User talk:GoodDay/Archive 42

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GoodDay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I fully acknowledge losing my temper with the evading editor on the 2018-19 NHL team articles & most certainly handled the situation wrongly. Edit-warring only creates heat & not calm. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Procedural accept, block has expired. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, I've been trying to revert vandalism on those articles, as the other fellow is facing an ANI report. Please see the report in question. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also @NinjaRobotPirate:, note the other editor has also been reverting signed out, as 24.84.228.210. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Howdy @Freshacconci:, I can't help out at those team hockey articles for awhile. Good luck, dealing with the vandal. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO is about "obvious vandalism", such as replacing an article with the phrase "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS". As far as I can tell, this is a dispute over when and how to update sports scores. That's not vandalism. If there's something obvious that I've missed, you can always appeal the block. I saw the IP edits, but the autoblock should take care of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll need to read up on the problem at WP:ANI, concerning NHL 2018-19 Canadian hockey team stats. PS: I do acknowledge loosing my temper with the other editor, who was also reverting while signed out. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, though it wasn't you intent to do so. By blocking me & not the other editor's IP account (he has other accounts), you're only encouraging the other editor to be more defiant. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi:, I'm going to have to let you & the others deal with the problem editor & his socks. Tried to stop his disruption on the articles, but I obviously went about it the wrong way :( GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso:, the problem is the guy's IP isn't blocked, nor either any of his socks. Likely best, that the 30 NHL 2018-19 team articles be semi-protected. Getting into an edit spat with him, isn't the best way, as my earned 24-hr vacation has proven. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: The fellow is determined to do it his way, on those stats. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I sympathize with your situation and agree he needed to be blocked for disruptive editing and would have done so had he not already been blocked. But I just want to remind you that while you are blocked your talk page is only for requesting to be unblocked. You will only get yourself in more trouble if you keep pinging people. Someone will review your block. But worst case its only 24 hours. Go do something else for a day. Get away from the wiki and relax. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed :) GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for bringing you into this messy situation. This was not the result that I expected. Yowashi (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You're now unblocked anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

PEI 2019 Infobox

Stop re-adding a blank 'independent' candidate to the PEI 2019 General Election Infobox please. The infobox is for parties only. No Canadian general election above the municipal level features independent candidates in the infobox, whether running for re-election or not. If you would like examples, here you go:

- Canadian federal election, 2011 - notable Independent MP Andre Arthur runs for re-election, loses, not in infobox.

- Canadian federal election, 2008 - two notable Independent MPs, Arthur, running for a second time as an Independent, and Bill Casey, running for re-election after leaving the Conservative caucus, win - not inside infobox.

- Canadian federal election, 2004 - A whole host of incumbent MPs, including only winner Chuck Cadman who would go on to play a critical role during the life of the next Parliament, run - none are in the Infobox.

- 1996 Newfoundland general election - Yvonne Jones runs and wins as an Independent candidate, left out of Infobox.

- 2018 New Brunswick general election - Former Speaker Chris Collins runs as an independent, loses, left out of Infobox.

I can go on for literal pages with examples of this. Independents are left out of the Infobox. I think the only example otherwise was in the 1944 Alberta general election, when Legislature independents formed an actual Opposition caucus to the governing SoCreds that then ran on a unified slate in the general. That isn't at all what Mr. Dumville is doing.

Whats more, you didn't even put Dumville's name in the Infobox, just left it blank and said "Independent"! That's not how that works at all.

I appreciate the idea that you want people to see that Mr. Dumville is running, and you're more than welcome to make it clear in the summary along the lines of, "Libs, Cons, Greens, NDP, and one Independent MLA running are for re-election" or something, I don't care - but leave it out of the infobox.

Jebussez (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice

I know nothing about holding an RFC, so would like to ask some for advice Re your post on the talkpage of The Australian. Not sure how much of the epic talkpage you have gone through, but there's more than than the centre right/right etc issue. First it was centre/centre right/right, then political alignment in infobox, yay or nay, then political alignment in lead, yay or nay, now its back to centre right/right. I'm thinking each issue needs some sort of resolution, or its just going to be moving the problem around. Would it be necessary to hold 3 separate RFC's? Would you combine the 3 issues in one RFC, or run them concurrently, or would that be too confusing or something you just dont do? Not altogether sure I'm up for organising one, but not sure what else can be done. Curdle (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Howdy @Curdle:. I can easily set up 3 separate Rfc, but would require one of you to supply the 'questions' to each. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, thankyou! I think the first two questions are fairly straightforward.

"should any political alignment be placed in the infobox"

"should the political alignment be mentioned in the lead"

Having several thoughts about the third one though. Something along the lines of "Should the political alignment be designated as Centre right, or Centre right to Right?" Should "Conservative" as a political ideology be used?

One of the difficulties is that there are all sorts of other permutations suggested, although these ones appear to be the main points of contention. Some editors have suggested that more content be added until it becomes somehow obvious, but... noone is able to add content while all the edit warring is going on.

