains and alternate captains was properly reverted because the indicated source in the article did not support your claim. I've edited both that page and the Thrashers roster template to cite an AJC article on the naming of the captains. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought of you when I saw this photo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, lots of room in that vehicle. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's go!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, I'd change the wording though on the car. I'd have on the back "I've found Jesus. I have him in my trunk". GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Complete with Crown of Thorns?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, I see your point. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GD, what's your evidence that the office of governor general is vacant? Do you have any document indicating the Queen has revoked Jean's commission? --

CBC news & Peter Mansbridge in particular. According to them, the office became vacant at 10:00 AM est & the Chief Justice has been Acting GG since. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already

being discussed at WP:ITN/C, so may make the Main Page soon... TFOWR

14:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need something a little more reliable than what you say you heard Peter Mansbrige say. The Chief Justice has been commissioned by Jean to act as Administrator of the Government, but the Administrator of the Government doesn't replace the governor general. Only when the Queen's commission is revoked does Jean cease to be governor general. --

MIESIANIACAL

14:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not a biggy, Johnston will be sworn-in within a few hours, anyway. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my God, I thought I had fallen into a time warp when I misread "Johnston will be sworn in within a few hours" as "Johnson will be sworn in within a few hours". I was thinking you were referring to LBJ!!!!!! Whew!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My country isn't lucky enough to be a republic. By the way, I'm jumping for joy today, CNN has fired Rick Sanchez. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of him as I rarely watch CNN; it's televised well past the middle of the night here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

He's a fellow who (IMHO) kept pushing Catholicism on the show. Athiest tended to be rediculed by him. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

He's verry nice-looking. I sure wouldn't mind anything he chose to push on me! Perhaps Lady Gaga will pick him to perform in her next video.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he's got a problem with Jews, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to go out to get the references, but the office WAS in fact vacant until Johnston was sworn in. The Chief Justice takes over as Administrator of Canada during this period, in the same fashion that she would if the GG were out of country. It's got to do with the fact that the GG serves at Her Majesty's Pleasure, and not until a specific time and date as with the U.S. President. This has nothing to do with Jean (Or any other GG) appointing the GG to the position, but constitutional convention... Dphilp75 (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So, this situation happens every time there's an installation of a new GG (not counting when the predecessor dies in office). GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yuppers! It also happens in several (if not all) of the other Commonwealth Realms. I've actually wondered about this occasionally.. I mean, Canada has an Administrator of Canada when the GG is unavailable, the UK has Counsellors of State, ETC, but the initial intention of both roles were in case the Soverign was out of Country/incapacitated/etc. But in the case of a new GG being appointed, surely Her Majesty can be counted on to deal with any issues that arise in any of her Realms for the few hours that her Representatives don't technically exist/vacant...? Dphilp75 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the Queen revoked Jean's commission as governor general before Johnston took the oaths of office? And I've asked this question a number of times elsewhere, but still not received an answer: how did the chief justice take over as Administrator of the Government when Jean was neither absent, incapacitated, or dead, either one of which is what the 1947 Letters Patent require the governor general to be before the CJ becomes administrator? --

MIESIANIACAL

22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I will find the references, and more than that, I will actually contact Rideau Hall tomorrow and get a first hand reference. If that fails, I'll contact the Dominion Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada and see if he can't get us an answer faster....! Dphilp75 (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to see how the governor general is declared absent, incapacitated, or dead when she was sitting right there in the Senate! ;) --

MIESIANIACAL

01:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All this could be avoided, with a 'President of Canada'. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All this could be avoided if governors general stopped attending the swearing-in ceremonies of their successors. --

MIESIANIACAL

22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Or with the aboliton of the office of Governor-General. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And the Queen lives in Canada? Or does she fly over here on a daily basis? --

MIESIANIACAL

01:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Rideau Hall, would make a good official residence for a Canadian President. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure... Let's have an elected Tory President tell a Tory Prime Minister that he won't prorogue Parliament...! :P But Monarchist and Republican leanings aside, the system is what it is, but I still don't quite understand the point I made above. If I had to hazard a guess, I would likely go with the "Canadians governing Canadians" rhetoric as the cause..? Dphilp75 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, let's choose our Head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer Mies's question, the old GG is removed by the Queen, which is one of the four triggers for clause 8 of the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada (1947). For the benefit of all, it is set out below:

And We do hereby declare Our pleasure to be that, in the event of the death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our Governor General out of Canada, all and every the powers and authorities herein granted to him shall, until Our further pleasure is signified therein, be vested in Our Chief Justice for the time being of Canada, (hereinafter called Our Chief Justice) or, in the case of the death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our Chief Justice, then in the Senior Judge for the time being of the Supreme Court of Canada, then residing in Canada and not being under incapacity; such Chief Justice or Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, while the said powers and authorities are vested in him, to be known as Our Administrator.

