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. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).

You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talk-page's 'history'. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Abdication of King Henry?

GoodDay, do you think our Henry V has abdicated? He hasn't edited his article on the dual monarchy for ages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think university studies may have captured him. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, so that explains his absence.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wintertime blues

"Now is the winter of my discontent"- Richard III--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Now is the winter of my discontent"- Richard III

Ya think he ordered the elimination Edward V & brother Richard? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No. IMO, Henry VII did it-at the instigation of his mother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, can you find yourself here?: User:Jeanne boleyn/Wikipedians and their historical counterparts--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Tallyhoah, it's Talleyrand. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mais oui, you smooth operator!!! Do you think I've covered all the types of editors?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the page if you think I've left out a type of editor. I somehow feel I haven't covered everyone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a Society of the White Boar, who are a group of Richard III apologists. I have found the best source material in Thomas More's biography (incomplete, though it may be.) Although the WP article on More implies he was a Tudor partisan, events of his life would appear to denigrate that position.

P.S. - I am so surprised that there is no article for Society of the White Boar, or even White Boar Society. Or that no one has named their Southern rock band "White Boar Society". Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of that Society. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

They even have an American branch [1]. Jack forbes (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I never knew. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

They do actually get a mention on wikipedia here, though it was renamed the Richard III society. Jack forbes (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating a re-direct from Society of the White Boar, and perhaps even White Boar Society to that page. Well done Jack! Thanks! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Is there a society supporting Henry VII? -- GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Harry Seven, but the term "White Boar Society" links to a variety of pages in WP. I'll leave that one be. Interesting though, is that the white boar - in some form - is such a strong iconographic image in various disparate cultures, throughout history. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the White Boar Society was changed to the Richard III Society in 1959. I always did want to join it. GoodDay, why don't you form the Henry VII Society that way we can have some interesting Whodunnit debates. I'm Henry VII, I am, Henry VII I am I am......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nay, I'm a republican. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're no fun!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He he he. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I could offer you advice on how to have fun. First off you will need to buy some Beach Boys CDs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, they're cool. Darn great harmony. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you'll need to grow your hair long and dye it blond. Finally after learning to speak Californian you can join the Fun Gang. Alriiiiiiight maaaaan, like totally RADICAL, dude. Whoaaaaa!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you believe, my family is pressuring me to get a hair cut? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How long is it now?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My hair's about 2 inches from the shoulder. PS: That's a tricky question, to ask a fella. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Eek a mouse!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Who was the Leaf captain for 2008-2009

I'm curious why you removed my edit for the Leaf captain for 2008-2009? Yes, it might be true they'll name one in November, but that doesn't change that they didn't have one for 2008-09. Unless, it's retroactive and the new captain becomes the one for last season, you'll have to put my edit back in sometime. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess as to why he did it would be that until there is a new captain named we don't know the end date of the vacancy period and as such we just end the list with the most recent captain. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But we're not gonna have to wait overly long. Ron Wilson says he'll choose among the 3 alternates in November. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the logic of that. Problem is, I think these dates (ex:2003-2004, etc) are "seasonal" dates, which means when the captain is name in November you will STILL have to add "no captain 2008-2009". BashBrannigan (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, in November when a captain is named, then we add 'no captain 2008-09'. But let's wait until Wilson makes the appointment. PS: Though (for seniority sake) it should be Kaberle, I believe Wilson will choose Komisarek. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents in here, I don't understand why we wouldn't add the note about no captain for last season. When a captain is named for this season is irrelevant to the question of who was captain last season. Danlaycock (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that nothing is mentioned after Mats Sundin, effectively shows that the captaincy is 'currently' vacant. Season-by-season isn't our method; it's year-by-year. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Because its redundant, you don't end a list by saying there is no more things on the list...you just end the list. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But by that logic putting the "no captain" in at any time is redundant. Obviously there was no captain from 86-89. Danlaycock (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There've been Leafs captains since 1989, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No there is a difference, when you are making a list and there is a chunk between two players without a captain people are going to ask why is this chunk not filled in, as well its in the middle of a list so you are accounting for time in a chronology. Whereas at the end of the list the chronology of captains ends with Mats Sundin in 2008 at this point in time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But now there is a chunk not filled in between Sundin and today. People are going to ask why isn't it filled in? Has it just not been updated or is there no captain? The chronology ends with now. Danlaycock (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a Crystal Ball. We don't know that there ever will be another captain. We can assume there will be because its highly likely but we aren't supposed to go on assumptions only on fact. So at this point in time the point you end is when Sundin ended his Captaincy. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A question from someone who knows nothing about ice hockey. What is with the no captain thing? I see on the article there are a number of years without a captain. Why is that? Jack forbes (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Captaincy is seen as an honour, and sometimes teams feel they have no one on the team that is worthy of that honour. (especially when they are a very old team). Other times coaches feel that their team might benefit more from not having a captain. Some coaches like to rotate the position month by month. Captaincy in hockey is a bit of an honorary title even though there are some things a captain can do like talk to the referee that others cannot, however if there is no captain there is always "alternate captains" (aka assistant captains) who can perform the same official role. Another example of why a team might not have a captain is that they know who they want to be captain but don't think he is ready yet, a few years ago this was the situation in Pittsburgh where Sidney Crosby had to wait a year to be named Captain. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Similar to my own sport football (soccer) in that it is deemed an honour and referees tend to talk to the captains. Dissimilar in that there must always be a captain on the field of play. If the captain is injured or substituted during play he must hand the armband over to another player. Would it not be a little disheartening for the players if they think none of them are deserving of the honour? Jack forbes (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a section about their selection here if you are interested. Captain_(ice_hockey)#Selection. As for disheartening, its often a case of reverence for the past or it can be used as a motivational tool to push players to excel. Some players turn down the honour because of the pressure associated with being the face of the team. They are expected to be available to the media after games etc, and some players just aren't outgoing enough for the role. -DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Predictions: Maple Leafs will choose Komisarek & Canadiens will choose Markov. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Markov already said he doesn't want it because he doesn't want to have to talk to the media after every game. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that confirmed? I remember Martin denying that Markov rejected the captaincy. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

