User talk:GoodDay/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions with User:GoodDay. 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Feel free

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi GoodDay,

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

1) Background of VOTE 2:

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

This was VOTE 2;

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

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

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

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

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

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

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

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

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

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

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

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

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

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

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

trial run

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

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

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

Friendly word in your ear

Flip-flopping [1][2], and commenting for the sake of it, with little or no constructive purpose [3] reminds of a certain editor of old. Not the new, improved GoodDay. Rockpocket 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Gooddday?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CDA clarification

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

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

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

What if the US and Canada got married?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your input is required

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

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

Comment at WP:CDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your new section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Dunc

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

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

British Isles usage on Wikipedia

Please. from Snowded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paris Hilton's doppelganger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monarchial article names

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing section in the the CDA proposal

RE new 'Canvassing and discussion rules' section.

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

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

In the waiting room

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually the Prince received a lot of catcalls from the audience when he appeared on stage last night.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe, serves'em right. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see it on YouTube. I think it was disgraceful. Had I been the show's presenter, I would have ordered those catcallers to shut the f..k up or else be thrown out of the theatre reminding them that music has nothing to do with politics. The Prince was a contestant there to sing not engage in a political discourse on the merits of a monarchial government ruled by the House of Savoy. Like Adrian Kronauer's adversary was reprimanded by his CO in Good Morning, Vietnam, "It's only radio, Dick". Well this is music, just music Fa la la la la......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Giggl giggle, thus be it to all royals. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You've go tot be taking the p--s

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

FINE, you do as you wish with CDA. The rest of yas can consider my support withdrawn. I've had enough with the infighting there. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I shall forgive you, Matt. But, I'm no longer interested in CDA. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC

But because you also said exactly this on the CDA Talk page in a 'statement to eveyone'. Jusdafax is now saying that I've alienated "yet another" editor. He has tried to stop every development on CDA since early Jan, even the ones that plugged huge holes - it's just more ammunition to him.

I did ask you for your thoughts above, I admit GoodDay, as you always say what you feel, which is great when you just need some straight advice. But I'm questioning myself now why I needed to take such a high risk. The risk of course is of you publically stating your opinion, then publically reversing it a bit later - effectively from offering support to my Canvassing proposal (which was nice of you, though not actually asked for) to supporting my work being sidelined and reverted by someone else to a simplistic 'per WP:Canvass' section "if it helps CDA". The reply to your generosity was "thank you GoodDay", of course, but what else did you expect at that point? I've no idea if you changed your mind about Canvassing or not, but I doubt it - I suspect you still see it as a problematic issue, as no actual reasons were given to you (that I could see) to encourage you to see it as less of a big deal.

The risk of you doing this was so high, that I have to ask myself why did I ask for your advice on such a difficult and fraught issue (after you have already backed out once for a short while too)? The reason is that there is something fundamentally 'not right' with CDA. It's not just that it's been 'clamped' by a small group of editors. It's just not running as smoothly as something with the momentum it had at one point should. I think that's largely down to the thorny Canvassing matter, and the mayhem it could potentially cause Wikipedia - it must be on the back of most people's minds, and right at the front of those who voted in the Motion to Close. It's amazing that such a few editors have managed to effectively avoid dealing with something so central for so long. 'Per WP:CANVASSING' is the weakest 'cop out' i've seen on Wikipedia, WP:canvassing itself being so non-specific and easily-abused in the case of CDA. It is 'burying heads in the sand' stuff, and the matter is far to important and central to CDA to "sort out later", when it is clear that no one can sort it out now. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

