User talk:GoodDay

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

Alternate Captains

I haven't been paying to much attention to other teams' alternate captains so I wasn't aware that the Wild had permanent alternates. Cheers Raul17 (talk)

Westerns

Weren't the TV Westerns of the 1960s and early 1970s great? I especially loved the Virginian and Gunsmoke. The music was fab-there's a site that plays all of the television themes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gunsmoke & Bonanza were cool. Though in the latter, it was strange how Ben, Adam & Hoss always discouraged Joe from getting involved with women. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Dillon's relationship with Miss Kitty was never accurately defined.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought she was a looker. Jumpers, perhaps Dillion was impotent? GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the TV censors were hung up on any reference to sex. Remember Ricky and Lucy slept in twin beds!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No wonder Ricky was surprised (though not suspicious), when Lucy announced her pregnancy. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he was like Henry VI, and thought there was divine intervention.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor Henry, he actually believed he was King of France. As for Miss Kitty? she should've went after Deputy Marshall Festus Hagen. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought The Virginian was sexy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Never seen that series. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. A classic 1960s western. Oh, Henry V has created a new article:Treaty of Amiens (1423)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it a neutral article? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a good article, but I had to put up a copy edit template for spelling, grammar, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't like the Dual-Monarchy article. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's too long. And it doesn't need to be a duplicate of the Hundred Years War article. He could easily remove three quarters of the text to make it readable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, delete it. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No way, Jose. After all the work we've done on it! I wrote the lead. Please have a heart GoodDay! I'll sing for ya:Good Day Sunshine......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All this talk about Westerns has inspired me to create this article:Eddie Little Sky, one of the sexiest actors ever! When I was 17, I watched every rerun of the Westerns just to get a glimpse of him, with his long, flowing black hair and muscular body. I always was powerfully attracted to Native American men, even when I was a little girl. When I visited a reservation in Arizona back in 1976, I was in agony/ecstasy. You do know what agony/ecstasy is, GoodDay? Perhaps an article should be created which describes agony/ecstasy. Or does just the simple word of lust suffice?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Plenty Holes. I wonder how he got his name? No matter, I like him. A pity he lived in the 19th century.

Ed is kinda built like me (so is Arnold Schwarzeneggar). I could go on further, but modesty prevents me. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But which Ed are you talking about, GoodDay: Eddie Little Sky, Eddie Plenty Holes, Eddie Longshanks, Eddie Irvine, or Mr. Ed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Munster. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, more likely Ed Ames.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the Ed. GoodDay (talk)

Daniel Boone was a man, yes a big man, with an eye like an eagle and tall as a mountain was he.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Another sexy western actor was Chuck Connors in The Rifleman. Just loved him firing off his shotgun with that wicked gleam in his eye. Check him out on YouTube--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Rifleman, pow, pow, pow". GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Lee Harvey Oswald ever watched "The Rifleman"? I do believe Chuck Connors was faster than Lee when it came to firing his rifle. However, they both had the same wicked glint in their eyes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Twilight Zone

GoodDay, check this out:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker Isn't that gear? Trust me to find out where the action is on Wikipedia. If that's really her, do ya think she'd come to our club? Regale us all with intimate stories of Lee? Alriiiiiiiight--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of this person, she can't be too notable. PS: 3 times in the last 12-months, when I linked to Wikipedia (and just before I sign-in), the IP page 142.68.106.239 comes up with a you have a message golden bar. Any idea on this Wiki glitch? GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I've never had that glitch happen to me. Judyth allegedly had an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald. I had heard of her before. Did you read her reply to Wikipedia below our comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it. What she say? GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

She made a long comment on the page which is discussing the proposed deletion of her article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Found it & responded to it. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So I see. Seems that you and I are on opposite sides of the fence.LOL. Come on, GoodDay, Lee never had the amount of lovers that JFK had. If there's a woman who claims she was lucky enough to dance horizontally with the mysterious LHO, let's keep her article. God knows the pillow talk those two shared!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nyet. There's no way to confirm 'beyond a doubt', this woman was Oswald's boo. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If she was his leman, lucky Judy. I'd prefer a romp with weirdo Lee than the all-mighty, powerful, grinning JFK.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Judy. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Which Judy? Exner or Baker?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Both (in their primes). GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, Wild Thing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Grrrr. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if JFK would have done a swop of the Judies with Oswald?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible. LBJ claims to have had more women, then either JFK or LHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rifleman had more than all three put together. Pow!Pow!Pow!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe LBJ's mistress was Madeleine Brown. I wonder if she has an article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean Madeleine Duncan Brown? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's her. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be a candidate for deletion. It was created 'bout 2-yrs ago, by an editor who left Wikipedia (after creating the article). Presidential paramour articles, tend to be kept. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And articles on alleged presidential assassins' mistresses? Hey that reminds me, why aren't there any articles on John Wilkes Booth's mistresses?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Howabout Guiteau & Czolgoz. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Or Princip, and the would-be Papal assassin, Agar something or other.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There'd just be too many & difficult to verify. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The guy who tried to assassinate the Pope was Mehmet Ali Agca. I was far off the mark with his name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Pope forgave him. But, did you noticed he didn't get a pardon from the Italian government via papal pressure? GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agca was a Bulgarian secret agent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Two icons gone