First, to Jack Forbes on what is a captain. Historically, the captain was more important during the years before players had lawyers or agents or a union. The captain would act as the intermediary between the players and management. In those days the captain was often nominated by the players not the owner for this reason. These days captain is largely symbolic.

As far as the issue of why "no captain 2008-2009" was removed. I still believe it should not have been removed and I'm in agreement with the comments above that support it. However, this is not an important enough issue to get into an editing war about it. Thanks to everyone for listening to the issue, BashBrannigan (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My position stands as well, but seeing as how it will hopefully be a moot point within the next month I'll leave the article as is. Danlaycock (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:2009 NL East standings

Is there a reason you continue to restore information that's no longer relevant to the above-listed template? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, cause it's relevant & it makes the 6 divisions appear consistant. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not relevant, because Atlanta has been eliminated. There is a current consensus to remove winning streaks and e-numbers at the ends of seasons anyway because they become irrelevant. If you would rather it wait until the official last day of the season, that's no issue, but it will be removed per consensus after that point. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Braves haven't been mathematically eliminated from the NL wild card race. Consistancy is most important for me here. If ya'll wish to remove 'winning strks' & 'e-numbers'? do so for all 6 divisions. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

These are not wild card standings. They are eliminated from the divisional race. These are divisional standings and have nothing to do with the wild card. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur, as shown in my recent change to the Bosox's status at AL East. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of dumb to have elimination numbers for the division if all teams have been eliminated. So why does it matter "how it looks" with some having all "E" and others that don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistancy: If you're gonna delete them? do it for all 6 divisions. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to remove the E numbers, note that the top club won the division. After the regular season is over, it is self-evident, but not so during. If it is thought important to show the race for the division pennant while it happens, it should be thought at least equally to display the winner after it happens. -Rrius (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is the x, y and z information to show what team won the division that is bolded. I don't see how that can't be self-evident. Do you want flashing arrows pointing to the division winner to draw attention to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, you may delete the 'elimination' and the 'winning streak' columns from all 6 divisions. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see that after the season, but there is no reason to keep 'elimination' around after the division has been clinched. But the 'streak' is nice to have until the completion of the season. I think you guys need to loosen up a tad and target things that are more 'flagrant' on the site than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted both the 'winning streaks' & 'elimination' columns from all 6 divisions. After full reflection, those stats were irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Before such a jerky comment, unsigned one, you may want to check your facts. At 19:46 UTC, when I said that, there was no x, y and z, as you could see here. All the same, it is not self-evident. To someone who does not normally read standings, what would "x" mean? Even the news sites give a legend. -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet, these are pretty much the standard legend for all US sports, so the only way you wouldn't know what the variables meant is if you don't follow sports at all. And if that is the case, I doubt that you would be searching for standings at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