A couple more queries- Do those questions seem ok/NPOV etc to you? Is it usual to "workshop" RFC questions? I thought that might be a good idea, in case anyone thinks the questions are inappropriate in some way, but as even the suggestion we have an RFC keeps getting tossed around without any action, I'm not sure how far discussing the questions is going to go. I haven't brought it up on the Talkpage yet, as I wasnt sure how to go about organising anything. I figured hold it on the talkpage, ping everyone involved in previous discussions, and post at the Australian wikiproject noticeboard, and perhaps the media wikiproject noticeboard. Does that sound reasonable? Sorry for all the questions, and dumping them all at you, but you seem a pretty uninvolved observer so far, and have been around here much longer than me, and I keep arguing myself round in circles. I would be grateful for any advice. Curdle (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It all sounds reasonable. Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

PEI 2019 election

I reverted a couple (I'm sure you saw) so I might as well ask. Why are you removing the "will be held" text from PEI district articles? You're leaving a sentence fragment, and have not left an edit summary as far as I've seen. What's up? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

We already know when the 2019 PEI general election is going to be held. Dates aren't used when box is created, unless it's a by-election. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Dennis King

As I understand, the template calculates age automatically based on the age as of a specific date - if he was 47 on 11/21/2018, he could have been born in either year depending on when his exact DOB is. If it was in 1971, he would still be 47 today if his birthday hasn't passed, and if 1970, he'd still be 48 before his bithday. When 11/21 comes around, it would automatically update to 48/49, as he should be 48 exactly one year from that date. Anyways....I've updated with a more recent article which does state he was 47 at least as of 4 days ago, at least until something another more specific source potentially comes out. Connormah (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Naruhito

I did what you suggested and checked the articles of his predecessors, they don’t all use the title Imperial Majesty as you state, in fact only one of them does, you may wish to read wiki page on the title Imperial Majesty (style) this explains its use 82.132.219.159 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Soviet era estonian birthplace dispute resumed.

Estonian users are ignoring consensus on Wikipedia article on ice hockey.124.49.87.16 (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. PS - Best to bring this to WP:HOCKEY, where it'll get more awareness. GoodDay (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The dispute continues in the Lauri Lahesalu article.124.49.87.16 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You seem to have stopped using them. Please resume, thanks Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Not required for every edit. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, they kinda are. Even minor edits, hence why there's a minor edit button. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Theresa May article

Hi there, it is apparent that you've got a different interpretation from mine upon Theresa May's leadership status. The reason why I defined the current acting leader as the incumbent leader is following precedence based on similar scenarios in caretaker governments. Although a prime minister is set to leave office, he/she is still the caretaker PM until the successor assumes office; that is, when his/her official term ends, he/she is still in office as PM (though as a caretaker). As far as I know, the infobox would normally use the date that the caretaker PM finishes the caretaker period as the end date. I see Theresa May's current status as acting leader similar to a caretaker PM. I've tried to elaborate on my view at the talk page of Theresa May as well. Would love to understand your opinion. Thanks. OliWatson (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Division titles

You are forgetting that some years the titles were determined by playoff winner. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Our readers are better served, if we make the distinctions. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand, the totals in that table are not just regular season. Some years the division winner was determined by playoffs. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

As usual, you'd rather fight me, then help out. Do what ever you want. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to fight you, but your labels are wrong. The totals in that table are not all from the regular season. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just do whatever want. I shouldn't have posted at WP:HOCKEY, my mistake. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Suffusion of Yellow

Hello, GoodDay. You have new messages at WP:VPT.
Message added 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tried pinging you from there, but I realized that you probably can't click on your alerts... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the content guideline and the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

One need only look at the bio pages of the subject, to get that it's sourced material. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Question

From memory, I think you are located in Nova Scotia? If so I'm over in Halifax for a week and I'd happily buy you a drink and share war stories :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I ain't from Nova Scotia & I make it a personal policy to not meet fellow Wikipedians in real life. The cyber world is best, in these situations. PS: Thanks for the offer, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharks

But he is not with the team as of now, so he can't be the alternate captain. Kante4 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kante4: Doesn't matter, if he re-signs with the Sharks. So it would be a waste of time to delete him, only to restore him. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We would just be correct. You can't captain a team if you are not under contract... Kante4 (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Do what you want. Even though it's a waste of time, should Thornton re-sign with the Sharks. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If he somehow does not (unlikely) it's a waste to have it there wrong for the whole time. Kante4 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Do what ever you want. I'm not interested in such tiny disputes. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine, but still reverting after another user reverted aswell? Does not look like not interested. Or am i missing something, just saw "stalker"... If so, sorry. Kante4 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The other editor (PM800) has been stalking my edits for these last few days. He made his revert not in agreement with you, but only to antagonize me. He refuses to us his 'edit summary' or 'communicate' in anyway. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, i saw that looking at his contributions. Does not look good, tbh. I haven't checked the reverts but looks and sounds fishy. I guess you already tried to talk to him? Kante4 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Several times, I've tried. He's just being a dick. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If it continues, a report per ANI or something may be the next step if no discussion is wanted from one side (Not taking any side as i'm not involved in those reverts). I saw another user said him on his talk page. Kante4 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I've considered it & have noted that he's got a history of being blocked for edit warring. I'm just not good at linking to edit changes, for such a case. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that and the same with me and i'm happy for not being involved in something like this so far, since i've been here. Maybe Sabbatino can help? Important to try and discuss it with him over and over if the reverts continue. Kante4 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aaron S. Stern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

IP Edits

May I ask why you removed my edit on the notice board? IP editors are allowed to post there aren't they? 2001:4898:80E8:A:DEC8:5B70:A05:6144 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You weren't helping matters, there. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explain. My statement was echoed by other editors in that same thread, and the user was blocked. If something about my edit was untoward, I would like to know. 2001:4898:80E8:A:DEC8:5B70:A05:6144 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Restore it, if you want. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to start a conflict with you. I only wish to understand what I did that caused you to revert me. Please don't consider this an attack, but an attempt at understanding. I want to understand, that's all. 2001:4898:80E8:A:DEC8:5B70:A05:6144 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I tend to view 'new' IP posts with suspicious. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. Unfortunately, my IP changes daily, so I am unable to maintain a single IP for longer than 24 hours. As for why I do not register an account, personal reasons. I will stop bothering you, that was not my intention. I merely hope that in the future you don't revert or remove without first considering that the editor, even an IP, might be acting in good faith. I hope you have a good day(Sorry for the pun). 2001:4898:80E8:A:DEC8:5B70:A05:6144 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