Can you believe it? Two icons died on the same day. Farrah Fawcett symbolised the 1970s, while Michael Jackson symbolised the 1980s. God, do I feel old. I remember my parents always being shocked and upset when one of their film idols passed away. Now I know how they felt. My world (as I know it) is slipping inexorably into the future.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's passing, I could see coming (though not this early). Fawcett's passing was tragic. Yep, a new generation of stars, have taken their places. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I can understand how my parents felt when their favourite film stars and singers died, only to be replaced by newcomers they couldn't relate to. There have been so many deaths of celebrities that formed the backdrop of my earliest years-even two of the Beatles are gone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It sure didn't take long for Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson to get infront of a camera & microphone. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The world's reaction to his death is assuming Diana-like proportions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the realization of his passing, is gradually sinking in. For some though, MJ sorta died years ago & was replaced my a wax figure. They're now the Jackson 4. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In heaven, I wonder if Johnny Carson introduced Ed McMahon, with a "Heeeeere's Eddie". GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To whom?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The ghosts (spirits) of all those who've passed, that were Tonight Show fans. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think they're in heaven? I watched the Tonight Show and I sure as hell ain't gonna end up in heaven.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm an athiest. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm n-n-n-not, and I'm afraid Heaven's bouncer will give me the boot at the Pearly Gates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that'll occur. Afterall, he loves you. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Jenny, I never said I loved you". "No, Jesus, don't let it be true, please, say you love me!!!!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He loves you and he needs money . GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I need some money, honey. He has plenty of lolly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

George Carlin always recommended that people should prey to Joe Pesci, as he looks like somebody, who can get things done. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not do as Anton La Vey suggested, and pray to oneself?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe in myself. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, do you think you're just an illusion? A figment of someone's imagination?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When I've passed, that's basically what I'll be. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

God, how depressing. Please believe in something GoodDay, please!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

For my sake, would you at least believe in Diabolos Rex.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe in skepticism. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What's a Diabolos Rex? GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean, who is Diabolos Rex. He used to appear on talk shows. Read about Diabolos Rex here. He's got his own church. Guess what it's called?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not into that stuff either. If I may steal a line from Groucho, "I never wanted to belong to an organization, that would have me as a member". GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I get stopped in the street by Jehovah's Witnesses, I always say to them, "Believe me, I'm the last person you'd want inside your church". They quickly vanish upon hearing those words, religious tracts and all. Jane Anne Stamper be damned. That's a favourite line from one of my favourite books The Moonstone, when one of the characters gets fed up with Miss Clack, a religious fanatic who was in the annoying habit of giving people tracts, whether they wanted them or not.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

When the Jehovah's Witness visit me? I convert them. They leave walking like Groucho Marx. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And if they're female, they leave walking like a cowboy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Only the sexy gals. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

They're all sexy after you've worked them over.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Departed celebrities

Jumpin' Junipers: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson & now Billy Mays (the pitchman). GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclustion

Hello GoodDay regarding your previous post.In relaity you dont really have any documented Historical Fact that says Henry VI was Not King of France.I just want to give a conclustion of the resaults.Henry VI and Charles VII were disputed de jure Kings of France.Saying that Henry is at best King of Northen France as an argue to say he wasnt a French King is weak since Charles VII was only King of the South.Both were in fact Kings of France within there own Territory of Control and Henry had also a legal basis to follow.I have decided to abanden the de jure stuff since it is pointless.Both Henry and Charles were de jure Kings of France.P.S Historions do recognize Henry VI as King Henri II of France.I already gave an endless list of sources saying he was King of France.C'YA GoodDay--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry was not King of France. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay on this, Henry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why.Both French and English historions recognize Henry VI aS King of France.Louis XIX does not feature on the official regnal template of French Kings but he is still a King of France.You both say Historions dont recognize Him as King of France when they do.Even books about Jeanne D arc point out that both Henry VI and Charles VII were Kings of France.Here are the ref:

Here are the refs:

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=keUoHXulnewC&pg=PA128&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+crowned+king+of+France#PPA128,M1

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=G5yuNbIuPKwC&pg=PA95&dq=Henry+V+adopted+son+of+Charles+VI&as_brr=3