All of you can shape the CDA in any form yas like. You've all got the luxury of knowing exactly what's going on there, I don't. Matt you've got to tone it down, as you're bordering on ownership & Tryptofish has got to except 85%, as inflexability on a mere 5% is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to tie up loose ends, thanks for this clarification. The AN/I Tryptofish filed on me (over you - how ironic is that?) has simply shown us all how CDA cannot work in my eyes. So the big U turn in the end is mine. No doubt I'll see you at BI soon, after I've had a short break. I'll be on and off Wikipedia until then, but I won't be editing like I did at CDA until BI. Some people just don't understand all the actual work that goes into productive actions - being dismissive is just no work at all. Oh well. Wikipedia is nothing if it's not countless hours of wasted time! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've cooled off, I'll be awaiting the Rfc on CDA (both of'em). This time, I'll be more thorough. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that Tryptofish did the AN/I basically on your behalf, and is now suggesting (albeit via a link to an essay) that I should be blocked. You made it clear you were not happy with the AN/I. Wishing him "good luck with the CDA" is your own business of course, but I wanted to say please just be aware that I'm still not out of trouble here. I haven't done anything wrong apart from losing my temper with you, so I'm asking you to please try and be cautious over the matter. I still need your support! In my experience at CDA, Tryptofish was always be quick to bend and use things he sees to get his way. He's admitted he can 'stand firm' when he wants to, and he's totally blown me out if I;m honest. I'm not a soft touch but I've had no answer to him at all. I held back on posing those percentage query results because they were not 100% unambiguous, and I knew he'd simply say “no” them. And where then? My long fuse was going with all the positional bickering. I wish I could use rfc/u's and AN/I's myself before I eventually stretch myself too far and lose my rag. It's what they are there for after all. The irony is that I'm being accused of being a 'serial threatener' now, when in reality I rarely ever try and get people in trouble, apart from obvious socks - and I'm even leaving them these days.

Fortunately for me the AN/I highlighted an element of CDA that I hadn't somehow considered - admin gang mentality. CDA would struggle with it from editors, but simply could not survive it from admin too. If I still intended to edit on CDA I'd be in an awful position after his AN/I on me. I'd had probably have to call him up officially for his meat canvassing, just to maintain some balance, and keep some kind of foothold in CDA.

I can be philosophical about my realisation about CDA, but I'm still not out of the residual poo. So please don't make it look like you don't support me re the AN/I all that much. Until it's actually blown over, I may need all the support I can get. And worse of all I'm considering an AN/I on an admin too. I'm trying to talk myself out of it, but I know what happens when I don't go by the proper routes - when things flare up I lose my rag. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You won't be getting blocked over your 23:50 Feb 19-post to me, cuz I shant support such a thing. As for the CDA stuff? I'll await the coming RfCs & then choose wither to 'support' or 'oppose. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is becoming an encyclopedia for children or the hopelessly illiterate

An editor is going around articles replacing due to the fact with the pedestrian because!!! Don't tell me due to the fact is too incomprehensible?! I hope tht editor is never forced to read Umberto Eco!!!!! Cesare Holy Borgia! This place is really turning into a kindergarten. Shall I create an article on the latest nursery rhyme, eh? "Keep the language simple, please, simple for the simpletons".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's the culprit? GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The last person who edited this: Anne Woodville.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Check the IP's contribs, it's time for him/her to be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not an IP, but an administrator!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. OK, I confess, I didn't check the IP contribs. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

She's on a crusade (sigh). Another Joan of Arc, I fear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that she has to go after so many articles tell her that due to the fact is normal usage?!!! Perhaps I should write this in block letters lest she deletes this!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Block words 'might' work. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Due to the fact" is a wordy and pretentious way of saying "because", and in most cases it's incorrect too. See here [4] for correct and incorrect usage. ðarkun coll 16:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This brings back memories. My language arts teachers always frowned upon the usage of 'because'. I'd dared to ask one of them, why she protested its usage & wouldn't ya know it, she started her response with because. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think because sounds simplistic. Sorry TharkunColl, I have to disagree with you on this issue. I'm a fan of due to the fact, by dint of, etc. I don't think they are pretentious, just less pedestrian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They're incorrect for a start off, long-winded, and usually used in an attempt to appear clever (but in fact achieving the opposite). I've noticed that North American discourse is often full of such useless padding, which is one of the (many) reasons it comes across as inferior. As a professional writer myself I have learnt that good writing should be as clear and concise as possible... Just my opinion, of course. :) ðarkun coll 17:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