La Belle Zélie

Lame is probably the most kind word, on both our behalfs (drive by x OWN). Bygones, and happy editing - as this has happened several times between us now, hopefully we can agree on a form of dialog based on mutual respect. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I use the 300px, as the standard for most images. Not gonna worry too much about it. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So no, in other words. My take away is: "I use". Ceoil (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A standard usage of 300px for most images (if not all), is what I apply to many articles. Appears to give the correct balance between the images & text. PS: I don't consider any disagreements on the matter as personal, as we're all in a cyber world on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Glad to see you’re still around here plugging away :-) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I do remember you, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Politics in P.R. right now is so fluid

I see you're interested in P.R. politics. There's an extra question mark "?" in the telegram section of Ricardo Rosselló.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Since August 2, 2019 there's been some 'wild' edits made around Rossello & his current successors' bio article. Best folks calm down until things are settled in PR. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I was looking for the template about a current event- that things could change fast on the article- but couldn't find it. I've seen it before. It's usually placed on an article covering a major news event, i.e. a bombing in Egypt or things of that terrible nature, when information is changing fast. Good evening! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Prime Ministers

This has been gone over before. There is no consensus for adding that information to the infobox. ... discospinster _talk 14:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm telling now. Stop you childishness or you'll be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

I would suggest that you tone down the all-capital letter edit summaries and take a breather. I've requested protection of the page(I won't do it myself as I've advocated for a position on the talk page). Please allow that process to proceed and participate in talk page discussion. Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm done with that article, as I'm peeved with some of the editors around. Either he was the governor or he wasn't. The original research going on there, is disgusting. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It isn't really that clear cut- but it is your choice to participate or not. If his initial installation was not valid(as their Courts have ruled) he was never Governor in the first place. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Had enough of it. That the numbering itself is being tampered with, is annoying. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope I didn't annoy you. Anyway, finally now that the smoke has cleared, I believe Pierluisi's governoship was nullified, so his few days in office, unconstitutionally, don't count.Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

In retrospect, Garced's tenure should be shown as governor since August 2. Unless it's a declaration that the governorship was vacant for 5 days. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thornton

How? He is not signed, so how can he be the alternate captain for them? Kante4 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The practice has been to leave such individuals in place, until they sign with someone else or retire. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Disagree and where is the practice written? It makes no sense to leave it in. If there is such consensus ok, but i never saw it. Kante4 (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No sense in arguing, as you're just going to keep reverting until he re-signs. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Like i said, nothing wrong in my eyes. If you think this needs wider discussion, there is no problem involving other editors, and i go with the result. Kante4 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pierluisi

Pierluisi was removed from office as unconstitutional and it is questionable whether the "official" use of ordinals will deem him the 13th governor. Above all, it has been a longstanding gripe of mine that editors prescribe the use of ordinals when there is no documented use of them by their constituents, let alone by the offices themselves. We shouldn't be using them anywhere without that and not force them into every page just because some editors would prefer not to count. But on this page in particular, in such a volatile state, it is particularly egregious to add "13th". Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the numbering scheme. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello and Good day to you! I was removing the numbering of the governors, thinking I saw summary comments asking to not number the governors. Now that things have sort of settled down, what is your preference? As of today, the infoboxes did not have the numbering, but the short descriptions, which I've been working on it did have the numbering. I want the article to be consistent, either both short description and infobox numbered or both not #ed. However, I did mention "first elected governor" for Luis Muñoz Marin, (which I thought it was proper to say "the first" in the short description), but the rest I've just added the short description = "Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico". I chose to specify "Commonwealth" in the short description because, before then, there were "Governors of the Colony of Puerto Rico", and before then, there were "Military governors", etc. I think the numbering except for "the first elected ..." suck. What do you (and others) think? Or do you not care much about this?Thanks.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, the numbering should be there for the governors (post elected), with the current being the 13th. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then. That's fine with me too. I'm easy.. or so my husband always says.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC) ....

Seems consensus is not to include the #ing as I checked all and none have the #.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant:, I removed all the numberings, weeks ago. You may restore them, if you choose. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's very good like this. Thank you! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Do you see how to do what I intended. Perhaps more important, do you agree with with what I attempted to do about the silliness?

   Thanks for the revert. Do you see how to do what I intended? Perhaps more important, do you agree with with what I attempted to do about the silliness?
JerzyA (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@JerzyA:It's best you get a consensus on that article's talkpage, for what you're attempting to implement. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I know-- IWas an admin , I think for even longer than you've edited. For me, it's res ipse loquitar and "My work here is done." Thnx again.
--JerzyA (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You've only joined Wikipedia in April 2019. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Long time

Hello there GoodDay, it's been far too long time since we spoke, so I'll use your comment here as an excuse to visit your talk page. With regard to: I assuming that the community will have the chance to 'restore' Fram's administratorship. I'll point you to User talk:Fram/Requests for adminship/Fram 2 as a good indication that you're right. Perhaps there's a good chance that you're already aware of that, but it still gave me an excuse to drop by and say hi. "Hi". Stay well. — Ched (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