• http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes

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

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

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

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

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

http://books.google.ie/books?id=G5yuNbIuPKwC&pg=PA95&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Henry+V+adopted+son&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=LLZlfam_wCgC&pg=PA85&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Henry+V+adopted+son&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=6mPQgJ5h3h4C&pg=PA527&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Henry+V+adopted+son&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=MziRd4ddZz4C&pg=PA246&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Henry+V+adopted+son&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=EBIn5YL7NAcC&pg=PA188&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Salic+Law&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=qLKF0LCPlsIC&pg=PA63&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Salic+Law&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=0eU4_f0rKdQC&pg=PA20&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Salic+Law&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=niJRz9EhwxoC&pg=PA3&dq=The+Treaty+of+Troyes+and+Salic+Law&lr=&as_brr=3

main book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PP1&dq=contending+kingdoms+of+England+and+France&lr=#PPA23,M1

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=s8H9TEtITPcC&pg=PA147&dq=Henry+VI+became+king+of+France

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=LY0OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA81&dq=Henry+VI+became+king+of+France

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=Qzc8OeuSXFMC&pg=PA464&dq=Henry+VI+and+dual-monarchy+of+England+and+France&lr=

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=7SL1bVtfP08C&pg=PA93&dq=Henry+VI+and+dual-monarchy+of+England+and+France&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA93,M1

• http://books.google.ie/books?id=Sctuzn19w5EC&pg=PA85&dq=Henry+VI+and+dual-monarchy+of+England+and+France&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=jDQfuSmu8gAC&pg=PA302&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+is+not+King+of+France&lr=&as_brr=3

http://books.google.ie/books?id=YJsMaEvgZzUC&pg=PA98&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+is+King+of+France+pretender&lr=&as_brr=3

lol I think both Oxford and Cambridge agree Henry was King of France as mentioned in these sources. I mentioned countless and countless of sources.I am using refs but as I said to you both before do you have any book in a modest Point of View which spells out "Henry is not King of France".I searched myself and no such source exists.Neither do sources say Henry was a mere pretender.He was a King of France.If you want to Know why Henry VI is not featured in the French regnal template I advise you to read this book here:http://books.google.ie/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PA23&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+became+King+of+France+regnal&lr=&as_brr=0.As we all see Wikipedia takes sources from Historions and what Academics anknowledge(Quote from Jeanne).IT is ok to say contrevertial Facts like Charles VII was the Rightfull King of France but by making a statement that Henry VI didnt rule as King of France is Original Research since no Academic anknowledges this.It is like saying the sky is not blue.Goodbye to you both and have a Nice Day.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oxford & Cambridge are British Universaties, thus having there's not reliable sources on that topic. Henry, was not King of France. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay can you please rephrase your post.I didnt understand what you said.I mentioned both English and French academic sources.And yes Cambridge I mean university.I mentioned a source from Cambridge.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

None of this has persuaded me. Charles VII was the King of France from 1422-61. Henry VI was the King of England and Ireland 1422-61, 1470-71. Harry was never Henry II, King of France. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay you should notice that it is the Anglophiles whom given the title Henry II of France to Henry VI.The future french king Henri II of France was a descent from Charles VII not Henry VI of England so he cant retrace his legitimacy in terms of the numbering regnal template to Henry VI.Again check out the source I gave explaining why he is not featured in the official regnal template.None of my sources denyCharles VII kingship and reign in 1422.They recognize both as disputed french claimaints,A claim later secured by Charles VII.I dont get it GoodDay when it spells out in front of you Henry VI is King of France,by saying that I am not denying Charles kingship.That is what you hace to understand.C'ya.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source from Oxford:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=keUoHXulnewC&pg=PA128&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+crowned+king+of+France#PPA128,M1

Oxford smoxford. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

lol.GoodDay are alright.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

and Cambridge:

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

Thus Henry VI is King of France.Please check all the refs.Some of them are from French Academics.I see I might have to make a seperate section for sources from French Academics

Here are the Refs from French Academics:

Page 128 http://books.google.com/books?id=Mbfm1_q_zqQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3

Page 168 http://books.google.com/books?id=AYF4LIAMRMIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3

Pae 18 http://books.google.com/books?id=NG9DRSg5dYMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZD_1zbyU5jsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&as_brr=3

Page 35 http://books.google.com/books?id=tky-kvB0rdAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 23 http://books.google.com/books?id=YJsMaEvgZzUC&pg=PP1&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 28 http://books.google.com/books?id=0hYWzuecyHMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3