First, again, even the news sources and sports sites give a legend for the symbols they use. Second, despite your opinion, those aren't universal. Third, the standings are transcluded to various pages. Finally, Regardless of who you think the tables should be accessible to, Wikipedia attempts to be accessible to a wide readership. Since it is not impossible, or even difficult, to use words, that is what we should do. -Rrius (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now the IP is edit warring. I changed all of them to "won division" from "y", "clinched playoff berth" from "x", and "wild card winner" from "w". IP reverted me without explanation. When I reverted noting the lack of explanation on a couple of them, he once again simply reverted. So where is this centralized discussion taking place? -Rrius (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the regular season ends on Sunday, I'm not gonna fuss anymore over the stats. Let the dust settle with the season (so to speak). It's kinda my fault, I should've left well enough alone. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend using 'x,y,z' & the legend for it. Hmm, could this be considered the a XYZ affair? GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That only really makes sense for the standings page. The individual templates occur on 2009 season pages for all major league teams. What is the point of having a list of five teams with a "y" next to it and a legend below explaining "y" when you just say "won division" in the template. What's more, the AL Central is the only one with more than one letter used, making "x" and "y" seem like odd choices for marking footnotes. -Rrius (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it like that. Your version is easily more discriptive. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I supppose, these should've been discussed at talk: 2009 Major League Baseball season; oh well. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See ya'll later, it's hockey night, tonight. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that the Phillies clinched. I watched the game. You cannot, according to the Manual of Style, use an unkeyed legend to indicate something. "y" doesn't mean ANYTHING without a key. It does not belong in this template. At all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I reckon after Sunday, it'll be irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Make me smile

I'm bored, GoodDay. Entertain me with one of your jokes. (Not the elephant joke PLEASE)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I could tell a 'dirty' joke, if ya'd like. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I can dig it babay......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here goes: The little boy was hid in the closet, masturbating. His father caught him & warned him "Junior, don't do that; you'll go blind". The boy answered back "Dad, I'm over here". GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've a twisted pysche. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, GoodDay; shame, eternal shame nothing but shame-LOL!!! I definitely prefer this one to the elephant joke.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Laugh for the day

Today I edited the article on William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. I had to change the wording as it had read: Alice was murdered while heavily preganant with William's son (!!!!!), who also died with her !!!!!! I didn't realise they had ultrasound scans in the 13th century nor that an unborn child could survive in the womb after his mother had been killed. I rather think it goes without saying that if a pregnant woman was murdered, her unborn child would die along with her. What?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely, back in those times. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This won't make you laugh. Jack Forbes is retiring. Couldn't you try to talk him out of it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I could try, but I need to know what pushed him into it. Is it the 'motorways' articles? My opinons on British biographies? GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was doing some surfing when I noticed that it appears the quote "who also died with her" came from: http://bookbinding.com/magna_carta/barons.htm BashBrannigan (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Magna Carta, 'the Great Charter' of 1215. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet

Wondered if you would take a look at the intro and tell me what you think?

Include that he was 'President of Chile' & that'll do it. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Highways

Noticed you positive contribution - and peace has come at last to two gals.

That more interesting, the "high way." It's amazing that editors can get upset over the names of "roads."

The two gals seem to have got many involved in their spat.

So I though I'd jump in and try to make peace.

I, personally, think I succeeded - buy getting them both to focus on me.

It's really funny. But Sarah777 was far more accusatory than BHG.

Anyway, I was really worried that Shara777 would get in trouble - and I wanted her to stop here offensive.

BHG was in a far stronger position.

I'm writing this to you because you had a comment below mine - and I'm interested in defusing WP battles before disciplinary action is imposed by Administrators.

So it would help me to know what your impression of the dispute was - so I could better assess my effectiveness in that.

• Best wishes, --Ludvikus (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I see you got a Barnstar from Sara777. So yopu know her a bit.