How ya doing @Ched:. Yeah, it was an observation comment, with full knowledge of his current status. Though I should've used the word I'm, instead of I :) PS - With some of the deletions being carried out by the Arb clerks at Fram's case page. I figured my bland post at the noticeboard, might prevent them from deleting the previous editor's post ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK I guess, and Yea - the whole situation was disappointing to watch. Good to see you're still around. :)— Ched (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I'm one of the grey beards. Not even a 1-year ban could discourage me :) GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Is there a problem with a higher-resolution scan being added on pages that contain a lower resolution scan? It is the same image, same framing, and same colour space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseCharlie (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@JesseCharlie:, there's nothing wrong with the images at List of presidents of the United States, so please stop changing them. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

re special:diff/919287292, you reference a change in the inclusion criteria. I am aware of the consensus reached at Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 7#President-elect final draft, but I'm not aware of a more recent change to the inclusion criteria. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, just want to know what consensus has been reached so that it can be referenced in edit summaries. YBG (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm merely going by the fact that the heading was changed to 'only' federal/state offices, in that column-in-question. It appears to have been changed by someone, in the last few days. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The change was made by the same IP that changed the text in Trump's row: special:diff/919079064 and special:diff/919079381. I think that previous attempts to change Trump's prior history - which had all been reverted - had not attempted to change the footnote in the header to be consistent. YBG (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I see. I won't object, if you restore things as they were. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Japan

Apropos [1], thoughts on raising an WP:SPI? - Ryk72 ^talk 12:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Yup, as the fellow also edited signed-out until caught, a few days ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

First Lady of Sudan

Please don't blank pages. Instead, use WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:AfD as appropriate. — Smjg (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

9 December

Hi

Her term ended on 9/12 not 10/12. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is the same than Czechoslovakia's end. On 31 December 1992 at 24:00. And Czech began on 1 January 1993 at 0:00. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014:Why would her term end at midnight, when her predecessors & successors terms have ended hours after midnight? GoodDay (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it the judicial decision. Despite 9 December at 24:00 is the same than 10 December at 0:00.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RE: 2019 Canadian federal election maps.

Thank you! I have updated the RfC with the new template.

Kind regards, Brythones (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Past or present tense

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Past or present tense. —GoldRingChip 17:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of good faith edit of Independent Senators Group

Hi, GoodDay,

Thank you for your good faith edit of Independent Senators Group; however, the Senators List still shows the ISG as being at 50, not 49, so I've reverted it.

If you are aware of another reliable source that confirms the current Senator standings, please feel free to reply with that source or make the edit by adding a citation.

Thanks and happy editing,
--Doug Mehus (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I like your bottom userbox. ;) --Doug Mehus (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Howdy @Dmehus:, I'm going by the listing at Senate of Canada article. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, Ah, thanks for pointing that out! I thought I updated all the pages, but missed that one. Thank you! I can fix that, unless you want to? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: go ahead. I also had to make updates to Parliament of Canada article. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, Done. And happy editing with your edits. (There's lots of places to update the number of Senators, it seems?) Doug Mehus (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of good faith edit at Senate Liberal Caucus

Hi again GoodDay,

Hope you're doing well. I hope you don't mind, but I've reverted your good faith edit at the above page as we're currently discussing possibilities for the seat count in Senate Liberal Caucus whereby we indicate, potentially, the seat count at dissolution.

Please give it some thought, and contribute to the talkpage discussion if you wish.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 20:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Not how it's done. We remove the last count of seats in a House of Commons, the moment a party has dissolved. So it should be for any group/party in the Senate. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, True, good point about the House of Commons. As I said in the talkpage discussion, I'm not married strongly to either practice, but there's nothing saying we couldn't, as a group, change the practice for the House of Commons and/or the Senate. Thanks for your reply! Doug Mehus T·C 20:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, the place to get a change of consensus would be WP:CANADA. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, Do we have to go through a WikiProject, or couldn't we establish our own little consensus on the applicable talk pages? Doug Mehus T·C 20:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:CANADA would be best. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, Okay, I guess, that's true. Thanks for updating the Senate seating plan Arctic.gnome made. I noticed you removed the logo for the Senate, though, how come? Doug Mehus T·C 20:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, Logo removal was a mistake. Since restored. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, Ah, no worries. Thanks again for your diligent edits! :) Doug Mehus T·C 20:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Too many hoops to jump through to vote. I think I'll pass. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

missing reference on List of Star Wars television series

Hi GoodDay! I saw you made this edit, which has an undefined <ref name="SW Legends"/>. Since it was yesterday, I figured I'd reach out and see if you remember / still have the reference you intended this to be. = paul2520 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Paul2520: I'll let you handle things. I merely transferred the info from Star Wars via cut/paste. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done I see you had pulled the content from Star Wars. = paul2520 (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Peters

His dismissal is being reported in the media (for example [2]). Is there some technicality that still makes him the head coach? You didn't use an edit summary so I don't know what your reasoning is. Thanks! Maxim_(talk) 17:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

We can delete him when he's fired. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Deleting him isn't the hill I'm going to die on. We have reliable sources reporting him being fired, so I'm confused by your reasoning. What am I missing? Maxim_(talk) 17:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Having just seen the TSN source, I've deleted him from the Flames infobox. On a side note, we all score another one for the cancel culture. Who's gonna be next? GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The term makes me cringe... :-/ But on an interesting note here, I'm listening to Treliving's press conference and he stated that Peters submitted a letter of resignation. Now we wait for someone to publish that. Maxim_(talk) 17:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

2019–20 MHL season moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2019–20 MHL season, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sennen goroshi. Lepricavark (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I'm going to avoid the case. The reported editor-in-question annoyed me enough. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That's perfectly reasonable. Lepricavark (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mick Mulvaney. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait a second there @Goodone121:. There WAS a Rfc on the matter & the consensus was to put things like 'Acting' to the front of the title in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