Pge 167 http://books.google.com/books?id=560fPSrm2hwC&pg=PA165&dq=Joan+of+Arc&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 16 http://books.google.com/books?id=Gos6x0hrzsIC&pg=PA17&dq=Henry+VI+of+England+King+of+France.French+Historians&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 246.Enclodopedia http://books.google.com/books?id=MziRd4ddZz4C&pg=PA246&dq=Charles+D+Orleans+recognized+Henry+as+King+of+France&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 129 http://books.google.com/books?id=tplzx-OCEicC&pg=PA36&dq=Joan+of+Arc+and+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 7 http://books.google.com/books?id=eo9RW7jWxyMC&pg=PA7&dq=Joan+of+Arc+and+Henry+VI&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 62 http://books.google.com/books?id=s8kOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA59&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 160 http://books.google.com/books?id=nv73QlQs9ocC&pg=PA160&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 206-217 http://books.google.com/books?id=_Cc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA206&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 203 http://books.google.com/books?id=4qFY1jpF2JAC&pg=PA203&dq=Charles+VII+of+France.The+Hundred+Years+War&lr=&as_brr=3

Thus Henry VI IS King of France.Wikepedia only accept what is accepted by historions as you said.Your arguement that Henry VI is not a French King is Original Research.Sorry GoodDay but both French and English historions recognize the fact that Henry VI is King of France.C'YA and have a nice day.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you haven't presuaded me. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry, do you honestly believe GoodDay or I could possibly find the time to Google so many books?! Whew! Henry VI was not Henri II of France. Some Yorkists even dispute that he had been the legitimate king of England, due to his grandfather having usurped the throne from Richard II, and bypassed the rightful Mortimer claim.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides HENRY, why are you trying to persuade me? I haven't been trying to delete the The Dual-Monarchy of England and France article. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I dont find your Aquisation' of Henry VI not bieng styled King Henri II of France in any source thus you are both implying Original Research.Also Henry VI was legitimaite King of England since he was 100% accepted as Legitiate King by the English and so did York.I advise you to read this book.http://books.google.com/books?id=ubXnWRMt6uoC&pg=PA141&dq=Henry+VI+and+the+Mortimers.It was weakining royal power that revived the Mortimer Claim.Thus what you are saying Jeanne(no offence) is that the Mortimers or Yorkists Didnt recognize Henry VI as King of England even though they fought for Henry VI as King of France and the fact Rchard was lord protecter for Henry in 1454.Sorry Jeanne I think your mistaken on this point.The Yorkists generaly accepted Henry VI as legitiaite King of England During there hayday victorios in France.You should also know that Richard didnt proffess his claim until 1460 as King of England.The problem with your arguement Jeanne is that the Yorkists never proffesed there claim at any sence from 1422-1460..There is Not one source in the world that will say the Yorkists didnt recognize Henry VI as King of England or France for that matter from 1422-1460.Please give me a source.It was Yorkist dissapointment that made them declare there claim as a pretext to take the Kingdom.You should know Edward IV took the role of a Usurper and he deposed Henry VI as King of France.If Richard was part of the regency council of Henry VI in 1454 then he recognized him as King of England.

Page 37. http://books.google.com/books?id=0WVvxIGRi-kC&pg=PA40&dq=Edward+IV+and+the+regency+council+of+1455&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 15. http://books.google.com/books?id=pBu8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA15&dq=Edward+IV+in+1460+claimed+the+throne&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 36. http://books.google.com/books?id=1D9VrPfU7msC&pg=PA36&dq=Edward+IV+in+1460+claimed+the+throne&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 214-215. http://books.google.com/books?id=sqqpQvfa1UgC&pg=PA214&dq=Edward+IV+in+1460+claimed+the+throne&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 279. http://books.google.com/books?id=B5hpX4RnhE0C&pg=PA279&dq=Edward+IV+in+1460+claimed+the+throne&lr=&as_brr=3

Page 488. http://books.google.com/books?id=qtgotOF0MKQC&pg=PA488&dq=Edward+IV+in+1460+claimed+the+throne&lr=&as_brr=3

Henry was styled as King Henri IIof France by the Anglophiles.C'ya GoodDay and Jeanne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is my Userpage. If I choose to deny Henry's French claim, I can. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't post anymore references. At this rate, you'll have my talk-page archived daily. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry, you are confusing Edward IV with his father. It was Richard, Duke of York who headed the Regency Council in 1454 because Henry VI was insane, thus Margaret of Anjou was de facto ruler of England and the head of the Lancastrian contingent. The Yorkists backed the Duke of York's legitimate claims to the throne, hence the name Yorkist. Read this article:Wars of the Roses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I got one point mixed up with the date.Sorry but I did mention Richard.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne.Richard of York I meant renounced his claim as King of ENGLAND and took the predescent of the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 whereby Henry VI woud stay as King of England and his 6 year old son would be dissinherited in favour of Richard duke of York as hs Heir.This was known as the act of accord.Based on the same priciples of the Treaty of Troyes this meant that he would have had to recognize the Lancastrians as the Legitiamite ruler of England in order to becomome his Heir.Therefore because of the act of Accord in 1460 Henry VI was the legitiamite King of England.Edward IV thus had no right to depose Henry King of England in 1461 and is a Usurper making his claim nothing since his father ended his de jure(claim) in 1460.Anway Henry VI had beeen recognized as Both King of England and France all over England and Northn France as the legitiamite ruler.Again there is no source that will say any mortimer or duke of York didnt recognize henry as Legitiamite King from 1422-1454.C'ya.

