Sunshine Girl

Template:Wikify-date Sunshine Girl refers to pinup girls featured in most of the daily newspapers of the Sun chain in Canada.

The feature started when the Toronto Sun launched in 1971 and was adapted from British tabloids with similar featured women. The SUNshine girls have become an iconic part of Canadian newspaper history. Typically featured on page 3 of the Sun in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the photos usually featured a clothed or swimsuited female model, actress, or athlete, and were generally tastefully done. Famous former SUNshine girls include: Amanda Coetzer (Tennis star), Ann Rohmer (of Breakfast Television), Trish Stratus (WWE Diva), Stacy Kiebler (WWE Diva and Dancing with the Stars Finalist).

At least twice a year, the SUN Group produces and sells a calendar featuring a selection of SUNshine Girls. Typically, the Girls who are selected for the calendar are chosen by a the public online and by voting by mail.

Sunshine Girl Magazine is a men's magazine published from Miami, Florida. Sunshine Girl Magazine is sprung out of the annual Sunshine Girl calendar.

There was a Sunshine Boy feature in the Sun as well, but the picture was in black and white, and not on the same page every day, so it was more difficult to find. This feature was discontinued in 2006.

External links

that guy with a grudge against Chuq and Longhair

So far, all the IPs used by the Chuq/Longhair vandal (this guy) have been listed as open proxies at [2], so I\\\\\\\'ve been reblocking for 6 months. Thatcher131 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this one 59.167.61.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks legit. Maybe his home IP? Thatcher131 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Another grudge? Must be my lucky month. :) -- Longhair\\\\\\\\^talk 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That\\\\\\\'s what you think. My valid contributions to Internode_Systems were just being deleted for lame reasons. My contributions were referenced. No discussion was entered into regarding changing or removing parts of my contribution. The entire contribution to the article was reverted and then the page was protected. By the way, unsecured wireless and default admin router passwords are great. Regards the Chuq/Longhair vandal 208.101.10.54 03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There\\\\\\\'s discussion at User_talk:ScottDavis, Talk:Internode Systems and Talk:Simon Hackett but you\\\\\\\'ve chosen to ignore most of it. Besides, it\\\\\\\'s kind of difficult to let you know others are trying to discuss these edits with you if you choose to remain anonymous and make little use of talk pages. -- Longhair\\\\\\\\^talk 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that \\\\\\\"discussion\\\\\\\" as you call it is so biased against the contributions it can\\\\\\\'t be taken seriously. Clearly aggressive wording in my opinion which must be the Internode Fanboi coming out in you. Regards the Chuq/Longhair vandal 69.64.49.130 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don\\\\\\\'t give one hoot about Internode. I care about reliable sources of information however... -- Longhair\\\\\\\\^talk 03:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure sure. Can you please explain to me then how the magazine article and the ISP\\\\\\\'s own DSLAM rollout page I referenced was unreliable? The managing director stated the goal was to complete 25% of the exchanges in the timeframe of 3-4 months that were released in the magazine article. It has now been 5 months and they have only completed 11%. It is fact. How is that unreliable????????????????? Chug/Longhair Vandal 66.79.168.59 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once you call off your army of anonymous vandals and quit fiddling with the userpages of the editors involved in the debate, I may begin to take you a little more seriously. We don\\\\\\\'t cower to brute force insertion of your point of view here sorry. -- Longhair\\\\\\\\^talk 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What\\\\\\\'s this then? Are you going to answer the question about \\\\\\\"unreliable\\\\\\\" sources? Or are you just going to delete my responses as you have started to because you can\\\\\\\'t handle it? Chug/Longhair Vandal 67.159.5.85 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The APC article is fine as a reference, but it doesn\\\\\\\'t back up the point of view you\\\\\\\'re trying to insert. See Thatcher131\\\\\\\'s comments below. I dislike repeating solid information to those who refuse to read it. -- Longhair\\\\\\\\^talk 05:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are inappropriate because you intend them to personally attack Mr. Hackett for the way he runs his company and because the only source is some kind of blog or internet forum. Maybe if you had a newspaper article or something, and could write it in a neutral tone presenting just the facts, you might get a better reception. Thatcher131 03:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That\\\\\\\'s a load of crap. There were no personal attacks in my contributions. I did however change my contribution to a more accurate and referenced piece. For instance I added an article regarding the proposed rollout of services and expected timeframe. I then had a look at the ISP\\\\\\\'s rollout page and found that they hadn\\\\\\\'t even completed half of what they had aimed to do in