Jump to content

User talk:GoodDay/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Thanks

Hi, GD. I thought I'd pop in to thank you for your good luck message. As I said to Jeanne, I'm as tough as old boots, so fingers crossed I will return in a couple of weeks or so. Thanks again. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. We await your return. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:British Isles

As a 'North American' what did you think of my theory? I usually don't venture into the 'war zone' all too often, but it remains one of my interests! ;) Best, --Cameron* 18:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It was cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Evesham re-enacting

I'm involved in a wee fracas on the Talk: The Troubles page. The Troubles was NOT an ethnic conflict. God, I hate current, post-1990s terms being used in retrospect to apply to historical events.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Eventually, someone is gonna throw an insult at you. Anything discussion, that has to do with the Troubles or related articles, tends to be heated. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I had better do a Sergeant Red O'Neill?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The Troubles is a lot less heated than the BI talk page. Go over to it now and see what I mean. I'm out of there, man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose, discussions covering the Middle East conflicts articles, are just as heated (if not more so). GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That is one territory of Wikipedia where I wouldn't tread even if Antonio Banderas and Steve Harley were leading the expedition!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

CNN of course, would describe arguments on those articles, as BREAKING NEWS. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to be gained by venturing onto no man's land articles. As you say, it's not long before the insults start flying in all directions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Notice how I don't hang around the article Scotland too often. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IPs

Well, my talk page has another charming message from an IP. I agree with you, they should be compelled to register.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed, very few (if any) unregistered users posts, last on my talk-page. Actually, being able to delete their messages (when needed), is fun. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

CHARLES VII

Hello, first I must apologize for my edit in the Charles VII of France article. I forgot the fact, that there is such a thing as de facto soveriegnty, as well as de jure soveriegnty. Henry VI, WAS DE JURE king of France from 1422 to 1429 and Charles VII's de facto years as king began in 1422 but his de jure or legal years began in 1429. I apologize once more for the inconvenience, caused in the edit. --HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Actually.Both Henry VI and Charles VII were de jure Kings of France.Henry was de jure until 1453.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, Charles VII's reign is recognized as 1422 to 1461. PS: I had to fix up your posting, as English doesn't appear to be your first language. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are you telling me that?
It is still understandable at some extent since in Charles time it was Henry whom hade been internationaly accepted as King of France rather then Charles.It was really by the outburst of Jeanne D arc that Charles started to emerge in Chrisindome as King of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Telling you what? GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
whats wrong with my english?--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean it as a put-down. I found your posts difficult to read & figured your writing reflected your speaking. Thus I figured english wasn't your first language. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
NO problem, its ok, I just didnt know what you meant about that statement.

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Does my posts have any misspelling, is that what you are trying to say?

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There were some mistakes in your postings, which I fixed up. Check out my corrections. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
But how, my friend, is that a reason, for you to assume, that english is not my first language?

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume that, with everyone. Mind you, I've no degree in the language, so don't go by my spelling habits. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I think GoodDay was just trying to be helpful. Jack forbes (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Oh, thanks for correcting my spelling, Jack (giggle giggle). GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you GoodDay, for Correcting my spelling mistakes.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I realize this is discussion has mostly petered out, but I think the reason GoodDay made the assumption is that the original version of the initial posting here contained errors that would be surprising from a native speaker. -Rrius (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That's correct. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that in view of HVOE's unique way of writing, everyone has bent over backward to be nice & polite: he has been corrected and, in turn, has apologised; not a mean word has ever been uttered by anyone. In wikipedia, we often run into editors who are barely stepping into high school, if not still in mid-school, and who want to participate with their new acquired knowledge & in their own style. We must let them & not be arrogant with them, whether English is their mother tongue or not. HENRY V OF ENGLAND could be one of those; he also could be someone who wants to have fun & is pulling our leg(s). Whatever it may be, GoodDay has handled it beautifully & eavesdropping on the discussion was a real treat.
Frania W. (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cry God for Harry

I see you stand like greyhounds in the slip, Straining from the start, the game's afoot: Follow your spirit, and upon this charge Cry "God for Harry, England and Saint George!!!!!!!". Rousing speech, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No! ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No?????! Go over to YouTube and hear Henry give that speech to his troops before the siege of Harfleur. Verrrry moving. It would have been interesting had Branagh given the speech in a Belfast accent instead of Shakespearian English!LOL Non noblis domine....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not many Scotsmen get worked up over a speech about England and Saint George. Not this one anyway. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I know you're a Wallace fan. I'm reading a bio on Mary, Queen of Scots at the moment. The English weren't exactly friendly neighbours of Scotland. I'd forgotten Hertford's troops burnt Edinburgh in 1544.The Rough Wooing, the English called it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have made some edits to the Henry V of England article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you believe? I used to think, Henry V wore a hat in his pictures. When in fact, it was merely his bowl on the head hair style. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He was merely copying Brian Jones. These wounds I had on Crispin's Day, All you know your places, God be with you all YEAH!!!!!!!!!!Non noblis domine, non noblis domine, non noblis Te Deum--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lancaster branch of the Platagenet monarchs, though considered usurpers (which they were, under the succession tradition, begun in 1216), were a very colourful threesome. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you including the fiery Margaret of Anjou among the threesome (God, that sounds kinky, eh?)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, just monarchs Henry IV, Henry V & Henry VI. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Did these people have no imagination? Henry this and Henry that! Titch Tucker (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It's funny there was never a King Thomas when Thomas was/is one of the most popular male names in England since medieval times.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Due to the popularity of Thomas a Becket Oh, hiya Titch!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
What about King Titch? I like the sound of that. King Titch I of Scotland. I shall then make a Royal decree that the monarchy is abolished. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!!Cry God for Harry!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

President of Scotland, has a nice ring to it. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cry God for Harry!