Re: NHL Entry Draft 2009

You're welcome. ^^ The whole "diacritics vs no diacritics" and "US vs CA English" discussions are beginning to get annoying, so why not counter it with a little sarcasm? ;-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sedins

I would speculate that it is because the brothers themselves have never indicated they are willing to be separated. Their entire career, one has followed the other. Resolute 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Imagine trading one of them, then having to confirm he's the one you've traded. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Everlasting Love

GoodDay, doesn't this image bring tears to your eyes, pull at your heartstrings, make you yearn for the earthly paradise of matrimonial bliss?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Open up your eyes, need you by my side, here I lie with everlasting love

Who's the couple? GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How sweet, do they have a 'twin-loo'? Tfz 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean twin latrines or jakes? Plumbing was rather primitive in the 14th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Mr & Mrs Beauchamp (or for you royalist, 11th Earl of Warwick & his Countess). In life, they likely dispised each other after their initial years of marriage. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

They had 15 kids together so I'd say they were rather attached to each other in life.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

15 yes, but were they all the Earl's? GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. The penalty for adultery was extremely severe back then.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Boiling in oil was the punishment back then, although that would not happen in Ireland under Brehon Law, it would be a cause for divorce. Last woman to be boiled in oil for adultery in Britain was circa 1800 AD. Yes AD. Tfz 16:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe beheading was the penalty for adulterous wives until the 17th century; it was strongly enforced by Henry VIII; see this article here:Anne Bourchier, 7th Baroness Bourchier. Boiling in oil was commonly used for poisoners. In England up until the 18th century, harlots and women who bore children out of wedlock were forced to walk the streets naked, holding a candle as a symbol of penitence, while clergymen walked in the procession, reciting prayers. Obviously devised by celibate priests in order to get a free glimpse of a naked woman. Those were the days, my friend.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's relatively a small family, for those times. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd wager many were twins, although without refs, it's OR.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Imagine the headaches for the babysitter(s), over the years. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the effigies, I'd say Thomas and Katherine de Beauchamp were the Paul and Linda McCartney among the 14th century aristocracy, I love you.......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It would help prove one had an affair with someone famous if they had the foresight to take a photo of their lover in the bedroom, preferably half-undressed. Had Judyth thought to bring her camera along with her when she rendezvoused with Oswald, her article wouldn't be up for deletion. In point of fact, it would be one of the hottest articles at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It mightn't have worked. The lens on the camera would've been steemed up. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry Schmarry

Hello GoodDay I gave a reply to you above.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually.Just forget about it.Both English and Frecnh Historions recognize Henry VI as King of France.You believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe in.C'YA GoodDay--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry Schmarry. Charlie VII was the King of France. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say Charles VII was not King of France.They were disputed and both reign began in 1422.But what you are arguing about is that Henry VI was never King of France which is pure Original Research since you have no source to back up your Aquisation rather then calling it an arguement.C'ya GoodDay.P.S believe what you wish but I am quite tired of this since I mentioned both French and English sources.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay????--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's pure Political PoV on my part (I've never denied that). From my PoV, Henry was never Henry II of France. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody would consider Henry VI to have been Henri II. There couldn't have been two kings of France bearing the same name and number.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Henry likely wasn't aware either-way as to whether he was King of France, or not. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As aid in multiple refs I have given.Henry VI was formally(internationaly) recognized as King of France(Henri II) in 1422 rather then Charles.But Charles reign still began in 1422.As for GoodDays post that Henry VI wasnt aware he was King of France is not an arguement.John I of France dies as a baby but he was still King of France.And anyway Henry VI knew he was King of France since he wa crowned at the age of 8 in Paris.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You continue to forget, that no matter what you say or how many times you present proof; I still don't accept Henry as King of France. In otherwords, you're beating a dead horse. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne.Richard of York I meant renounced his claim as King of ENGLAND and took the predescent of the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 whereby Henry VI woud stay as King of England and his 6 year old son would be dissinherited in favour of Richard duke of York as hs Heir.This was known as the act of accord.Based on the same priciples of the Treaty of Troyes this meant that he would have had to recognize the Lancastrians as the Legitiamite ruler of England in order to becomome his Heir.Therefore because of the act of Accord in 1460 Henry VI was the legitiamite King of England.Edward IV thus had no right to depose Henry King of England in 1461 and is a Usurper making his claim nothing since his father ended his de jure(claim) in 1460.Anway Henry VI had beeen recognized as Both King of England and France all over England and Northn France as the legitiamite ruler.Again there is no source that will say any mortimer or duke of York didnt recognize henry as Legitiamite King from 1422-1454.C'ya.