PS - I am aware of the 1RR sanction on post-1932 American political articles, of which I haven't breached. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you did, when you reinstated without following the procedures. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I made only 1 revert. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to open up an 'new' Rfc at the appropriate WikiProject, to get clarity on 'how' to place such additions to infoboxes? that would be welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Lists of living former members

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Lists of living former members. —GoldRingChip 15:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Colorado captain

If you are interested, could you have a look at this edit and see if it is accurate? My quick search didn't turn up any corroboration. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl:I've removed Watson. I suspect the IP is doing original research. To be on the safe side though, I'd bring the matter to WP:HOCKEY. Some members there, will be better informed then I. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made a request for comment

I made a rfc on the 44th Canadian federal election page, since I believe it's better to have the discussion in one place. I've also mentioned that some of the sources contradict each other. Some mention he's staying on as leader whereas others do not. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I also left a message on the other places you raised the question to mention that's where we're having the main discussion. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I've replied at Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Artashes Avoyan, you may be blocked from editing. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Quenhitran: That was not a test edit. Many bios have the semi-colon in their intros, in that matter. PS: Being a 14-year Wikipedian veteran, I do not appreciate the 'tone' you've taken with me. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Quenhitran, GoodDay's edit does not appear to be vandalism. Your aggressive warning could be seen as a failure to assume good faith. If you continue and/or if GoodDay decides to pursue this at ANI, he or she has my full and unqualified support for an administrative sanction against you, including potential revocation of your rollbacker privilege (which appears to have been used inappropriately in this case). Doug Mehus T·C 19:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. I will check with other users who also use the anti-vandalism tool to see if there is any error. Usually such harsh warning will not be automatically issued to users who have a long history of edits and/or there haven't been any previous 'light-toned' warnings. My apology again. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 03:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

MOS

Recommend that you should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style before start editing and claiming stuff. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mechanical Keyboarder: My goodness, you've actually stepped down off your high horse & communicated with another editor. PS - It's you who should read over WP:MOS, as well as WP:EDIT WAR. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive. Again.

I've asked you countless times to stop interfering with the improvement of individual articles, and I am not the only one to have done so. You promised to stop that yet you are at it again. You seem to be driven by the idea that consistency trumps everything, from grammar to factual accuracy. By going out of your way to prevent any change, whether good or bad, for the sake of maintaining consistency, I fear that you are doing more harm than good to this project. Arbcom now seems to be the only way out of this. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: You should open up an Rfc at the 2020 United States presidential election article & seek a consensus for the changes you're proposing there. If a consensus is reached for such changes? I will happily adopt them for that article & the rest of the other US presidential articles. In this situation, be it the status quo or your proposal, consistency isn't a dirty word. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Next time you see me make an edit to an article, ask yourself whether the edit improved that article. If it did, leave it be. If it did not, explain why. The very next time you revert an edit of mine just because I did not make the same edit to 50 other articles, I will request an arbitration process. Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I realise now, that collaborating isn't your strong suit. You prefer to do it your way. Also, taking someone to Arbcom over a content dispute, is a non-starter. It's disappointing that you approach content disputes in such a manner. Due keep in mind, not every editor is as patient as I. Your bold attitude will eventually annoy the wrong individual out there & then it will be you, who'll be taken to Arbcom. PS - When that time comes? you can count on me not helping you out of the hole you've gotten yourself into. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You create content disputes not because you object to the content but because the content does not parallel the content of some other articles. You would rather see all fifty articles have it wrong than see one improved. That is unacceptable. You have been told the same at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Applying MOS. I have been exceedingly patient; after all, you are one of the first editors I can recall interacting with after joining Wikipedia 11 years ago. I do sincerely hope that it will not have to take a board of administrators to convince you that this is wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you can get a consensus for whatever changes you propose? I'll happily apply that consensus to the rest of the articles in that group. A gnome's life has so very little rewards. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Moving towards an RfC on WP:JOBTITLES

Thanks for your contributions to that discussion - I feel that it's time we started thinking about initiating an RfC to whack the thing once and for all, but it's been years and years since I've done one of these and I'm also not sure what specifically one might put to change it. Any thoughts? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

My concern has been that some articles have capitalisation, while others don't. This includes articles within the same group (example: heads of state & heads of government). I'm not certain as to what the Rfc question should be. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

IIHF World U20 Championship

Wondering if you could have a look at the infobox here. Don't deal with them often, the edits there seem like total nonsense, but I don't feel like pursuing it when I do not know what is normal for these type of infoboxes.18abruce (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed most titles is gold medals. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils alternate captains

Looks like the IP user 108.35.125.216 has put Hischier back as an alternate captain in the infobox at 2019–20 New Jersey Devils season. I didn't revert because I am not completely sure what the situation is. Yowashi (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed Hischier again. If the IP restores him, I may just leave it. His edit-summary seems quite convincing. Also, the Devils official website hasn't updated the alternate captains, since Hall was traded. I haven't found any sources, saying Hischier has been named an alternate captain. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I found this article that does state that Hischier and Palmieri are splitting alternate captain duties for the rest of the season. However, I haven't seen anything from the Devils announcing this move. Yowashi (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds legit, as the NHL official websites are quite lazy when it comes to updating the 'letters' during the season. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yowashi:, the Kyle Palmieri situation confuses me, though. Palmieri was no longer an alternate captain, from October to December of this season? I wasn't aware of that. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because Hall and Zajac were the A's from October to December. A third alternate would have to split with another guy between home and away. Perhaps the team didn't want to do that. I don't know. I'm not quite up to speed with every teams' alternate captains. Yowashi (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems correct, though it's odd that Palmieri got his 'A' back before (by 3 days) Hall was traded. But yeah, the alternate captaincies are treated quite loosely by teams. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