The image of Henry V

Jumpin' Junipers. He don't look like Branagh, at all. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He looks like my ex-husband actually, but his hair reminds me of Eric Burdon--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I got an edit conflict with a comment I was going to make about old Harry. Just as well, Jeanne. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Go on Titch, I can take it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I was going to say he would certainly make me cry! I'd cry, my God, what the hell is that! But I won't say it. It's just as well they had no tv in those days, England would have been a republic long ago. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm so mild about Harry. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are you Jeanne? I had to say something bad about him! He is an English Royal after all! Titch Tucker (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
English? How was he English? He was a Cambro-Norman. Henry V was born in Wales of mainly French ancestry, like all of the Plantagenets. He had just a trickle of Saxon blood going back centuries. The Welsh were loyal to him, hence the Welsh archers who helped him win the day at Agincourt. Elizabeth I was the first English monarch with a sizeable fraction of English blood due to the Boleyn's paternal line being mainly Saxon in origin. I was having washing machine problems, hence I disappeared for a wee bit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahah, then why the speech? I see you stand like greyhounds in the slip, Straining from the start, the game's afoot: Follow your spirit, and upon this charge Cry "God for Harry, England and Saint George!" I know he didn't actually say that, but whether he was born in Wales or had Norman blood he was still a King of England, so he was an English Royal, no? Titch Tucker (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, aren't we missing an important personage in this discussion? I'm surprised our Henry V hasn't made an appearance already.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
How was he able to assume that moniker? Usually, Wikipedia frowns upon editors giving themselves real person names. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that rule applies to real living people. Henry died almost 600 hundred years ago so I'm sure it's ok to use it. I don't think they'd like someone to use Tony Blair, George W. Bush or Sarah Palin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
What happens if your name is Tony Blair? Does the Tony Blair have first shout on it as a user name? Titch Tucker (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Since it would be difficult to proove one's name, I'm guessing the former British PM gets tabs (on the name). GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I wanted the name Anne Boleyn as my user name but it had already been taken. I made do with my real first name, which contains Anne then added the Boleyn. Clever, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I used my nickname for the first name, then got Tucker from I don't know where. I wish it was something cleverer, but alas, it's too late now. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Mine's from the way I answer my phone. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
All this talk about Henry and Agincourt, etc. has inspired me to create my latest article: Anne of Armagnac. Thanks guys for providing me with the spark which has brought Anne into the spotlight upon the Wikipedian stage. Titch, as regards to whether or not Henry V was English. By blood no, by inclination and as sovereign of the English nation, yes. By the early 15th century, doubtless due to the Hundred Years War, and the fact that the Royal Family had already adopted English as their spoken language, replacing French, buds of nationalism had begun to sprout among the English nobility and common people alike. Wars were no longer just dynastic campaigns but quarrels between nations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, what's wrong with a simple Hello? Or if we're having a foul day, Whaddayawant?.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nay! my choice of moniker, is of a neutral nature. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

Guess to whom we (the entire Christian world) have been praying to for the last 500 years?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)This guy here:

The original model for standard portraits of Jesus Christ- I kid you not
Ya'll should be praying to Joe Pesci. he looks like a fella, who gets things done. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
JESUS CHRIST son of mary (peace and blessings be upon him) will join Imam al-Mahdi in his war against the anti-christ and will appear in Damascus where from there he will go to juresalum and kill the anti-christ or the false pretender who was once had de facto rule over the world for 40 days.Upon mahdi's death he will become governer of the world and the earth will be in peace untill his death and a few later signs of the day of the hour when the world will go Kaboom!!!!--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Cry God for Harry, England and Saint George!!!!!!! Tally Ho!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At the Pot again

{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scotland&diff=271863385&oldid=271848729 Using] your wooden spoon again? --Snowded (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarify? GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well we just get to the end of another neo-Troll on Scotland and you suggest they go onto to perpetrate the same disruption on Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Stirring the pot --Snowded (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. I was curious as to why the fellow, wanted to change just one of the 4 articles. I wasn't hoping he'd go around the other 3 articles, as I'm in favour of the current wording of the opening paragraphs. I'm anxious that all 4 remain in sync. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I hoped that was the case, but you may just have given him ideas --Snowded (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
lol I think GoodDay was trying to be helpful and not stir, the fact all 4 articles have the same lead is an important point. Besides if Tom wants to take the debate to the English page its ok with me, im getting tired of having to scroll down such a long page :). BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, welcome to the club of troll hunters on British pages by the way. I will admit I was a bit suspicious at first and still disagree with you on several subjects but your diligence can't be faulted.--Snowded (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
For the record, gents. I'm infavour of the current opening paragraph on those 4 articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You mean 3? Northern Ireland seems to have lapsed. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Yikes, Northern Ireland's opening paragraph should be in sync with the other 3. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the normal IP, sorry to have missed that I put it back. If others would watch it as well please? --Snowded (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Grrr, we all know my views on unregistered Users. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Ive changed which to that so they are all identical. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, now Snowded, there is absolutely no need to be rude. There is a real person behind this keyboard with real feelings, and being called a troll is not very nice. If nobody takes up my idea for the lede, then it will be dropped with no hard feelings. I certainly don't intend taking it to the other articles, why should I? Please refrain from name calling, I would never think of doing the same. Tumblin Tom (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I did say neo-Troll, I think you persisted well after it was obvious there was no agreement and directly editing the article with instructions that you were not to be reverted was hardly sensible given the discussion. You are going to get some gentle pokes for that sort of behaviour. If you want to see real insults try editing Ayn Rand and you will find these pages a delight. --Snowded (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, my friend, that is how discussions develop. We reply to each others posts and questions which can lead to a rather long debate. It would have been rude of me to have refused to answer questions that were put to me. Tumblin Tom (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
True, but it was also discourteous to edit against an active discussion on the talk page. No hard feelings however, welcome the the British and Irish editing community, life is never boring. --Snowded (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Indeed, never boring. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to be discourteous, so lesson learned. There are certainly no hard feelings, and I wish you well. Tumblin Tom (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wondered...

Hello there GoodDay, I hope all is well,

I wondered if you could share with me your thoughts about User:Jza84/Sandbox4? I think highly of your opinion and I think your status as a Canadian will provide for a balanced and invaluable insight on the content. It's just the lead I'm working on, the other stuff is just for personal reference. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've replied on the same page. I'm horrified by the lack of development of that page, and so have taken it upon myself to find a way forwards! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope I was of some help. My knowledge of such topics, is limited. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait for me!

Ok, Im here now, why did ya start the party without me? What do you use a wooden spoon for, GoodDay? Wow, you Prince Eddie Islanders are wild!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wooden spoon? whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Look higher up on this page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm having brain farts today. You'll have to point it out, for me. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Under section:At the pots again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah hah. Ya know, I still don't fully understand what Snowy meant, about a wooden spoon & a pot. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Think about it. Anyroad, it's not true.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in a daze. Pot, wooden spoon, it sounded like something to do with narcotics. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What is it about the Scotland page that stirs everyone up? I'll never venture over there!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, Scottish nationalism is behind it. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have said before that nationalism has no place in an encyclopedia. When I write my articles, I remain neutral, although I did say in Charlotte of Albret that Cesare Borgia was notoriously ruthless! But as regards nationalism, one must forget one's ethnicity, sex,nationality and religion when editing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I bumped alot of heads, at that article. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Titch Tucker, RIP

I have just read on his talk page a message from Titch's son. Our good friend Titch has died. This is just too sad. Oh, will I miss him. I had thought he was recovering and then this. God, it's terrible. I'm so sorry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So am I. GooodDay, I just cannot believe we'll never hear from him again. I am so sad. He was such a kind, warm human being. I already miss him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We can take some comfort in the fact, he lives on in his children. The last thing he & I were discussing here, was our monikers (a mere two days ago). At this time, I can hear bagpipes playing for him. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that, and his last words on Wikipedia were "it's too late now". I can also hear those same bapipes. His son sounds just as nice as his dad.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God, he asked me just a couple of days ago if I were from Hungary... *shock* Cassandro (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just think we were having a laugh about our respective monikers and Henry V a few days ago. I loved how he'd just pop in at the right moment and join the discussion. I was thinking about him today and how tenuous our hold on life actually is. One minute we are here typing our text, and then suddenly the words stop...forever.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been listing to Paul McCartney's version of Mull of Kintyre, in Titch's memory. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Jeanne and Gooday to what happend to your friend.May Titch rest in peace.