Proofs

OK GoodDay you dont have to recognize Henry VI as King of France but you have just refuted your aquisation since you denyed the proofs.In both English and French Point of Views nobody denyed Henry VI dual-Kingship.I even did a Google Books search looking up the following words "Henry VI is not King of France" and no book or source came supporting that aquisation.Because a King does not feature on an official regnal template that does not make him unaccepted as King.You should know that Louis XIX of France does not feature in the official regnal template but that does not deny his 20min Kingship.Apparently the sourced reason why Henry VI is not mentioned in the French monarchs regnal template is because Charles VII was closer of Blood to Charles VI rather then Henry V since he was the adopted-son of Charles VI by the Treaty of Troyes.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unexceptable, in my world. Oh, Louis XIX was never King of France, either. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL.GoodDay it seems you have the power to declare what is legitimite and what isn't.You are truly the King.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the Emperor of Earth. I just don't have any (other then myself) believers. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you, Imperial Highness, and I swear fealty to you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, if I can just get somebody to put my toothpaste on my brush (eh Charlie?). -- GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay I cant understand how you say Henry VI was not King of France when I presented my proofs and refuted your aquisation.Louis XIX was King of France for 20mins as is proven and is accepted by Historions.Therefore you have no part to deny them unless you have in least one historion whom supports your point that Henry VI or Louis XIX for that matter isn't King of France.Here is the new challange,give me one source that denys Louis XIX(Louis-Antoine's) kingship.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

None of those blokes were Kings of France. Trust, me Louis XIX & Henry V (d. 1883) supposed reigns were disputed. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay because a King is disputed that does not unking him.Both Charles and Henry were disputed so I cant anknowledge that arguement.So according to your understanding Charles was King of France from 1453-1461.That is basicly your understanding.GoodDay I am sorry but Henry VI(II of France) was a King of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm The Great Pretender, pretending that I'm King of France........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, I fail to understand why you're wasting your time trying to convince me of Harry's French title. As I mentioned numerious times before, you don't need my approval. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nor mine. Remember Henry, I am not a Lancastrian supporter (despite my interest in Margaret of Anjou). I am a Yorkist, Now is the winter of my discontent made glorious summer by this son of York. I even own a silver sun in splendour pendant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne.I also proven that Edward IV s a usurper.Go to your talkpage.And no Henry VI is a Regnal King of France surely no pretnder.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In my songbook Henry VI was a great pretender, pretending to be King of France.......and England. God save King Richard!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI is not a Great pretender he is a regnal King of France.Richard is a usurper lol.C'ya.

P.S.To add in 1404 York agreed to Henry IV that his succesors would be the legitiamite Kings of England.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Usurpers Rule! Yeah!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: SVG map of EU

Hi there. I've taken the liberty of updating the EU locator map showing internal member borders, but there seems to be ... resistance to exhibiting them. Having noticed that you were previously involved in a related discussion, I invite you to weigh in again. Thanks! Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

TY! Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What am I missing?

Just thought you might want to cast your eyes upon User:Jza84/Sandbox5 and let me know what I'm missing. They are of course draft "revamp" leads for the Cornish people and English people articles, but there are still gaps. Am I on the right tracks? Do they read comfortably for you (as a Canadian... of course!). Hope you can help, --Jza84 |  Talk  18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just me being lazy - (possibly?) British English slang (or else northern English) for "people". --Jza84 |  Talk  18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've asked Snowded, Tharky, Ghmyrtle to take a look, but so far you're the only one to pass comment. I really want to nail (.... make good...) the leads of these nation articles. I've been losing sleep over this.........! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Template: Pictish and Scottish monarchs

Well, I agree that something needs to be done about the Scottish and Pictish template as it currently stands; if you think splitting is the best way, go with it. I still don't like the idea of splitting the English and British template though, since templates are meant to be inclusive, and many layman (Americans) would think Elizabeth II, for example, is "Queen of England".

How about, as a compromise solutions, we keep the post-union English monarchs on the English and British template, but remove the template from the pages of post-1707 monarchs, if you think it could be misconstrued. I'll obviously post this idea of the talk page of the English and British monarchs template. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:English and British monarchs

I would happily support that suggestion. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Template: Northumbrian monarchs and Template: Wessex monarchs already exist, covering those monarchs prior to English unification, much the equivilent of the Picts and Scotland. There doesn't seem to be a Template: Strathclyde monarchs, but feel free to make one if you want. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, all the more reason to split the Picts & Scots. Like the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland was the result of eventual unification among smaller Kingdoms. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kk YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see. Kind of defeats the point in being inclusive though - if you want, I can attempt the merge myself. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, what about splitting the Picts from the Scots? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I'm trying to make the super-template (England, Scotland, UK) right now, and hopefully, once tat's finished, it will make the English and Scottish templates redundant. We can just reduce the Scottish and Pictish monarchs template to just cover the Picts, and move it to "Template:Pictish monarchs" YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Created it, Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs. Please improve if you can. I'm thinking that perhaps we should remove the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, given that we are removing the Picts. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're cool with the template, we can make Template:English monarchs and Teplate:Pictish and Scottish monarchs a redirect to the super-template, so we don't have to change each article by hand. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that much bias, but it's you're choice. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