TharkunColl, I have always respected you, but please don't play the English snobbery game with me. I've lived in England, and for every person who speaks like Noel Coward, there are a thousand more who speak like Billy Bragg.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm nothing like either. I'm a Brummie. ðarkun coll 17:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, then I suppose I shall have to go and gunter all my articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, because I'm a Brummie? ðarkun coll 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I was joking, TharkunColl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So was I. It's called irony. :) ðarkun coll 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes I see. How silly of me not to have picked that up. My radar must have been on the blink yesterday.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that I don't mind people using due to the fact or because means I'm neutral on this, because....erm, where was I going with this? Jack forbes (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh hello Jack, welcome back (See what a divine poet I have become due to my exhaustive editing at Wikipedia). Nice to see you, How are the mountains?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You can write me some poetry anytime, Jeanne. I only came back to archive my talk page to leave it virginal white. Don't know why I feel I have to do this but there must be an explanation for it. I'd rather not know what it is though. :) Mountains have still to be climbed but have been on a fitness regime to be ready for it. Only here for a few hours then I'll be off line again for some time. Jack forbes (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Jeanne, this isn't about simplicity in the way you are suggesting. "Due to the fact that" is wordy, cumbersome, informal, and not always accurate. It is, simply, poorer usage than "because". Tharky is wrong to bring the hemispherical question up: it is as incorrect here as it is in the UK. -Rrius (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd place to have this discussion.... Anyway, yeah, 'due to the fact' is up there with 'at this point in time' instead of 'currently' (or 'now') and 'utilize' instead of 'use'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I must be out of style then, because my English teacher alsways stressed not to overuse words such as because, like, that, and, etc. One has to admit that as a result sounds better than the bald, unadorned because. Let me give you an example (sorry, GoodDay, for turning your talk page into an impromptu English lesson): "President Kennedy died as a result of a fatal gunshot wound to the head" or the simpler: "President Kennedy died because of a fatal gunshot wound to the head"? Wouldn't you all agree that as a result sounds better, more fluid than because?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did a Google search and it appears that all of you are correct, in that due to the fact is deemed clumsy and unnessarily wordy, when the easier because is prefered and more economical. I just wish that the next time a word or phrase becomes passé, somebody will inform me as I have been residing in a non-English-speaking country since 1993. Even my slang is outmoded in that I prefer to say "Get real" instead of "Get a life".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Triumph of Savoy

Ha ha ha, Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont came in second place despite the grumbling and impotent catcalling from the anti-monarchists in the galleries. My personal favourite, Valerio Scanu won the contest!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, there was alot of royalist in the crowd. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, both the Prince and the winner, Valerio Scanu won as a result of televotes. Had it been solely decided by the audience, orchestra and critics, those two wouldn't have made it to the finals. Thank God, in this case, democracy won out over radical chic and the intellectual elite. I did hope Irene Grandi's song would have made it to the top three, but she lost out to another.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Who'd a thought, democracy & royalty, together. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bingo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion please

Hi GoodDay, English is not my first language, and besides I came from a very different culture, so I'd like to ask for your help please. Could you please take a look here.Those are my comments and admin reaction on them. Could you please tell me what did I do wrong? Why he called my comments "dull and rude comments"? Thanks for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, your comments weren't dull & rude. It seems the guy didn't want to be critized at that moment. Mind you, I don't know the full story. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. The full story is quite fascinating on its own. Apparently an admin Spartaz blocked somebody 10 hours after offense occurred. Other admin unblocked the user without consulting blocking admin. Blocking admin got upset, deleted his user and talk pages and protected them. Two admins saw those action as an abuse of admin tools, and posted few messages on Spartaz talk page. Then Jehochman‎ came about to help Spartaz. He threatened to block two admins involved. here some more to read. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just administrators fighting amongst themselves. If I were you, I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned only because few weeks before that I was very upset, and asked my own talk page to be deleted. So I kind of saw a similar situation there That's why I got myself involved. Anyway, thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your 14:57 post & edit summary to administrator J, is a tad strong, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is what I think about the guy now after his response to my first message. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, he won't get upset over it. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I do not really care, if he will or he will not. Thank you for your time and responding my messages. It is really nice of you! Please have a good day.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Baby I got acid fingers

I guess I didn't completely dry the acid off my fingertips today. Does this seem a bit vitriolic to you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate, I'm not certain whatcha mean. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GD just read the Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald if ya wanna wee giggle. O' irony sublime irony.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Twilight Zone time