Provided always, that the said Senior Judge shall act in the administration of the Government only if and when Our Chief Justice shall not be present within Canada and capable of administering the Government.

Provided further that no such powers or authorities shall vest in such Chief Justice, or other judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, until he shall have taken the Oaths appointed to be taken by Our Governor General.

Provided further that whenever and so often as Our Governor General shall be temporarily absent from Canada, with Our permission, for a period not exceeding one month, then and in every such case Our Governor General may continue to exercise all and every the powers vested in him as fully as if he were residing within Canada, including the power to appoint a Deputy or Deputies as provided in the Seventh Clause of these Our Letters Patent.

-Rrius (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then there must be some instrument from the Queen stating that Jean's term had come to a conclusion. The Queen's proclamation of Johnston's appointment makes no mention of Jean at all. Only that Johnston should become governor general at the moment he takes the oaths of office, with no explicit date given on which to take them. --

MIESIANIACAL

01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the practice is for the Queen to revoke the out-going GG's commission as of the date set for the investiture of the new GG. The only one I've ever seen is from Australia, and was probably only published because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the GG leaving office. I don't have the link to the Austria Gazette, but if you want to look it up, it was published in the Gazette on 29 May 2003, and was in issue S178 (a special issue). All this leaves the question of what would happen if the new GG took the oaths before the date of revocation, but I'd guess the new Commission would simply supersede the old one, making the new person GG and the old one a private citizen. -Rrius (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the Canada Gazette about the Queen revoking Jean's commission on 1 October. --

MIESIANIACAL

03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just got off the phone with Rideau Hall, and they did confirm that there was a very brief period when there was no Governor General of Canada. The woman I spoke to was unable to give me specific references, so I was transferred to a woman by the name of Annabelle Cloutier, who's voice mail box was full. I called back and was given her email address and shot an email off to her. I specifically requested citation of the relevant legal aspects. Hopefully I will be able to settle this issue for us shortly! On a side note, when I called Rideau Hall and told them the information I was looking for, the woman asked me if I had called yesterday. I wonder if one of you guys beat me to the punch..? ;) Dphilp75 (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There'd be less hassle with a President (who'd have a fixed term). GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure there wouldn't... --

MIESIANIACAL

03:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Canada can set up its own method of presidential election. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Could. No reason to, and none would prevent problems from ever arising, though. --

MIESIANIACAL

17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's be wild & take the risk. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(*Trying not to spit pop all over screen*) I'm going to assume you're joking there. The federation, the economy, and people's quality of life are not things to risk. --

MIESIANIACAL

04:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ya over-estimate the monarchy's importance. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You underestimate the need for stability, which would be undermined by opening up the constitution to redesign its core for no other reason than to be wild and take a risk. --

MIESIANIACAL

20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy's gotta go, this is the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's just trendy rhetoric; what century this is is irrelevant. --

I'm with Mies on that one.. (Yeah, big surprise eh?) Opening the Constitution up to remove the Monarchy would create a level of havoc that his country hasn't seen since Confederation. Republicans have YET to come up with an idea for removing the Monarchy that doesn't result in Alberta and Quebec (AT LEAST!) holding the rest of the country up for ransom in order to get their approval. Many Republicans seem to think that we can simple not Proclaim Charles as King; which would violate the Act of Settlement, which is a Constitutional document in Canada. (That is, assuming HRH's Mother doesn't outlive him, which, let's face it, is a real possibility! ;) ) To suggest that we should enter in to Constitutional changes just because it's the 21st Century really isn't an argument against the Monarchy as it is, well, trendy rhetoric. Dphilp75 (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Something must be done about your guys inferior complexes. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(In my best Tim Allen impression) Urrrrrruuughhh? Dphilp75 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what hassle you are refering to GD...? Seems to me that His Excellency was installed with no issue at all! We're simply trying to root out useless legalities here! ;) Dphilp75 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ya must remember, I've republican leanings. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem to be avoided is. Sure, for a little while there was no GG, but there was an Administrator of the Government. It's the same as though the GG (or a President of Canada) died: until a new one takes office, the designated official is essentially "acting GG" (or "acting President"). -Rrius (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My guess is, these things happen at every installation, where the outgoing GG is still alive. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Mies, I didn't expect it would be in the Gazette. The Australian example I pointed out was only published because it was a weird situation (he was resigning early because of something that happened when he was Archbishop of Brisbane). -Rrius (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)