English Wikipedia suffers 2 crashes

Jumpers, 2 crashes within 1-week? I think that English Wikipedia is getting too large for the servers. The time may be coming, to seperate the articles among 2 Wikipedias: English Wikipedia 1 & English Wikipedia 2. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep.Really enoying aint it.Especially when youre a person like me whom gives large posts and ends up rewritting it all again--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey GoodDay, why don't you put yourself up for Jimmy Wales role if there is an English Wikipedia 2. Think of all that lovely power you would have. Jack forbes (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! --David (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Such an impossible move, would first require me to be an administrator. My response to such a appointment? would be a Sherman statement. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jack are you finished from semi-retiring--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh hi Jack. We've missed you 'round here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How ya doing Jack. Being the self-styled Emperor of Earth doesnt' come close to Jimbo's god-like status on Wikipedia. I'd still give him the Wayne's World salute. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a look at this? There may be a revolution on the horizon. Will he be sent to the tower? Will he gather his forces and repel this attack on his God like status? Stay tuned folks. Jack forbes (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup (seen it) & it's not gonna go anywhere. PS: I admire Giano's determination, though. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo actually offered to give up his block button for six months if Bishonen conceded that certain language should automatically be a blockable offence.[1] I reckon he's feeling a little bit of pressure. Jack forbes (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats to Jimbo, did Bishonen agree to it? GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No reply from Bishonen as yet. Jack forbes (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope things get straightened out between the opposing sides. It's truly turning into a soap-opera. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Jimbo's right. An administrator needs to set an example and using profanity is not going to earn anyone's respect. I really don't think it's a case of culture clash. I am a Californian who could probably out-curse most Northern (as well as Southern) Europeans, but I am here to create articles not Mae West-style histrionics, and I feel a person cannot be taken seriously if he or she resorts to cursing at someone from behind the protective shield of a computer screen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thus the ball in is Giano's & Bishonen's court. They've a choice, accept the Civilty rule or continue getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say GoodDay, it's all a bit of a soap opera. Gotta go now and watch Andy Murray play his quarter final at Wimbledon. Jack forbes (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tennis? Man, you can not be SERIOUS. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It behooves an administrator to uphold the civility rules; and to set an example themselves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There's alot of head-butting going on, over the Civilty rule. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Another editor once cursed at me. I didn't bother to reply.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

'Tis the best way. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We all have our Pet-Peves.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of incivilty, I just had a clash over here:Talk:White American. I just love being treated like a novice after 25,000 edits!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont treat you like a novice.Do I.LOL.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NO, you are always very respectful, Henry. Oh, here's a line for you:Not today, O Lord, O not today, think not upon the fault My father made in compassing the crown! I Richard's body have interred anew, And on it have bestowed more contrite tears Than from it issued forced drops of blood--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne.If only there were more editors like you(and GoodDay included).--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Henry. GoodDay, where are you? GoooooodDay!!! Oh well, I'll thank you on his behalf. (Jeanne gives a Cheshire Cat grin).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The worst thing about getting involved in wiki incivility is that it stays in the mind for a very long time and keeps haunting your emotions,even if a person was in the right.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks. I'm never entirely certain, when I'll be signing-in, during the week-days. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No ghosts are haunting me, Henry. I'm not Richard III! (Jeanne gives yet another Cheshire cat grin)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn's other alter-ego

I'm scarred of that Cat.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You should meet my big bad gold cat Tony. He gives everybody nightmares. Oh, here he is now! Hellp!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This little light of mine, I'm gonna make it shine. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia problems

Now, I'm getting Wikimedia technical problems (the server's down). Also, getting internet probs. What the heck is going on? GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Henry VI of England(Henri II of France) is unhappy about you not recogizing his French title to the crown after all the proof had been presented.I advise you to anknowledge Henry's title then maybe the wiki servers will work properly.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry's been dead since 1461 1471. I doubt he's happy or unhappy about anything (whatever's left of him). GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been having Wikipedia/Interney problems too. It's either the ghost of Henry V, annoyed with us for misquoting him in addition to not recognising his son, or..............The Grinning Cheshire Cat!!!!!Hellp!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI has been dead since 1471.Not 1461.1461 was when he was deposed by Edward IV son of Richard duke of York.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