My daughter made a few edits earlier today. She also added something to her user page. Guess whats happened? Someone has mysteriously deleted her user page, but I cannot locate it in the deletions log. She's hysterical. I have written to Rockpocket. Anything else you can advise me to do GD. She's going nuts as I had helped her add images, babel and user boxes, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you put in a un-delete request? if so it'll be restore. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I helped her put in a request. I don't know how this happened. Could there be a hacker here with the tools of an admin.?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My guess is, it was a mistake. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To be on the safe side I had her change her password. The old one was too easy to figure out. Perhaps a troll deleted her page by figuring out her password.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good move, she may have been a victim of phishing. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Will they be able to restore her user page?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe so, including its history. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what her password was? kitty!!!!!! Like how hard would it be to guess her password? I had her change it to something completely different.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend she use a combination of letters & numbers in her 'new' password. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. If someone got away with it once, they could try again. Luckily they didn't go around vandalising articles with her user name!!!!!!!!! I told her to wait before creating a new page. Rockpocket will doubtless get to the bottom of it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it'll be fixed up. PS: I'm not certain, but I think the place where she put her request, might only be for articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Even so, I have informed Rock. Tatiana wants to create a new page, but I told her the old page isn't lost forever. Why go to all the trouble when the old one can be replaced?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope we haven't some IP who is going around trying to decode our passwords! Remeber the trouble your wikistalker caused you?! The problem is you have bored kids who are on their computers all night long. They could decide to try and crack our passwords to go phishing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat it. You & I have been here for a long time & the community would give us the benefit of doubt, in such a situation. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the difference between a Wikistalker and a random troll is that the former could study our editing style, slang words usage, etc. and imitate us so that we could receive a block or ban. Let's say I cannot edit for a few days due to illness, a server problem, whatever; well a phisher comes along, decodes my password, logs in as me and starts a phony edit war in which Jeanne boleyn loses her temper, becomes very rude, curses, makes threats, etc. To any Admin who doesn't know me, I'd be a disruptive editor worthy of a block or ban. See how scary it is. Remember your stalker? He made an error when he said the word c..t. but he wasn't too clever, whereas another stalker could have wrecked havoc, and what if you weren't around to defend yourself?!!!!! Scary stuff. Almost Kafkaesque.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon Rock could answer that, better then I. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Whooooooo, I'm your phantom administrator

What if Wikipedia is being haunted by a phantom administrator?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe in ghosts. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're no fun!!!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Camera tricks are cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I happen to believe in ghosts as my house is haunted by a few. My son has also seen them. My priest didn't feel their presence though and the holy water he threw failed to disperse them. They are benign so don't bother me unduly, although my cat often acts wild for no accountable reason. Animals are far more sensitive to the supernatural than humans. I must admit, however, that most celebrated hauntings such as the Amityville case have turned out to have been hoaxes, for publicity and obvious financial gain. Most phantoms are nothing more than shades, really. Full-fledged ghosts are quite rare.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, there's always a scientific reason, for unexplained happenings. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and the explanation is ghost.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nay, there's just no such thing as ghosts. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Boo!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahah. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, how do you know that I'm not part of the spirit world?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We extra-terrestial beings know many things about your world. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you do. Oh by the way how's Elvis? I hear you captured him a while back?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't got'em. He's still buried in his backyard at Graceland. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"An" FAQ

A small point, I hope you don't mind that I changed it back to "an". At least in the US, we treat it by the pronunciation, as "an eff ay que". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's incorrect grammar. Anyways, 1 letter isn't worth my getting into an edit spat. In other words, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How is it incorrect grammar? It comes down to whether the reader reads it as an initialism or an acronym. Neither is definitively correct. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Only use an when followed by a vowel. Thus: a dog, a cat, an eagle, a duck, a swan, an elephant. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, like "a herb". *nods* — Bility (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In British English, we have "an hotel", also Anne Diamond. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We use "a hotel". GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that a/an is based on phonetics, not the following letter. Some people pronounce it "eff-ey-cue" and some pronounce it "fack". — Bility (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain whatcha mean, but no prob. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, it is not true that "an" only precedes a vowel; it precedes a vowel sound. You wouldn't say, "The word begins with a 'f'." You'd say, "The word begins with an 'f'." Thus, it comes down to whether you read FAQ as an acronym, thus pronounced "fack", or as an initialism, pronounced "eff a queue". -Rrius (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I hope I didn't give anyone an headache. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nay! all is well. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's "a FAQ", or "an F.A.Q." surely. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Either will do, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)