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Henry. Yes, we are all of us here shocked and saddened by Titch's death. He was a jewel of a human being, rare and hard to find in this world. I echo your sentiments, May Titch rest in peace. He is already missed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Though we knew he was ill, the news was unexpected (to say the least). We were certain, he was recovering. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I still cannot realise he has gone away from us.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was similiarly shocked in May 2008, about the passing of Padraig. Checking his & Titch's contribution histories, is tough. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I never knew Padraig. I arrived at Wikipedia in April 2008. I believe Titch's last contribution was to your Talk page. He sounded happy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, we were conversing about the orgin of our Wiki-names. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in fact his last words were alas, it's too late now. God, do I miss him. I keep on imagining that, by magic, his text will appear again on one of our talk pages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I like to think he was commenting on the fact, we were used to his name & so he felt he couldn't change it. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh that's what he meant, that he was already known as Titch here. I just felt his words were uncanny. What are we to do about Henry V? Have you seen my talk page? I told him to put forth his arguments on the Henry VI talk page so as to attract other editor's comments.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I find his posting habits perplexing. Particularly the 'spacing' between 'section headings' & posting. I still think that english, is not his mother tongue. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
oK see ya. I believe he saw the Branagh film and thus developed an interest in Henry V.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've returned. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your friend Titch, GoodDay. Even though you only knew each other through text, a friendship can not be taken lightly. Once again, I'm sorry to hear the sad news. Jack forbes (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI

GoodDay, why did you revert the changes?--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your changes didn't work (the Infobox showed 'no changes'). Also, it's best to bring your proposals to the discussion page, first. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry GoodDay. What were those IP lads trying to do on the Henry VI article, you reported something of blatant vandilism. Again sorry. HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
They blanked the whole article. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
why--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to ask them. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyway GOODAY we should have Henry VI titles regnal from 1422 to 1429.predesscesd by Charles VI and succeded by charles vii.

there is no need to menton both as them as king since one was de jure(henry vi) and de facto of the north while the other assumed the title in practice south of the loire(charles VII).we should then have his title in pretensce.predescesd by Henry V AND succeded by Edward IV.I hope this helps.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.I am not very good at editing templates only the article.I am better used to giving lectures about how this should be as said in my posts and I agree sometimes I have alot of spelling mistakes.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fully certain of what you're saying. But anyways, I'm not a fan of de jure & de facto discriptions. Personally, I'd rather not recognize Henry VI as King of France. Afterall, English & then British monarchs styled themselves King/Queen of France until 1801. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
If you happend to read the Treaty properly.It mentioned no preddescent of Henrys claim through Edward III thus Henry inherited through obligations rather the the plantagement claim.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
From 1422 to 1429, Henry VI & Charles VII were in dispute over who was King of France, a dispute Charles eventually won. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
In fact you are telling us how the Hundred years War ended.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
RE.RE.Yes I agree but as I said I rather each french King bieng sought out independently and I also agree that it was in dispute but this is coverd in the article.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, your suggestion is the best by far. Go ahead and add it to the navigation box. I'll support you if there are any objections (I know here shall be at least ONE!) Historians and royal genealogists do not consider Henry to have been a king of France, although as you correctly say, he did lay claim to the throne. This is definitely the easiest way to resolve the dispute.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think then this shoud be the resonable comprimise.Regarding your addation that Historions dont recognize Henry as King of France you should check the endless list I gave you of Refs.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to leave that up to you & others Jeanne. You'll see what I mean shortly. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello gooday and jeanne.Gooday it is to bacic to state that it was a dispute that Charles later won.Both were soveriegns of France but charles was only king in 1422 because he assumed it in practice.Charles anyway wasnt called the king even by joan of arc.He was known as the dauphine.Henry V was the prince regent of france and charles had no legall authority from henry to take control of southern france.Henry VI succeded and was king of france and so was charles by inheriting his earlier possition as de facto of the south and asumming the title in practice.It is like saying Pedro the cruel had never been king of spain because Henry II of spain took the throne off him.His title as king of spain didnt mention Henry II in the succesion box and was also a Dispute.It is all coverd in the article.Charles in 1422 wasnt de jure so it should have been by right and legallity governed by John the duke of Bedford.The french both by Henry V in his reign and in 1422 to 1429 were called rebels,and they legally were rebels of the crown.Henry dosent need to be involved with Charles VII since we are concentrating just on this specific charecter as we did with charles VII and pedro even though they all had disputed(although the main difference was that pedro and henry were kings of spain at different times..In pedro's (pedro the cruel) succesestion box it says he was king no matter if it was in dispute with henry II who was the eldest Bastard(ILLIGITIMATE SON) and wasnt in the succestion box as in dispute with Henry II,And by the way Pedro also lost and still dosent mention in HIS succesion box that it was in dispute with Henry II.Charles officialy (legally) bacame king in 1429 but his reign began in 1422.We concentrate on each person seperately.No one take this post as an offensce please,Thank You.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to figure it for yourself, Henry. I'm in the process of retiring from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Im sad I was starting to get to know you and jeanne lol.Are you still going to change the template before you semi-retire.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm already semi-retired (which means I'll be around 'bout an 1hr or less, per day). I won't change the NavBox, until after I get more imput. If there's no more imput, then I change it next week. If anybody dislike it? they can always change it back. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay: Left a comment on Charles VII talk page. You should put the navbox as you prepared it: it says it all & that's all we need. Hoping no more ghosts will come back to haunt us! Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Change in Charles VII of France NavBox

GoodDay: Please go to navbox to check if this is what you want. Frania W. (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the problem w/Reference section.... well, maybe, as I have no more idea how to fix things than you have. Bonne nuit! Frania W. (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ya got it. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
GoodAY hello.I though you were refering to henrys nav box not charles.In that case go no with your edit.I was talking about henrys nav box in the start not charles and I PRESENTEd my nav box for henrys.Henrys one should state that he was renal king of france 1422-1429 predesced by charles vi and succded by charles vii.You should then have another title king of france in pretensce predeced by Henry V and succeded by Edward IV.GOODBYE.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I checked over Henry VI's navbox. I kinda like the Titular King of France & am reluctant to change it. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no law that says you have to change it, GD. It looks fine the way it is. Let it Be, let it be........ Oh, if you want to observe another grammatical nightmare, check out this article:John IV of Armagnac. I created an article on his sister a while back, so I happened onto this one today while making certain the links were correct. This is really Bedlam. Do you know what is meant by kingly formula? No? Well, neither do I. I stuck up a copy-edit template.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers, ya got your work cut out for ya. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No way Jose! I made a few corrections, but as I couldn't fathom in my wildest imagination what was meant by kingly formula (sounds like something out of an Umberto Eco novel), I gave up. Check it out before I made my edits.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It sure was a mega mess. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank you personally for all your kind words spoken about my dad Titch. Thanks. Little Tuck (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at 2012 presidential election article