I believe the roads disputes will be resolved in the same manner it could've been avoided. The primacy way is the core of the problem IMHO, it needs to be eliminated completely. I'm confident nobody will end up blocked. I'm more familiar with Sarah777 (then BHG) & have therefore learned to respect her Irish pride. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That help's a bit in my effort at understanding the source of the "heat." Who could get excited about "roads" anyway? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. All roads lead to Rome. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Forgive me for the many typos above! --Ludvikus (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob, at all. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains

GoodDay, the captains list has been nominated for featured list removal, with the nominator citing it was too "unstable". Have fun. Grsz¹¹ 05:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by this. Everytime a captain or alternate captain gets injured & put out of the line-up (even for 1-game), the IPs rush in to add the 'temporary' replacements. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My poem

Hey GoodDay, what do you think about the poem I added on your user page? Will you nominate me for the post of Poet Laureate of Wikipedia?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it, he he. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodie you've arrived. Time to play, time to get it on. Party, party!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But of course. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, when you're reciting my poem you have to snap your fingers while saying the refrain, then when you get to the last line, you point your finger as you say: "Say Hey". Hee hee hee hee. Cool eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And a "GoodDay" to you too, poet-of-the-day. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

More bloopers

I've got a few more bloopers for you: 1.In an episode of Northern Exposure it showed Napoleon Bonaparte singing La Donna è Mobile, which is from Giuseppe Verdi's opera Rigoletto, first perfomed in 1851, whereas Napoleon died in 1821! 2. In Oliver Stone's brilliant film, there is alas, a blooper, where Bunny is eating the beer can in the barracks while Merle Haggard's Okie From Muskogee is playing in the background. Well the film was set in 1967-68, no later than that, yet Haggard's song didn't come out until December 1969!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some doozies, M*A*S*H (tv series) is full of those. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Berry picking

Hey, GoodDay, wanna go pick some berries?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, I made that poem up. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good. I made up the latest addition: The Buzzing Bee. Ha ha ha.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Replacing injured captains or alternates

I thought the Captians Captains section was for only those players that were named captain or an alternate for each team and that temporary replacements were not being listed. Anyway, you made a comment that there must be two alternate captains. I think I might have misunderstood, but I remember that the Islanders had only two players wearing letters and the coaching staff informing the officials that Joe Reekie was the second (or maybe third) alternate. I'm not sure if this was due to an injury to the third lettered player during warm-ups. The NHL rulebook states only the captain or an alternate are allow to ask for clarification from the referee, but I also remembered a game where one team's three representatives were not available (due to penalties) and the officials would talk a player who wasn't listed as a captain or alternate. Raul17 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Temporaries shouldn't be listed, IMHO. I reckon when all 'letter' players are in the penalty box, the referee has no choice but to have discussions with non-lettered players. Seeing as NHL teams 'these days' tend to name up to 4 or 5 alternates, the penalty box incidents are rarer. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always preferred talking to the lettered players as opposed to non-lettered players as they are far more articulate. Ice hockey jargon, what's it all about, eh? :) Jack forbes (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out the Captain (ice hockey) article. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

Agreed, So keep them out of the infobox altogether, if they are widely reported and widely used then they will sit better in the body of the article where they can be explained. Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I respectable disagree, concerning the Infobox. But, seeing as I'm out-numbered, I'll have to accept it. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Even better still have them in the info box and have the explained in the article! Why isnt "A-Force" explained in the article?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It oughtta be mentioned & explained in the content, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, that is amusing, I find that makes it easier to be objective, fwiw I did quite like your compromise solution, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hoping to see Haye fight one of the Klitscko brothers soon. But, first he's gotta meet Goliath. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Governor General