I read your comment from today in Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#Canada's_Royal_Family. Besides appearing on the Monarchy of Canada page, the Act should probably appear briefly also in the page on the Debate on the monarchy in Canada and in the History of monarchy in Canada, which currently only reference related earlier acts. If you are interested! Mebden (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mebden:, I've no objections to the Act being added to those proposed articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay and Mebden, while I supporting keep-ing Megxit, I don't think these articles should be updated to include references to Harry and Meghan. These articles relate to The Queen, as Sovereign and as our Head of State. Short of an unfortunate King Ralph-like moment, Harry will never be King. Therefore, there's really no need to mention his place of principal or substantive residence. If that's not what you were looking to add, then can you clarify, Mebden, what you intend to add? (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is about the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, Oh, yes, include that possibly under "The new millennium"? Doug Mehus T·C 17:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

However you both wish to include it, that's fine with me. On a personal note, it's sad that the courts have ruled that the UK effectively chooses Canada's monarch/head of state. PS: Betcha John Aimers is really peeved about the rulings. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, I was surprised to see you voted not to "keep" Megxit as you seemed like you like our constitutional monarchy system, given the good edits you do of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada. I was even more surprised to see you would like Canada to become a republic...to me, that's a non-starter because it's likely constitutionally impossible to get all the Canadian provinces to agree to it without major concessions. But, I also see problems with the potential for having nothing to get done in having an elected Head of State that refuses to sign bills passed by the elected legislative branch and supported by the executive branch. So, I'm a monarchist, albeit a monarchist that disapproves of the recent behaviour of Harry and Meghan. Doug Mehus T·C 19:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm a republican, but it's always good to have knowledge about things that you oppose :) GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Mehus: I don't plan on adding a reference to the Act to those two articles myself. Mebden (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

hard to follow

whats happening with Australian fire lead sentences - is there something I am missing, or is there something about the leads that offends your sense of what a lead does? JarrahTree 02:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Read the discussions on the lead at 2019–20 Australian bushfire season article. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

my standard practice - never go near articles like that for at least 5 months after, once the flies and ants have retreated... JarrahTree 02:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You may handle those articles, as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

oh dear, thanks for your edits in that case... There is something very not wikipedia about events that are ongoing and current, the talk pages are usually infested with people who do not know how wikipedia works, but seeing your length of time in the zoo/circus, your edits are appreciated on the action alone... thanks - and trust that canada doesnt ever get anything like what our eastern seaboard is enduring at the moment ...JarrahTree 02:45, 24 January 2020

Hey

Hi,

In answer to your question, yes, I am the one they have been referring to as TTH, though I prefer TT.

I noticed you used the word "spam". Note that that was BHG's characterization of the mass-created single-page portals. A more accurate name for them would be stubs. Smearing them as "spam" was just one of BHG's deletion campaign tactics. Don't fall for it.

To understand the collaborative atmosphere and rapid development on portal design that was occurring before BHG came along and disrupted the project, see:

Archive 1   Archive 2   Archive 3   Archive 4

The newsletter archive also portrays this, and can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Newsletter archive.

I hope those pages answer any further questions you may have.    — The Transhumanist   18:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I be honest with you. I don't see any reason for portals to exist, but I do appreciate the time/effort put into them. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. The portals could serve as a development medium for testing out new browsing and content-display features, but such features could be developed almost anywhere, including as 3rd-party implementations.

Based on the problems in developing navigation solutions on Wikipedia, big advancements for browsing Wikipedia in the future will likely come from off-wiki. If you come across any, please let me know!

By the way, check out Portal:Underwater diving.    — The Transhumanist   19:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll let ya'll handle those things. I'v only about 5 edits on Portals, in over 14 years. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Rfc

You fixed it as I was about to mention it to you. But incase you didn't realize you had already !voted in that Rfc. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Yup got it. BTW, that's not really an RFC, as it wasn't properly set up to be logged at the appropriate page. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it was. It just happened to expire today so the bot removed the tag. Either way doesn't really matter as consensus was clear. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, was thinking we were in early January. But yes, the consensus is clear. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my removal of The Trump Organisation as a "prior federal or state office"?

It was perfectly correct for me to remove that from the prior office section as it's not a prior state or federal office. His old job in business is irrelevant to the List of Presidents article. Only prior state or federal offices are needed for that section. For Trump it should be blank as he had no prior office. 5.81.43.95 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

We're planning on deleting the "Prior Office" column. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, please do make sure to use edit summaries, so us other editors can follow the rationale of your changes. Thanks Anna (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Anna Roy: Which article? GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries for all changes, please. Anna (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't use it when the edit is obvious, like spelling corrections. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

ESs show that someone is a serious, experienced editor and has respect for other editors that might not even look at the changes. If you are looking back at changes over five or ten years of an article it's super useful to be able to track the notes without having to look at each change. Anna (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Picture size

Hi GoodDay! I wondered if you were aware of Wikipedia's Manual of Style strong suggestion not to force picture size. The relevant section is: here. This allows the reader to specify their own preferences. (For example, I have already set my "default" picture size to 300. If I'd set it to 400, your hardcode "300px" would make that picture smaller than all others — i.e. not necessarily helpful for our less-sighted readers.) It's probably best not to force picture size unless there's an overridingly good reason to. MeegsC (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I usually put them at 300px. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you really shouldn't. There's no "overridingly good reason" to do so. ;) MeegsC (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Freeland