I invite you to participate in the discussion about the "front runner" section here. Timmeh! 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI (Part 1)

GoodDay, there is no problem with Titular King of France for Henry. You might not know what Titular means, so I will tell you. Titular means in name only, not ruling.(dont get mixed up with not ruling and reigning). Henry VI should have it as Titular King of France de jure regnal rather then in pretensce, since he was a King of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I do understand what Titular, De jure & De facto means. PS: I've had to fix up you posting again (please see the corrections). GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, are you sure you know what titular, de jure and de facto mean? Hmm, I'm not convinced. Hee hee hee.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I sure wish HENRY, would learn how to spell my Wiki name. He had it as Gooday. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
He spells my name correctly, which is more than I can say for my daughter's teachers!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of English monarchs, there is an interesting discussion over at talk:British Isles, which I initiated. Masochism must run in my family!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers, you sure are a risk taker. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been mauled yet. Quite possibly because no IPs have butted in, plus I provided a good primary source for my comment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Believe me, eventually an IP.86 or an IP.78 will show up there. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Y-y-y-es, I k-k-know, GoodDay, h-h-have you got an extra s-s-suit of armour I can borrow-it must be able to withstand thousands of rounds of verbal artillery.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I've no armour. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
How have you survived so long here at Wikipedia sans armour?!!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I use the Spicoli/Martin method. Stay cool & ride the wave. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey that's like totally like radical, man. Just be careful of wipe out!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've made a statement at the Ireland Collaboration Project. I hope I got it right, dude. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Faaaaaaar out, I'm gonna boogie over there now and check it out! Like whooooooa!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

CNN

What does IMO mean and why did you tell me that?--Mapple001 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My own statement

GoodDay, I added my statement below yours. Honestly, I am feeling just as tired. I don't like ROI but I really don't think people need to go to war over it. I've no intention of getting involved in a heated debate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

HENRY VI (Part 2)

I have commented about a nav box for henry VI on the henry VI article.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Alison has retired

Sniff sniff. A gorgeous administrator retired from Wikipedia, yesterday. I will miss her. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is Alison? I don't believe I ever encountered her here. She shouldn't have given up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
She's a girl who has had enough hassle on wiki to last her a life time. Jack forbes (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't know her, although the name does ring a bell.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

I can't help myself, but I don't know why I bother. Why can't everyone just agree with me, it would be so much easier. Ach well. :) Jack forbes (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing, the resistance is due to the fact England doesn't have a first minister. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The Scotland talk page. I havent exactly got a whole lot of people agreeing with me. :( Jack forbes (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI (Part 3) & Charles VII

hello GooDay.There is nothing wrong with mentioning de jure or de facto.In the article of English claims to the french throne it mentiones Henry VI as de jure.Give me an appropriate reason why it cant be mentioned.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

France does not recognise Henry VI as having been a monarch of France, neither do academics and royal genealogists. I'm sorry but this has been discussed before, correct me if I'm wrong.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, the Treaty of Troyes effectively ended on Aug 31, 1422. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The treaty did not effectively end in 1422.HOW did it end in 1422?--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the death of Henry V of England effectively ended the Treaty. Though it's speculation on my part, as to what might have happened if Henry V had lived longer. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I respect your oppinion.You can actually go on with your suggestion with the henry VI article nav box.I already mentioned in the article he was de jure king ages ago .If you dont mind me asking do you accept the fact that henry vi was de jure(legal) king of france from 1422 to 1429 in contrast with charles VII who was rightful king in 1422.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Henry VI of England, wasn't legally King of France. Salic Law disqualified the Treaty of Troyes. Henry was an unsuccessful usurper of the French throne. Edward III through to George III, claimed the Throne of France, however neither were such. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Henry was by fact de jure(LEGAL)king of france in 1422.Salic as mentioned in the terms of the treaty of troyes was delibritaley added to disqualify Edward III and the other daughters of france and later salic law was rediscoverd as that females wernt allowed to inherit but males were so it didnt mention anything about heirs through female lines,thus making salic law a cover up scheme against the english claim.Edward iii then had right to attack the kingdom of france and styled himeself as king of france in ghent 1340.Salic law wasnt put into regular coversation in diplomacy until the critical condition in 1316 and 1328.The non-authentic meaning of salic law is in practice the same meaning of semi-salic law.If Edward III mightend have any real foundation as king of france in practice but he had right to style himeself rightful king and so went to the blood and flesh of his heirs.The english went according to there plantegament claim against the cover up scenes of salic law in authentic meaning.The treaty of troyes can be both claimed legal and illigial but its outcomes are not debatable.Charles VI mightend have any legal right to dissinherit his son but it was put into practice and was in fact removed from successtion.As the treaty was ratified Charles was succesfully removed from succestion and Henry in accordance with law and treaty became de jure or legal king.Charles would have had right to style himeself rightful king but was far from de jure since henry vi had much more legal entitlement and was to succedede his maternal grandfather.Its uncontroversial who was de jure king but the modern day debate today is on who is on the right.just to also add many legal kings were wrongfully kings.SOME good examples were eulek and Philip VI.Henry VI is not a userper he is simply abidded to his own plantegament claim to the french crown and he was the legal king.userpers are people who take a crown wrongfully with no right and taking not into consideration another persons legitimacy.The english had right through Edward III.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Charles VII was legally King of France & Henry VI was at best, a usurper. We'll have to agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Im afraid in fact henry was the legal king until you can prove how my friend.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
We'll have to agree, to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you not accept the fact henry was de jure.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Because, historians don't accept Henry VI of England as King of France. Please, let's end this, by agreeing to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay please look up English claims to the French throne.Scroll down until you reach Henry V and Henry VI.It says de jure heirs over both henry vi and henry v and de jure king henry VI.then look at de facto 1422 it mentiones Charles bieng de jure king in 1429.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry, I'm afraid that French historians and scholars have the final word on the matter which is that Henry VI was never a king of their country. None of us here can usurp their own assessment of who legally reigned in France. Henry VI was in point of fact king of England in name only, his wife Margaret of Anjou was the de facto ruler--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not moving on, gang