If Harper manages to hang on for another year, who do you think he would pick to replace the Governor General? D'ya reckon there's any chance he'd keep her on? -Rrius (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope someday, that post will be abolished. I honestly don't know who PM Harper would nominate. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But what if he nominated...GoodDay!!! -Rrius (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm a republican as GG. I'd accept on the assumption that it would make me irresistable to women. Other then that, I'd turn down the nomination. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could ask Anand Satyanand or Michael Jeffries whether GGship makes the girls swoon because Adrienne Clarkson and Michaelle Jean probably don't know. Anyway, keep in mind that doing something constitutionally outrageous could hasten a move toward a Republic. You know, pick oddballs for PM, like leaders of smaller parties or backbenchers or something. Withhold assent or reserve legislation for the Queen's review. Prorogue and summon parliament at odd intervals. Just think how much fun you could have brining down the Canadian Monarchy. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The possibilities are endless. Speaking of Michelle Jean, wow-wee-wow what a looker. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh. She's a bit old for my tastes. Take off 10, 15 years, then maybe. -Rrius (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If a gal looks young enough, I'm caught. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I like Kirsten Gillibrand, though. -Rrius (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed & Sarah Palin is kinda cute. Ahh heck, Palin is gorgeous. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Palin gorgeous???? GoodDay, I think you're exaggerating here. I would use the adjective attractive when describing Palin. My idea of gorgeous women are Megan Fox, Eva Green, Keira Knightley, Debbie Harry, Paulina Porizkova, Bar Refaeli, Sharon Corr, Perri Lister, Kate Garner, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Cameron Diaz, Eva Riccobono, Victoria Silvstedt, Tyra Banks, Sharon Stone, Yasmin Le Bon, former Irish Eurovision singer Linda Martin, even Cher although she's past 60. French actress Catherine Deneuve was probably one of the most gorgeous actresses ever and is still beautiful same with English actress Charlotte Rampling. Marilyn Monroe was gorgeous, same with Rita Hayworth, Maureen O'Hara, Barbara Parkins, Dolores Del Rio, Elizabeth Taylor, Julie Christie, Vivien Leigh, Brigitte Bardot, Jean Shrimpton, Anita Pallenberg, and Jane Fonda. Jacqueline Kennedy was also very beautiful and charismatic. All of the above, plus others that I've overlooked were or are what would fit the description of gorgeous. I am heterosexual, yet they would make me stop and stare at them in the street. I wouldn't look at Palin twice. Sorry GD, I'm not knocking your taste, but I just don't think she could be described as gorgeous or even beautiful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I find all those women gorgeous, too. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I watched FLicKeR (film) recently, and this person was in it, and all the way through their segment, until the final credits rolled I thought, "My God, Anita Pallenberg is looking a bit rough these days..." Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: I didn't sign the Union Acts

I have several questions for you GoodDay. Don't worry, they aren't trick questions and I've asked you them all before. You just don't seem to have got around to answering them. Question 1.: Do you agree with Wikipedia's core content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do: Verification - England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom (i.e. they're not independant). It's not Original Research - Indeed, England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland 'are not' independant. NPOV - having England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Wales in a country list in a way that shows they make up the United Kingdom is NPOV (it satifies possible devolutionists & unionists). GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all verified as countries. Reliable sources that recognise this include: a) The Library of Congress quote: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union."; b)10 Downing Street quote: "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"; c)Commonwealth Secretariat quote: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; d) European Commission quote: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. unquote.
E/NI/S/W are defined as countries. Countries are not necessarily defined as sovereign or independant. Webster' s here, has several definitions of 'country', none of which include the word 'sovereign' or 'independant'. The most relevant is # "2a : the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship b : a political state or nation or its territory." Each of the countries of the United Kingdom lie within these definitions.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - having England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Wales in a country list shows that they are countries, as noted above. No more, no less.
Wikipedia:No original research - any decision to include these countries in a country list - based on whether England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are independant or not is both irrelevant and is WP:OR.
Whether one considers E/NI/S/W to be countries or not does not matter, as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth'. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are countries; countries within a country. I don't mind having them in the Category-in-question, if they're listed under the United Kingdom. Otherwise, we'd only be listing the UK twice. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes no difference if we'd be listing the UK twice. As England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are countries, they should be listed as countries. Choosing not to list them as such because one thinks they are subordinate to another country is WP:OR. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