Hiding valuable information (like the fact that Freeland's predecessor did not hold office immediately prior to her) behind a reference is a totally unnecessary obstacle to reader understanding. The year the predecessor last held office in parentheses is the most clear and concise way to represent the fact that the predecessor is not a direct predecessor. It is commonly used elsewhere, like Keith Ellison, for example. TrailBlzr (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Freeland is McLellan's direct successor, no matter how many years in between. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't know what a direct successor is. TrailBlzr (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am aware. But, since I'm not interested in an edit-war. I'll allow you to have your own way. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment For what it's worth, the Deputy Prime Minister role is a useless role with absolutely no authority whatsoever. It is something the mass media globs onto. GoodDay is correct, though, regarding the role. That being said, if Chrystia Freeland is being attributed as the first in line to act for the Prime Minister, that's not correct, as the Acting Ministers schedule in effect is still the one from March/April 2019 (unless it's been updated in the past month). (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 02:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with the importance of the position or cabinet hierarchy. TrailBlzr (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Note re Patrick McNulty....

I had not seen that reference, or that episode until now. now that is quite a valuable piece of pop culture. I appreciate you dropping that reference. I had not seen that before. I read the entry here, and it is quite interesting. anyway, I appreciate your comments. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

CNN Bias

Hi,

You claimed when reverting my edits that CNN is biased when reporting results. Care to discuss? Smith0124 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Smith0124: CNN is but only one source. Also, among their sponsors are big pharma companies, who happen to be against Sanders' Medicare for All plan. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with their reporting of the results. They are a major media company, they aren't affiliated with a party, they aren't rigging the results. You have no actual reason to discredit them. Just saying they hate Sanders isn't a reason, that's totally subjective. Smith0124 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You need more then one source, for your changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't found any source providing different numbers, I tried. It's hard to find delegate counts, most sources such as the New York Times only report vote totals. And your argument on bias is completely subjective and untrue. Smith0124 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Corporate controlled news media is biased against Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh you know that’s not true. They say whatever’s profitable sure, but don’t say they are biased against one candidate. This is CNN, they are pretty neutral. And this isn’t analysis, this is just reporting the results. Smith0124 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

CNN neutral? Please. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You’re just being subjective. Smith0124 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm being realistic. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well on Wikipedia we are supposed to be objective, nobody should be here just to promote their political beliefs. Smith0124 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We're not going to agree on CNN's neutrality or lack thereof. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well if you can’t prove your own claim then why revert my edit? Smith0124 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't prove you own claims either. PS - Be careful on those reverts, as those articles are under a 1-RR restriction. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes but I’m not projecting any political view, just neutrality. Your point of view is promoting Bernie Sanders. Smith0124 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally find CNN's bias highly objectionable. At least Fox News has the good sense to actually do some independent reporting as part of their news programming and to separating their opinion-oriented programming from their news-oriented programming. The fact that former Obama administration staffer Jim Sciutto is now co-anchoring a notionally news-oriented program at CNN and the fact that trusted, independent, critical-thinking journalists many former CNN and CBS News anchors and reporters have decamped from CNN, principally, to Fox News speaks volumes to CNN's credibility. So, at minimum, if citing CNN (or Fox News) on political articles, add a second, better source that backs up the CNN source. (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Let’s not get Fox News into this. Smith0124 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Of the 10 or so Democratic debates, CNN's Chris Cillizza has named Sanders a 'loser' in about 8 or 9 of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so Cillizza may be biased. That has no bearing on their reporting of the results. Smith0124 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Will matter less, after Tuesday. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Request to page curate a userspace forked draft article

@GoodDay:,

There was a draft article at MfD that, in the view of me and others, was borderline on potential notability, so in the event that draft article was deleted, I wanted to userfy a copy per WP:RUU to my userspace, at User:Dmehus/Drafts/Kyle Kulinski. I've commented out the categories while in userspace and removed the AfC tag. As I have more time, I'd like to do further research here, in consideration of other sources, including scholarly journals and offline sources. Seeing your name as a !voter at the AfD discussion for the subject, and, presumably, you have some familiarity with the subject, so I wanted to reach out to you to see if you can mark my userspace forked version as reviewed in Special:NewPagesFeed.

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 15:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to mark such things as reviewed. But I will comment on your userspace-in-question's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay, no worries, thanks for your reply and thoughts. Any discussion can continue on the companion talk page of the forked article. Doug Mehus T·C 16:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, you don't need me or any other editor to 'review' or mark as 'reviewed', anything in your own draft user-space. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

note re your insights

Hi. I appreciate your insights to me just now, at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. thanks for your input. you can add any thoughts here if you wish. I appreciate your input. I hope all's well.

Since you were kind enough to express the comment to me that "you mean well," I felt your insights were worth noting. as far as having "too many balls in the air", if you meant I have a number of active projects, that's actually a very positive point, and I appreciate it. on the other hand, if you meant I have too much simply minutiae going in too many directions, then perhaps you meant it a bit more critically, but I accept your points as valid either way. I value our working relationship and periodic communications. I accept your insights. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a pat on the head, for my observations. Your good intentions can have a negative effect on others, if you're coming across as attempting to take over multiple discussions. Heed my advice. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

okay. I did write to you because I did truly want to hear your points more fully, either way. I appreciate your response. I will keep your points in mind. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You'd do better to implement my advice via your future actions, rather then pondering it. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

that makes sense. got it. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900:, you're taking on too many things. Gonna end annoying too many editors. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. things were kind of unexpectedly quiet today. ah well. how's by you? hope all's well. by the way, feel free to check my contribs, if you want. posted a few little things today. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure you out. This may take a few months. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

well said!! nice to have someone who can offer an alternate point of view at regular intervals. thanks!! see ya!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