If ever there was a Wikipedia addict? it's me. Unfortunately, that addiction has angered my body, which has responded by giving me my third case of hemorrhoids in 18-months. I'm moving into semi-retirement as of today & retirement at the end of this month. From now until 'mid-night' 1 March 2009, I'll be on Wikipedia for 'bout an hour daily. I'll have a swong-song message, at the end of the month. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Think long and hard beore you make your decision GoodDay. If you do decide to leave you should make it a break rather than retirement. Give it a month or so and see how you feel. Jack forbes (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
If in future, I get a laptop, then I'll return full time. Right now, sitting for hours in a chair daily, is becoming a pain in the 'you know whatsy' (ha ha). I'm content with the fact, that I'm semi-retiring in a happy (though painful) mood. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
See ya'll tomorrow (for 'bout an hour). GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Man, that's hosed. I agree with Jack, just take a break. What will we do without you here? Come on think about it. Don't leave. Take a break, then get a laptop. Come on, GoodDay, you're one of the best editors here at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Take a break, buy a laptop and a cushion and comeback (and take the procedure its not as bad as people say) --Snowded (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help and encouragement. As you know, you were one of the first people to show me the ropes. As you can see, you'll be missed by many. I'd be really happy if you decide to get a laptop instead, they're dirt cheap nowadays... ;) --Cameron* 10:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to request our distinguished colleague GoodDay to take a brake and to purchase a laptop. (Without objection, so ordered.) :-) Cassandro (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your many positive contributions, you'll be missed. I hope you do decide to return shortly, and wish you a swift recovery from the 'rhoids. Best wishes, waggers (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you do get the laptop and come back on regularly again, you will be very missed if you dont. Hope you feel better soon and always stay safe. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Montjoie! St. Denis! To arms! Mon bel chevalier, pray not desert the battlefield. The Battle of Agincourt cannot be fought without you. Charles d'Albret needs you by his side against the vanguard of Harry's rampant greyhounds.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sniff sniff. Wowsers, ya'll are certainly a persuasive group. Well, alright then, I won't retire. But, I'll remain semi-retired, with the hope of someday getting a 'laptop' (which will allow me to lay on my back). I guess my 'roids frustration' was clouding my judgement yesterday. Note: I've re-edited my postings yesterday to reflect my changed mood: retirement postpond'. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hallelujah!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Lying down with a laptop is not all its cracked up to be. It's so annoying having to get up again. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For me, it'll be better then a chair (I may never sit down again). Right now, I'm actually alternating between 'standing up' & 'kneeling'. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've googled your condition. Seems its a pain in the b*** but not too serious - you will sit again:) And you will edit again! Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna hang around afterall (in a semi kinda way). GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - I know a wikicrack addict when I see one...  :-) --HighKing (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No buts about it. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank goodness. This place has been a lot less fun lately as it is. -Rrius (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I won't be as active, but I'll be around. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, until Santa shimmies down your chimney with the laptop you can always put your computer on top of a prie-Dieu.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That's OK. The doc has given me a solution. I wonder if an anti-gravity thingy, might be invented soon? GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are staying =) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll be around roughly 1hr or less, per day. Having seen the doc, I've got an internal hemmy, which (with sapositories) is easily taken care of. My lifestyle has to change, with more walking & other physical activities. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey I've just logged in and found out. This is bad news. I hope to see you around more often again one day. ðarkuncoll 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna hang around afterall, Tharky. Not as often as I used to, it's a lifestyle change. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't you live on an island? I would imagine it would be amazing seeing all the island while jogging and getting fit. Jack forbes (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not that ambitious (at least not yet). Before I jog, I must walk. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You should notice the difference in no time. I was so unfit I couldn't run upstairs without getting out of breath. A month or so after taking up jogging and lifting weights (not too heavy at first) I felt so much better. It's hard at first but well worth it GoodDay. Jack forbes (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In honour of your semi-retirement: List of Calgary Flames captains.  ;) Resolute 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, you also might want to enroll in a gym. Is there one near you with a heated pool? Jogging and walking are both very good ways to get back into shape, however in my opinion, swimming is the best activity there is. I swim all summer long and I really notice the difference. Besides, it's FUN!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is a suppository suppose to go & stay all the ways in? I've never used them before (until last night, which it kept trying to pop out). PS: If I'm getting too personal here, let me know ya'll. Afterall, this is one of those situations, where nobody looks at anybody. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Suppositories ain't so bad, GoodDay
As a mother of four, I'll admit to having had experience with those little ass-blimps. They are rather hard to push in. Try wetting it first, that helps it go in easier. Better yet, get a sexy nurse to give you a hand!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sexy nurse? It won't work, 'cause I'll wanna be the inserter. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That would be the obvious chain reaction, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I sure was relieved, to see how small those torpedoes were. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
We all live in the Yellow Submarine--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
From this time forward, I'll always have a chuckle when I hear that tune. I shall endeaver to be jogging, when listing to it again. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sky of blue and sea of green, in our yellow submarine, yee hee--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Trumpets & all. See ya tomorrow Jeanne, I'm gonna try & appear daily between 16:00 & 17:00 UTC. PS- thanks for the suppository advice (and assurances). GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. See you later alligator.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well its nice to know that your not fully retired. It looks like many people, including myself, appreciate the help and conversations you have given over the years. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Running is good. I enter little races, that way I have an 'exam' I have to work for. You could start by entering a 2km run for a few weeks' time (that's a mile and a quarter.) Train for it following one of the numerous beginning running schedules on the internets, and listen to your limbs. Then 5k, 10k, etc leaving a while (but not too long) in between each one. If I don't have an 'exam' I don't work lol but maybe that's just my psychology.:) Glad you haven't gone:) I'm checking into the wikiholics' anonymous programme myself lol.:)Sticky Parkin 01:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting the hang of walking, again. If I felt any better, I'd be twins. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration

GoodDay, have you seen the responses to our statements on the Ireland collaboration page?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got some support for your statement. I've got none. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I made a short, concise statement, nothing verbose or flowery. I was asked to comment and I did. I have said why I don't like the term ROI, but I really don't have the time to go into elaborate details with facts and refs proving this, disproving that, etc. All my life I have heard/used the term Ireland, but I won't get into an edit war over it. I'm far too busy with my own articles LOL! If other editors support my statement, fine, if they oppose it....oh well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to go along with any solution, that comes out of the Collaboration process. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Very few people have left their statements. I had thought there would have been more of a response, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. (PS: I was side-tracked for awhile, my niece had computer control). GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah hah! the responses to our statements you were referring to, is Kittybrewster's responses. I've responded in kind. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Where is your reply? I can't find it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin. Kittybrewster, seemed to suggest that my statement was meaningless dribble. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You made an honest statement like I did. We were all asked to give our statements. If someone does not personally like what we wrote, tough titty. We were "asked" to comment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What really pissed me off is that when I endorsed or opposed BrownHairedGirl's statements, my qualifying comments which EXPLAINED why I gave the responses that I did, were deleted. My remarks were pertinent to my endorsements/oppositions. God, I feel misrepresented with that journalistic stunt.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think my credability with the Ireland naming crowd, is in tatters. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? You gave an honest gut-reaction response, which to me is far more sincere than a long, verbose statement planned and executed after a week's pondering.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
About a year ago, I favoured the 3 articles the way they are. Then gradually, I preferred moving them from Ireland, Ireland (disabiguation) and Republic of Ireland to Ireland (island), Ireland & Ireland (state). Now, I'm neutral on the subject. I'm guessing, my changing PoV has made me unhelpful. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've thought of getting involved in those discussions again, then thought again. For those who have a political view there is very little chance anyone is going to change there minds, and no matter how hard a person genuinely tries to put it aside it will always influence there thoughts. I do wonder if this debate will ever be concluded. Jack forbes (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Whatever's decided, it won't be universally accepted. Though we can't proove it, I suspect Irish nationalism & British nationalism is interwinded in those disputes. The current collaboration process has accomplished something though, as their hasn't been any page-movement disputes on the 3-articles-in-question, for weeks. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is any need to prove nationalism on both sides is an influence, everyone knows without saying it that it is. It's very similar to the Scotland article. I am obviously a Scottish nationalist, though I genuinely believe any proposals I put forward are thought out with the best intentions, as I presume are those of a different political bent. As for Ireland, why it can't be Ireland(State), Ireland(Island) with Ireland being the disambiguation page I don't know. Jack forbes (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I reckon, some see having Republic of Ireland re-named Ireland (with any accompanying discriptive) as suspicious. It would be so much easier if Ireland were re-united, but (thanks to the IRA) that may not happen for quite some time. GoodDay (talk)

I wonder what they are suspicious of? That using Ireland(State) on Wikipedia will suddenly lead to a united Ireland? All a bit silly really. As`for the latest killings in N.Ireland, I honestly don't think it will escalate as the vast majority people don't want it and it's easy for these small groups to call themselves the real IRA, it doesn't make it so. Jack forbes (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It's the symbolism of the name Ireland, I suppose. One wonders though, if re-unification occured? which article would get the name: the island? or the expanded state? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
And another verbal battle would ensue. :) Jack forbes (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
And we'll all need to don suits of armour a la Henry V. Have you got yours nice and polished, GoodDay?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have my famed Football Helmit. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage

"The Flintstones (1960-66) - After the pet cat (who was never seen during the episodes) threw Fred out of the house. Why didn't Fred simply crawl through the window hole, to get back in?" I assumed a major part of the gag was that the cat was smarter than Fred, in that he couldn't figure out how to get in the same way the cat had. Anyway, a fun userpage you have. :) Qqqqqq (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm planning on adding more TV/Movie trivia. Likely some Scooby Doo material. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay and his fight for fitness

Hey, GoodDay. How's your fitness regime getting on? You'll need to keep everyone up to date you know. I'm sure we're all rooting for you. Today huffing and puffing up the steps, tomorrow jogging and swimming for miles. :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay (or is it GooDay), if it's too cold for jogging, I've a good idea on staying fit, whilst staying INDOORS.: Invest in a bunch of classic Stones CDs, and start doing Mick Jagger stage impersonations, complete with lip pouting, leaps, and strutting. If he manages to stay fit at his age doing those antics, I'm sure it'll do you the world of good at 37.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Leave out the drugs and alcohol, you wouldn't want his complexion. Be careful GoodDay, this Jeanne one might lead you astray. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Me lead GoodDay astray?! Jack, I'm a middle-aged mother of four. Purrrrrrrfectly respectable and (ahem) guaranteed not to make a spectacle of oneself in public, I might add.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've known many middle aged mothers that would make your hair curl with some of the things they get up to. Of course, God forfend you are like that. I'm confident you are a proper and upright member of society. :) Jack forbes (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In point of fact, I'm a boring, UPTIGHT member of society. Ha, just joking. PS, has GoodDay gone away already-oh, I can hear the Stones in the background, Start Me Up.....I never stop, never stop GoodDay, I see has taken my advice. Oh, what a good Jagger he makes, especially with the pouts and strutting!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Being 6ft & 155 Ibs is a healthy start. I feel lighter on my feet & have more wind in my lungs. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yay well done. Don't lose any more now, that's enough. It's been cold enough for me to have an excuse not to run all winter- so I got a £75 basic treadmill and did a bit while watching telly instead.:) Sticky Parkin 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
How much is that, in Canadian money? GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
$133.25 at the moment:) You should be able to find a manual one for that price in a similar shop. It was from Argos (retailer). There's one for $199 in canadian walmarts, but I think you could find cheaper than that.:) This is for a manual (non-motorised) one, but they work fine. Sticky Parkin 20:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll stick to outdoors walking, on account that I'm cheap. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh you're cheap as well? Good, so am I, welcome to the club!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Spening money is cool, when it's another's money. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Try a local auction. There are auctions are all over southern Ontario and I wll bet that PEI has them, too. People buy the machines initially with good intentions, and then the machine sits in the TV room until someone gets tired of tripping over it or dusting aorund it. I bought one at action (motorized) that I swear had never had a foot set on it) for $125.00. You do need a truck or access to one to get it home, though. // BL \\ (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Nay! In truth, it's my theory that people get into shape, while trying to assemble those excercise contraptions. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
GD, I still think the Mick Jagger routine is the best way of getting fit! Try it, it can't hurt, (unless you break an ankle while prancing around the room).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I shall consider it. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll join ya.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
To us then, the Jagger joggers. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to change your name to Jumpin' Jack Flash, GoodDay!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be a gas. Particularly, if I ate beans before the jog. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you noticed that Wikipedia has become a dead zone on weekends? Where in 'ell is everybody, eh? Out having FUN, I suppose!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That appears to be the case. HENRY V isn't on holiday though, he's proposing to add Henry VI of England to the List of French monarchs article. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh God....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, he's gonna continue to beat us over the head, with the Treaty of Troyes. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at his latest message on my talk page. Whew!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, a long post in broken English. PS- See ya tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
GooDay will you and jeanne stop talking about me because this is insulting.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. PS: It's GoodDay. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Henry, we were not insulting you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

HENRY VI (Part 4)