E/S/W/NI are indeed countries within a country. That's verifiable, npov & isn't original research. As I've mentioned previously, my interpretations aren't law. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That "E/S/W/NI are indeed countries within a country" is "verifiable, npov & isn't original research." But Choosing not to list them as countries because one thinks they are subordinate to another country is WP:OR. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not if ya list them in a manner that shows they make up an independant country. E/S/W/NI combined 'are' the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As they are not independent countries I would not expect them to be listed as such. However, they are countries and should be noted as countries. That "E/S/W/NI combined 'are' the United Kingdom" is irrelevant. It is possible that you are confused by the definition of 'country'. If you have no dictionary at home, this may help. Please reconsider your point of view. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales are countries which make up a country. Because of this fact, if they're to be included at the European countries category, they should be shown with those facts noted. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I could live with that. Is that something you would support, GoodDay? Daicaregos (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to it. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me say it too. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel the luv in this group. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tinged with relief (and, possibly, exhaustion). Daicaregos (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me you are completely ignoring Dai's points and just giving your mantra of the UK is more important. Why don't you follow policy and agree that the are countries? For a guy who lives on a small island which is part of North America you sure have a strong view on Scotland, Wales, England and N.Ireland. Why is that you don't like the fact that they are countries? Why have you previously said that you don't like calling people Scottish, Welsh, and English. Have you a problem with me calling myself Scottish and identifying myself as Scottish rather than British? Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is where an editor is based, relevent to their contributing to an intellectual tool such as an encyclopedia? GoodDay could be from the moon and he'd still have complete right to request NPOV and verifiability be upheld on UK related articles, rather than fanciful chest-beating regionalism (which seeks to ambigiously categorise UK internal-divisions alongside sovereign states). What you as an editor personally "identify" as is completely irrelevent to Wikipedia, this is an educational encyclopedia to simply report facts (and the fact is the United Kingdom is a sovereign state) we're not here to blog. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay has every right to ask for NPOV and verifiability and they are all verifiably countries. Your argument that they are not sovereign states has no relevance here. As you say, we are not here to blog. Jack forbes (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The internal divisions of the United Kingdom, which in other European sovereign states are called "autonomous communities", "states", "regions", "communities", "provinces", are named "countries" by our government. It is these other internal divisions of European which they belong in a category with, not one which is otherwise used for European sovereign states themselves (which in popular discourse, the term country is instead, usually used to refer to). It is a verifiable fact that these are unambigiously internal entities of the sovereign UK, that is how they should be categorised. Its not difficult. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

They are countries (verifiably). They are countries in Europe (verifiably). Where is the problem? If you find that hard to accept then you are finding it a little more difficult than I thought you would. Jack forbes (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, E/S/W/NI are all countries within the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a European country. These points are indeed verifiable, npov & not original research. Now with respect to you & Dai, I'll use 'Scottish' in place of British on your userpage & 'Welsh' in place of British on Dai's userpage. Heck, if yas both want, yas can call me a 'Prince Edward Islander' (though I prefer Canadian, eh). GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If your preference is Canadian, then Canadian I'll call you. I do think your generally a good guy, it's this one point that bothers me. I'll stop talking about it and move on. Jack forbes (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

'Tis OK, discussions like these don't upset me. Afterall 'bout a year ago, I wouldn't have agreed to the usage of country on those 4 articles, but I came around to accepting the usage. Same thing with the creation of Countries of the United Kingdom, I've modified my stance. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

By this rate you will be a Scottish/Welsh nationalist in a couple of years. You will have come over to the light side as opposed to this side :) Jack forbes (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)There are editors out there, who seem to believe that I've got a Palpatine/Darth Sidious personality. Sweeet on the surface with evil intent underneath. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooh GoodDay, you're turning me on with all this talk of latent evil-and I haven't even had my first cup of Earl Grey tea yet. Shame, eternal shame, nothing but shame. Tut tut tut.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Everything is proceeding, as I have foreseen". GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Which film is that line from (IYWEMI)?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode VI, when the Emperor arrives at the new Death Star. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"So which Beedle are you, honey?"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Emperor, ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Which one? Charles V? Napoleon? Montezuma? Charlemagne?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Palpatine. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a turn-on! One thing though, GoodDay, to be an emperor, one needs to have an imperial. Have you got one?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What's an imperial? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A small, pointy beard like this guy wore.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nay! Just your standard 21st century beard. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And what would that be? A ZZ Top style of beard, mayhap? LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Alot shorter then that. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Islanders' captains

I missed the Islanders' opening game and was curious of who wore the As: Wittand Park with Hunter filling in for the injured Captain Weight (according to the NHL gamesheet). Okay, Witt and Park at home with Okposo and Streit on the road. I happened to see Okposo with an A on a blue home jersey?! I checked the hightlights clip: Witt, yes; Park, no; Okposo, yes; Streit, yes; and Hunter, no!! It appears that Witt & Okposo are home Alternates while it's Park & Streit on the road.

I can't understand why Hunter was filling in, Okoposo or Streit should've done that. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, That is how the gamesheet roster report reads, but it was actually Witt and Okposo with Streit filling in.