After The Battle of Towton in March 1461, when the Yorkist army devastated the Lancastrians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, meant to say 1471. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, did you know the Battle of Towton was the deadliest battle ever fought on English soil? It was. The death toll was enormous, and the Lancastrians almost completely wiped out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly was a 'turning point' in history. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the Lancastrians won at the end at Bosworth thanks to the treachery of Stanley--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

They all certainly had their 'family feuds'. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. They were the medieval Hatfields and McCoys.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Retire

Hello GoodDay.I have to semi-retire today since I am going on Holidays tommorow.I wont be active as much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself. You're always welcomed here. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Remparts

Meh, no one really had a good reason to oppose and there was like 4 supports. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Be prepared for the coming reaction, from the pro-dios/accents crowd. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

precursor

Hehe, so those State of Play scriptwriters weren't as original as I thought! Tony (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Diacritics

why the crossout? over my head there --Львівске (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll try to deal with it when it comes, as the IAR says, " In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus."....there's no reason why they should be winning, it actually makes wikipedia worse since it's so damn hard to read!--Львівске (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They're winning, because they are bullies. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Says the guy who is constantly bashing diacritics announcements over peoples heads. -Djsasso (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And as far as them being harder to read, only in rare cases, in most cases readers just ignore them. -Djsasso (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The guy who gets pushed aside & labeled a xenopobic. The guy who got tired of the pro-dio control freaks & resigned his membership with the WikiProject-in-question. The guy who's told the NHLPA website is to be ignored. The guys who's told, if he makes certain edits? he'll be reverted. The guy, who continues to see English Wikipedia as English Wikipedia & not International Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Or rather the guy who tries to bully everyone into changing to his views where there should not be any by constantly badgering people about it so they finally say ok I give up? The people who want diacritics rarely talk about them, you constantly bring them up so I would say you are closer to the control freak aspect than the people who like them. When was the last time you even created or edited a hockey article other than changing diacritics or undoing vandalism? Why you think you wouldn't be reverted when you revert others is ridiculous. Why do you think you should have special treatment when you try and bully your opinion onto everyone who edits here through your constant barrage on the topic? -Djsasso (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

30 NHL template rosters in exchange for all those Quebec-based hockey articles. A little pebble in exchange for the entire beach. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if you are just a robot spouting off pre-programmed responses since you repeat phrases like that over and over. You've been shown time and again that its wiki-wide policy to have them on place names. Yet you continue to believe that a single wikiproject can override that. And then you wonder why people think you are xenophobic. -Djsasso (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

30 templates, will disrupt the entire English Wikipedia? Anyways, I haven't deleted those dios-in-question for 'bout a year. Other then complaining at Userpages of editors who already argree with me (thus no canvassing), I haven't disrupted those templates. If for example, an editor wishes me not to post about dios on their Userpages, I'll respect their request. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments are more directed at article talk pages. For example in the middle of an unrelated discussion about can/us spelling you interjected with a comment about remember to not include diacritics. Its belittling to users to constantly have you telling them that. Believe me if there is someone who edits hockey articles that doesn't know you don't like diacritics I would be surprised. And as for the 30 template, its not about disrupting the english wikipedia its about consistency. Also you never actually give reasons behind your opinion or back it up with any arguments. All you ever do is give one or two line WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments which the 30 templates are a good example of...you think we should let you have them just cause you want it to be that. -Djsasso (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've toned down on my edit summaries & will endeaver to say 'mum' on the Hockey talk-pages (except the WikiProject). As for the WikiProject, if the members (via consensus) wish me to 'stop' commenting on Diacritics there, I'll endeaver to do so. Though I don't claim it to be your (plural) intentions, I'll make the effort to reduce my 'comments' on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right GoodDay, I can definitely see the bullying now.--Львівске (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Overtime Winners

• Don't know how to contact you, but noticed your note from June 20: "These nav boxes have been deleted, as being un-needed on the respective player articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)" Please explain the reasoning for this. In some cases, the players in question are recognized first and foremost for this accomplishment, and the category is not superfluous at all. Feel free to conact me with answer via e-mail or on this page. 208.77.237.162 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Njsswriter (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They were erased as there has to be a limit, to such navboxes. What's next, Stanley Cup Overtime assist(s)? GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

re:Calgary Flames

Yeah, well, feeding the trolls doesn't usually help.  ;). Maxim blocked the IP he started from, and I've locked his talk page. He's going to have to go find something else to do now. Resolute 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. PS: I just couldn't resist. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason why your pokeback doesn't show anymore is that I deleted the talk page, and restored only the warnings. Resolute 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

IP: 174.129.84.142

Concerning the IP-in-question. In response to calling me 'gay', because I kept reverting his vandalism at Calgary Flames? I wish to inform him, that I am gay. PS: I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sorry for dissapointing him. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you are. Typical of Loser FLAMeRs FANS!!! 96.31.81.208 (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, have fun?

Have fun watching MASH, I guess? john k (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)