Hello GoodDay Im going to adopt your nav box for henry vi today.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Its perfect well done.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
GOODAY could you please give me refference to books which actualy openly state that henry is not considerd a french monarch.In the french kings article it says Henry VI succeded Charles VI as king.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not good at presenting references. Why not simply say, the French succession (from 1422 to 1429) was disputed, between Uncle Charles & Nephew Henry? GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
LEAVE CHARLES REIGN ALONE.for the final time gooday charles reign began in 1422 due to de faco soverignty and regognition as bieng king of france and please try to understand that his de jure reign began in 1429.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, Charles VII's reign began in 1422. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hear! Hear!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at a similiar situation. In England, during the final year of King John's reign, the future Louis VIII of France's armies held alot of control of England. Do we list Louis in the List of English monarchs with a reign of 1216-17? GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Another analogy would be the 16th century when many Catholics in England and throughout Europe regarded Mary, Queen of Scots as the rightful queen of England rather than Elizabeth I. Are we to list Mary as Queen Mary II of England?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Monarchs claiming other Monarch's thrones (particularly in those days) was sorta common. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyroad, we cannot go around changing articles (and history) at our own whims. If we all did that Wikipedia would be more chaotic than it already is. Many people, including myself, have their historical icons, but we cannot alter history just to exalt those very icons up to a lofty stature they never enjoyed whilst alive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL GooDay you might be right.Why not he had de facto soverirgnty and was proclaimed king in london I'll suport you if you want him to be in the english list of monarchs.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Remember this is an encyclopedia, Henry. We cannot afford to treat history in a frivolous manner such as to arbitrarily play musical chairs with the biographies of the monarchs of Europe. We are here to edit articles and provide reliable sources, but not to practice historical revisioning.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually on 2nd thought Louis VIII is not a king of france.LOOK up louis viii article on the disscution tab and you will find a user asking a question about louis bieng a english monarch and another good answer to the question by another user.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I have replied on the Louis VIII talk page. I suppose Perkin Warbeck should be added to the list of English monarchs as "Richard IV" and Lambert Simnel as King "Edward VI". In point of fact, the latter was crowned king in Dublin, whereas Louis VIII never was crowned King of England.Henry, do you see where all this speculation is leading?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Louis VIII of France shouldn't be in the List of English monarchs & Henry VI of England shouldn't be in the List of French monarchs, IMO. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've requested opinon from Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty, over wether or not, we should be even considering Henry VI of England as having been King of France. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a wise move. Let them deal with this migraine-inducing conundrum. Now Louis VIII has been dragged into this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm also still shocked over at Maria II of Portugal & Miguel of Portugal articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Louis VIII is not a king of england because of the treaty of kingston.Louis VIII had no notable blood claim or any law on his side to provoke an action such as claiming the english throne.He was hover solidly-proclaimed king of england but upon King john death henry succeded and thus the barons abondand Louis.It wasnt as simple as henry succeding to the throne if louis hadent signed the treaty.To refuse the idea of a 2nd invasion of england and the embareesment of giving the english throne to a frenchmen the barons asked louis to sign the treaty.Louis admmited he was never the legitimized king of england and said his previous years as king of england was in pretend,thus louis is not a king of england.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Henry VI was (at best) King of northern France & should not be considered King of France. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The Plantagenet kings of England were French by blood, not English (as in Saxon).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Gooday I respect what youre saying but henry succeded as king of france and thus he is a french king.Henry was obviously a king of france but as I said Louis was never king of england because of the reason above unless of coure you want louis title as king of england in pretensce since he admitted that in the treaty.Henry VI succeded as the de jure or legal soveriegn of france so there is no appropriate reason why he is not a french monarch,and as I said before please give me reference to books which actually say henry VI was never king of france while many websites,documentries and books say henry VI was the de jure or legal soveriegn of france.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Umm, it's GoodDay. Henry VI was not King of France, at best he was King of northern France. I'm sorry HENRY, but it appears we're never gonna agree on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are more sources clarfying Henry as King of France.Charvex is making the mistake by thinking we are saying the House of Lancaster is a french house.That is nonscence.We are arguing the fact that Henry VI was a french monarch and he was a Historical French King from 1422-1453.I also have Cambridge and Oxford sources saying he was King of France.Henry VI in conclstion is a french King but Lancaster is not a French hOUSE.In fact nobody ever said Lancaster is a french house since as STR1977 put it "It didnt survive the First King whom came to that Throne".

Here are the refs:


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


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

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

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

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


main book:

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



lol I think both Oxford and Cambridge agree Henry was King of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)



There is no scholar who would agree that Henry VI was in fact, King Henri II of France. The whole order of French monarchs would need to be changed. The first Bourbon king who flippantly said "Paris is worth a mass" would thus be Henri V! I really think this topic has exhausted itself to the point of near-death. I say we consign poor mad Henry the Lancastrian usurper to a magnificent tomb in Westminster Abbey and let sleeping kings lie.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay sorry for mispelling your mockier.On the case of Henry VI,if he succeded to the throne of france how is he not a french monarch.It is wrong to say he was at best king of northen france since he was the legal soveriegn of the entire realm even though as you said it was only put into practice in the north.If youre saying henry is not king of france because he was only de facto of the north then you are undermining charles himeself since he was de facto of the south and you have to remeber chares was removed from succestion so henry became the legal soveriegn of the entire country even if charles VI didnt do it in a legal manner the English could easily prove it was legal since salic law itself only refferd to common or private lands and had nothing to do with succestion of thrones this was discoverd in the 16th century.Henry VI could also be proved as rightful king of france because through Edward III and his mother they had l claim.Catherine of Valious was older then Charles VII and as I said salic law had nothing to do with succestion for thrones.Therefore the french throne could only be justfully claimed through bloodshed.Its an undisputable fact that henry VI was the legal soveriegn of france as part of the aftermath of the treaty of troyes.If Henry V was still alive he would also be the legal king upon asccending to the french throne in 1422.Henry VI succeded as king of france with all the traditional priveliges and many poems were made for him from 1422-1429 as being of descent of Clovis I through both his mother and father.It is also wrong to say he was a USURPER.GoodDay I dont mean to offend you but you have to give me a reason how Edward III didnt have any legal claim and Henry VI wasnt the soveriegn of france from 1422-1429.

Henrys corination however wasnt a traditional corination since Notre-Damm was build as a impresseve cathedral not as a corination site.There were no holy relics in the cathedral and the only none-holy relic there was the crown of thorns.The oil henry was annointed with wasnt holy at all while charles was annointed with holy oil used in the corination for the grand-father of france(Charmaglane) thus the corination wasnt proper and John the duke of Bedford tried to make it close enough to a corination.Its as crazy as an english king bieng crowned king of england in Wales.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of my country

Must say, I'm both surprised and disappointed you are supporting the POV pushers at the Foreign Affairs article. All in good faith I'm sure. Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as the Irish state article remains at Republic of Ireland, we should use it in other articles content. IMHO, by hiding the current name across Wikipedia, we'll only harden the pro-RoI crowd. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Richardson

It's sad about Natasha Richardson. The article, however, refuses to say that she is dead. Here in Italy, the news reported her death this morning.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The article will likely be updated by the end of the day. Surely, the Italian report is reliable. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

post 1707 and all that...