Hmm, one of the officials goofed. PS: Thank you Flecter & Richards of the Wild, for ending the annoying 'monthly rotation' of the team captaincy. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Flood

During training camp, everyone pretty much left the Islanders' roster template alone hiding players that were cut from the squad. Apparently, Mark Flood and several other injured players were placed Injured Reserve. Ucscottb4u felt that because Flood wasn't on the Islanders' website roster, he should be deleted. I pointed out that the NHL website had the opening-day rosters, including the Injured Reserve list. I also pionted out that the Isles' site has twenty-six players on the roster when only twenty-three is legal (there's no indicator of any player being on the injured list) which I think should deem it suspect and not reliable. Your opinion? Raul17 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the NHL team official websites tend to 'not be' up to date. WP:HOCKEY suggests that we go with that source anyways. See what the WP:HOCKEY opinon is on Flood's status (NHL or not). GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem, but it seems bogus that the teamsite (which the NHL controls btb) holds more sway over the leaguesite. I decided to hide Flood. If a player signs NHL contract (even two-way), he should be listed. The injury icon denotes that a plaer is on Injured Reserve. And the funny thing that if Flood stays the whole year on IR, it counts as one NHL season towards his pension just like the NFL and MLB!! Thanks! Raul17 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiding Flood is a compromise move, good idea. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

IP stalker

You might want to check his contributions a bit further back: he undid me twice, along with a couple of other editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He/she's gotta be blocked. There no need for those shananigans. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

GoodDays nemesis! The Ip! (any ip) Dah da ra da. Jack forbes (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Everything is proceeding, as I have foreseen". GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Very mysterious. Want to let me in on it? Jack forbes (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP will (in his/her self-entertaining way) eventually be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha! I've just seen it. Is this your first stalker GoodDay? Jack forbes (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I believe there was another, way back when. Not bad, for 4-yrs on Wikipedia. PS: I enjoyed getting back at that IP, with the 'blah, blah, blah' edit summary. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep giving him the blah, blah, blahs and he/she will slink away hoping to harass another user. As you say, the ip will be blocked in no time if they go on this way. Jack forbes (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He/she's been given a 48hr wiki-break. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean wiki has been given a 48hr ip-break. Jack forbes (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Ignore him and just let the admins know if he resurfaces. No sense feeding their need for attention. Resolute 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No joke

GoodDay, tell me you didn't take the proposal for a no bad joke policy seriously! Jack forbes (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

At first I wasn't sure. But then, I realized it was just a gag. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One or two have taken it quite seriously. I'll keep a low profile from there I think. Jack forbes (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good choice. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The template was good. You should have run with it. You may have been blocked, but you should have run with it. :) Daicaregos (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nay! I prefer my wiki-breaks to be voluntary. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike Richter

Can you remember late game saves during Game 7 Stanley Cup Finals? During NBC's broadcast of Game 7 of the 2009 Finals, Mike Emrick brought up Richter's save. He said this: "Can you remember a late game save by Mike Richter in 1994, by Martin Brodeur in 2003, or Nikolai Khabiboulin in 2004, or Cam Ward in 2006?" The reason why I added Richter's save when LaFayete hit the goal post was because it was to preserve a one goal lead and it was one of those memorable Game 7 Finals moments. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but isn't hitting the post 'not' a shot on net? Anyways, if you wish to restore it, I won't protest. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Entertain me

GoodDay, I'm bored. Please entertain me with your humour (sans Groucho jokes, however!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"My Bonnie lies over the ocean"

"My Bonnie lies over the sea"

"My Daddy lies over my Mommy"

"And that's how I came to be me". GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have noticed

I just wanted to let you know why I am messing with you. I would have left you alone by now if not for your smug comment about enjoying getting an ip blocked. You seem to think that you are smarter than a random ip just because you sign in. You have no idea who is behind an ip and what their motivation is. I got news for you, you are not as smart as you think you are. I have been doing this for years. It is my little way of showing the weakness of wikipedia. Yet sometimes I come across someone like you who think that you are so much better than everyone else. Do you think that you are the first who has tried to stop me. I have taken down slot better than you. My new mission is to revert your edits. I am going to revert as many of your revisions as possible. Not just the new ones, but older ones as well. I am going to make it so that your user name is virtually useless. You will never know when I am going to strike. You can't be on all of the time to protect every edit. Your user name is now an endangered species. You can block as many ips as you like. I have about 10,000 at my disposal, plus a few dozen names that I can log in with. Blah blah blah.