the article. How is that a personal attack? It\\\\\\\'s factual information about the rollout being behind schedule. I think the deletions are a reflection of bias. Chug/Longhair vandal 72.36.195.155 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I\\\\\\\'ve never had a vandal named after me before. I\\\\\\\'m honoured. Longhair and Thatcher131 have pretty much said all that needs to be said here. To answer the vandal: The actual content isn\\\\\\\'t the big problem, although it was obviously biased, it isn\\\\\\\'t the reason for the blocks - it was the 3RR breakage and refusal to discuss changes on talk pages first. The evasion of blocks, the user page vandalism and Admin\\\\\\\'s noticeboard vandalism, the use of open proxies, and the admitted use of an open access point without the owners permission - isn\\\\\\\'t really helping your cause at all. -- Chuq 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That\\\\\\\'s laughable. The evasion of blocks, the user page vandalism and Admin\\\\\\\'s noticeboard vandalism, the use of open proxies and the open access point use is a direct result of overmoderation of Wikipedia. How about before deleting someones contribution and banning them, you consider the article that was submitted and suggest rewording or removal of parts of it, instead of flatly removing the entire thing and protecting the page so no one can change it. Love the Chuq/Longhair Vandal 193.196.41.38 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When you choose to play outside the rules, protection is a means to stop your behaviour. Edit warring isn\\\\\\\'t within the rules here in case you hadn\\\\\\\'t realised, and ignoring discussion at talk pages doesn\\\\\\\'t rate that highly either. It took several days for protection to be enabled, far longer than anyone has to tolerate the nonsense that caused it. -- Longhair\\\\\\\\^talk 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok look here we go.......it\\\\\\\'s the Chuq/Longhair brigade again.....give me a break! The reason I was banned by 3RR was because you were removing the edits completely, no discussion except \\\\\\\"anti-vandalism\\\\\\\" rant. You failed to even acknowledge that the article contribution that was submitted was correct, it just didn\\\\\\\'t wash with your own personal preferences. Hence that\\\\\\\'s why I resubmitted. Chuq/Longhair Vandal 200.61.58.2 05:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The reason you were blocked under WP:3RR was because you edit warred, and failed to discuss the matter. -- Longhair\\\\\\\\^talk 05:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right....at least I acknowledge that both sides have done wrong here. Both yourself and Chuq are still to pigheaded to acknowledge that. Love Mr CLV. 75.126.32.98 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were removed by at least three distinct editors, with explanations in the edit comments. This demonstrates the consensus that this content was not wanted in that form. There were also comments and explanations on User talk:59.167.63.34, User_talk:ScottDavis, Talk:Internode Systems and Talk:Simon Hackett. You did not respond to any of these requests to discuss, except to \\\\\\\'\\\\\\\'agree\\\\\\\'\\\\\\\' that ADSL2+ did not belong on Simon Hackett. It was clearly only a matter of time before you were blocked for 3RR (Chuq beat me to it by about 10 minutes I think). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again the \\\\\\\"talk\\\\\\\" was more in line with \\\\\\\"you are just a complaining customer\\\\\\\". If I was a \\\\\\\"complaining customer\\\\\\\", why would I even bother? I\\\\\\\'d just switch ISP\\\\\\\'s. I like Internode I honestly do, however there rollout is not progressing as they hoped(possibly for reasons outside of their control). It is fact however, demonstrated by the magazine article and the Internode DSLAM rollout page. C.L.V. 66.79.168.59 06:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was prepared to attempt to mediate a compromise, until you vandalised my user page, causing more work for other admins to clean up. Your efforts are reducing the effort of other users available to improve Wikipedia (including those articles). Thankyou to the people who helped clean up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Scott I\\\\\\\'m sure you wanted to \\\\\\\"mediate a compromise\\\\\\\".....pull the other one why don\\\\\\\'t you?....now you have something to blame for why you never were going to do anything. Mr CLV. 75.126.32.98 11:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is banned

It seems highly likely, in my opinion, that this user, currently editing anonymously, is the banned user Internodeuser (also known as Zordrac). He has all the same interests and grudges, and the same ISP and physical location. He is also currently banned until at least February 2007, so feel free to revert/block these socks on sight. --bainer (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am Internodeuser (also known as Zordrac).....NOT!!!!! Try harder next time. :P I was given birth to by Chuq and Longhair with assistance from Scott Davis and Sarah Ewart. Yes there is plenty more to come(time permitting of course), there are still PLENTY of Mr CLV modifications that haven\\\'t been found yet either. :P Chuq/Longhair Vandal 85.214.49.219 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This Canada-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.