Hi there. I'm sure you are not intending to be provocative, but this is a discussion that could easily offend. Scotland did not cease to exist in 1707, though it ceased to be a sovereign country. People born in Scotland continue to be Scottish, though their citizenship is of the United Kingdom. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fear not, I'm familiar with sensitivities surounding the United Kingdom & Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned that you don't like Welsh, English, and Scottish people being called just that if you are familiar with the sensitivities surrounding it. Tumblin Tom (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that everyone born post-1707 in Scotland is British I'm just saying that that doesn't mean that they aren't Scottish. Like I said, someone from Yorkshire is still a Yorkshireman,someone from Paris is still a Parisian and you hear about Texan oil barons. Just because somewhere isn't sovereign doesn't mean that they can't have demonyms and that people can't be identified as being from there. Since 1992 everyone in the UK has EU citizenship that "exists alongside national citizenship" so by your logic everyone from the UK should be described as an EU citizen on their articles. But perhaps that's me taking it too far. My point on people being identified with non-sovereign regions still stands particularly in relation to the touchy subject of the nations of the British Isles. Scroggie (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No one born in the UK can deny their citizenship, what they can do is define how they are seen. I have never in all my life told anyone I am British, though I can be called a British citizen. Where it can get touchy is when someone say's it is wrong to call someone English, Scottish etc. Tumblin Tom (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The word British is an umbrella term that should only be used to describe a person's legal citizenship, never nationality. A Scot does not cease to be Scottish despite the fact that he's a British citizen and carries a British passport. The same goes for English, Welsh, Northern Irish Protestants, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
My point is, British comes before English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? Because you say so? I'm Scottish before I'm British, are you saying I'm wrong? Tumblin Tom (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Errr, Yep. However, I have (of course) no intentions of pushing my PoV on Wikipedia (on account that I'll never get a consensus for it). GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, don't push your POV on to me. What are you, a member of the thought police? Tumblin Tom (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not a member of TP. Relax, haven't ya noticed? I haven't been changing British biography articles to match my personal preferences. I may recommend such things on their discussion pages, but I would never go edit them without consensus. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll relax when you stop telling people what they are and what they should think. Do you say these things just to wind people up? It's certainly not for the good of wikipedia if you know you will never get consensus. Tumblin Tom (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't say these things to wind people up, as they shouldn't be wound up. We could be having this discussion at your Userpage, but I'd rather not. If you're upset with me? I'm sorry for it. But, I am allowed my views at my Userpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
And strange views they are too. You should keep your trolling to your userpage and leave the article talk pages alone. Tumblin Tom (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Strange views to you perhaps, but not to me. As for describing my usage of Wikipedia 'talk pages' as trolling? I'll consider that a pro-censurship view, on your part. Anyways, it's nothing for me to get 'upset' about. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you say "I'll never get consensus for it" and you still bring it up that is called trolling. I won't waste any more time here and leave you to your strange views. What's so funny is, your not even "British" your a Canadian from a little island trying to tell people from another country what to think! That is funny! Tumblin Tom (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to have given you a laugh. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
PS- It could've been worse. I could've cast an evil spell on Wikipedia, forcing all editors to dream about Nichelle Nichols & Anson Williams as a non-stop singing duet. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Never heard of them. I take it their not very good singers? Tumblin Tom (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The former is from Star Trek & the latter from Happy Days. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Nichelle Nichols and Anson Williams?! GoodDay, are you sure you were born as late as 1971? Those two were all washed up by that time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've seen them in syndication & their singing is still flat. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't she Lieutenant err, uhuruhuhu. Tumblin Tom (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhura, the communications officer. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance. Anson was on Happy Days. I had him confused with the eldest brother on The Brady Bunch.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
IMO, Don Most & Ron Howard were better singers. Yet, the show kept putting Williams up front; go figure. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Barry Williams was the guy I was thinking of. I remember my friend and I found his phone number in the LA phone book. We called him up all the time. He used to get really pissed off and launched some choice insults at me. Hee hee hee.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Naughty girls. Well, my approximate '2 hours' is up. I'll see ya'll (figuritively speaking) tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you still there?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just signed-in. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI (Part 5)

Hello GoodDay can I please add Henry VI to the french kings article please because I already asked a request for it?Dont worry if you dont agree I will not impose the edit until further disscution and conclustion.Your say is important.Thankyou.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There's already a small note about Henry VI, in that article. Besides, you don't need my permission to add/delete anything on Wikipedia. I'm not the boss. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok then I will go on with the edit since I already requested it.Goodby GoodDay.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello GoodDay.Do you have any problems with my edit?--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Henry VI shouldn't be listed in the List of French monarchs article, but merely given a note. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay. Henry, you cannot list him as a French monarch, otherwise you'd have to call him Henri II-which we both know he was not!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I deleted his entry of House of Lancaster.Life is complicated enough, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Much better. I've checked my Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedias & they don't have Henry VI in their French monarch lists.
No one ever said that Henry VI feauterd in the official regnal template.I used sources to say he was King of France.Your exclodopeda unforrtunitly dosent explain the situation in 1422 when both Charles and Henry succeded to the thrones of France.They haVE Charles VII as succesor as Charles VI because he was closer to blood to Charles VI while Henry VI inherited by virtue of international treaty.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Had he been a genuine French monarch, he'd have been Henri Deux.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have sources saying he was a French King plus the fact he was styled Henri II of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Which would've caused a re-numbering of the latter Henrys. It's tough enough, that Charles X's elder son & grandson are considered Louis XIX & Henry V. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm no expert but claiming to be a French King and being French King are two different things aren't they? Out of curiosity, who proclaimed Henry VI as King of France? Was it the French or English? Jack forbes (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the belief theory: I'm just as powerful as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it. It all comes down (I suppose) to the legitimacy of the Troyes Treaty. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I see now. The problem with signing a treaty as a defeated force is that it is always signed under duress and once that is over it can be dismissed as just that. It's like someone putting a gun to my head telling me to sign over all my worldly goods to him, I'll do it, then the minute he leaves I'd phone my lawyers to cancel the whole thing. Jack forbes (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The treaty was not valid as Charles VI was mad at the time he signed away his own son's inheritance to his son-in-law, Henry V.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As said in terms exlicity.The Treaty ensued its futher vadility against thAT Arguement by ratifying the Treaty by both the parties of England and France.Here is the ref.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=qLKF0LCPlsIC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=The Treaty of Troyes ended Salic Law&source=bl&ots=Gz0XCciaFN&sig=ue_TDF0fqeHvB5GQgg0Lc2dFKMk&hl=en&ei=EWFCSvDoMoWc_AbbiPjOCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Today it would be invalid due to him not of being of sound mind. I wonder though who would have had the courage to tell him that. Jack forbes (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I just gave the answer above.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Joan of Arc! LOL--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if she did. She probably had more balls than the rest of them put together. There's a woman I'd liked to have met, although asking her out for a meal might not have been her idea of a good time. Jack forbes (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
She would probably prefer a night down at the local pub with a couple of pints of Guinness!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
And a sword by her side in the event of any trouble. Yeah! I'd go to the pub with her. Jack forbes (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Can GoodDay and I come along too? Pretty please?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What, you mean like a double date? Certainly, the more the merrier! I'll have to find Joan first, she may be hard to track down. Jack forbes (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_9&oldid=1141185301"