hi GoodDay! Just want to let you know, I took your advice, and that of some of the other knowledgeable editors, and posted the wikiproject event information at an existing resource, the Wikipedia:Community bulletin board. I was careful to go slowly, and to get some useful input and consensus for any information that I wanted to add. We have now added in a new section there. you are welcome to look at it, and to let me know any comments that you may have. I really appreciate your help and input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Jolly good show. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks!! nice to hear from you. be in touch any time. see you. cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Their is an ANI disussion you may have been involved in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. This was because you were previously been concerned about my conduct on NHL Hockey related articles a year ago. Please remember to be civil if you wish to comment on the appeal. Thank You NicholasHui (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

item re your note

your note to me at Village Pump was positive, restrained, respectful, and most welcome.... even if you meant it somewhat ambiguously!!! I am grateful for your expression there, and for our ability to move into a hopefully somewhat positive interaction here. I am glad for and welcome your input and interactions. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 17:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Prime Minister after election

I just realized that after consensus was reached on the issue of election boxes, you went through and updated all federal, provincial and territorial election boxes to reflect the new consensus. Thanks very much for quietly doing such a major job! Appreciate it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

wow!! yes, well done!! let me add my thanks to you for that. terrific!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 17:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:2019–20 MHL season concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:2019–20 MHL season, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2019–20 MHL season

Hello, GoodDay. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2019–20 MHL season".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Forgot about that draft. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Margrethe II of Denmark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick IX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Honduras sock?

Hi GoodDay, you mentioned at the ANI report that you thought Honduras200010 would edit as a sock or IP to evade the indef block. Do you know if they had a previous account that was blocked and were socking already? I found some older IPs that seem to be the same person - edit warring, copyvios, and some of the same edits - but can't see any accounts so far. Just trying to figure out how far back they go etc., in case an SPI report is needed. Thanks for your help... --IamNotU (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@IamNotU: I don't know if he/she's socked in the past. But, such persistent editors do tend to eventually try to get around their block, to edit the same article. If he/she chooses that route? it won't be difficult to detect as Honduras would certainly be his/her first target. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that or Tegucigalpa. I can't tell if they edited during their two-week block, haven't found anything so far. I guess we'll see if they come back... thanks again. --IamNotU (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy but ...

Happy to clean up vandalism and report the editor but why or why did you make this edit? The issue about the rights of Parliament are not in question, there is a consensus that it doesn't need pointing out in the lede. Your comment added zero value and was worded to provoke; which was one of the key reasons for your previous ban -----Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded:, thought that was what the discussion was about. BTW: How can pointing out that the British Parliament can over-rule or dissolve the Scottish, Welsh & Northern Ireland legislatures, provocative? GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

ZERO editors disputed the fact GoodDay, a consensus had been reached that it did not need to be stated in the lede. You proposed no change to that consensus just dumped in a comment using provocative terms. -----Snowded ^TALK 13:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing provocative about a stated 'fact'. Anyways, if a consensus has been reached then congrats. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you learnt nothing? -----Snowded ^TALK 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what angle you're coming at, as no disruption has occurred. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

OK one last attempt. When you banned from this place one of the reasons was that you kept dropping in comments on articles that provoked and that few of those comments related to the discussion in place. Further that those comments came after things had settled down but riled people up again. In this case you said something that NO ONE disputed, made no suggestion to change the consensus and used langauge which was intemperate at best. I always half suspected you didn't realise the impact of what you did which is why I was one of the supporters of you being allowed back. But I suggest investing a little time before adding anything on any BI related subject which is not specific to a change in that article -----Snowded ^TALK 14:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If this has something to do with Unionist feelings vs Devolutionist feelings? then I apologise. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... can't even comment or answer any questions anymore on a certain topic. PS - Am I'm being disruptive by posting that here (on my own talkpage), too? GoodDay (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You can do what you want on your own tal page - the comment on disruption related to your 'work' elsewhere -----Snowded ^TALK 11:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not certain if I can anymore. It's easy for you or Matt Lunker to dump on me (because apparently you both can), but I'm virtually restricted from defending myself or pointing out both your flaws as Wikipedians. GoodDay (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If it goes to arbitration enforcement you will have ample opportunity to defend yourself -----Snowded ^TALK 12:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You know full well, what happens to any editor brought before Arbcom for a second time. GoodDay (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I am very reluctant to do it -----Snowded ^TALK 12:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

How comforting & yet, chilling. GoodDay (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. Look when you came back you agreed you would focus on the role of editing detail and would not engage in the provocative behaviour for which you were sanctioned. You are doing a really good job on the detail on multiple articles so carry on with that and just stop adding provocative comments everytime someone mentions the various countries of the United Kingdom. That matter is resolved and we have had an absence of edit warring for years as a result. All that I am asking is that you comply with the terms of your return to editing -----Snowded ^TALK 12:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The only editors being provoked are yourself & Mutt Lunker. As for any topic being resolved? It's very difficult for any editor out there to seek a new consensus in that area, if they're immediately told to (basically) go away. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If that is the case then you have nothing to worry about. I've given you fair warning and tried to help. It is now down to you -----Snowded ^TALK 12:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, comforting & yet, chilling. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

RE:AndersonL7333

AndersonL7333, aka Lennox Theodore Anderson, has been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry; good to see. Drdpw (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Drdpw: :) GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding Jo Jorgensen

Any dice on you adding the LPT nominee Jo Jorgensen who will be on all 50 ballots?

Also, Howie Hawkins will be on 22 ballots.

Thank you Billbrandy (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Billbrandy: Add them to what? GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States presidential election page Billbrandy (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

2016 Libertarian ticket didn't get the required 5% of the popular vote. So, nope. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

K Billbrandy (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)