User talk:GoodDay/Archive 1

Ottawa Senators

You might just want to let the arguement go because he won't cause a change anyways so things will stay status quo as they should. Too many people disagree with his stance for things to actually change. :) I just had to laugh seeing you argue with someone other than me for a change. --Djsasso 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have appeased him with the suggestion of the Hockey in Ottawa article. Might be a good time to just let the arguement drop as I have a feeling its all settled. Its been a long haul but we may have ended up with a great article out of it. To be honest I wouldn't mind seeing an article like this for Toronto and Montreal as well, but I don't have the time to do it myself. Anyways good job. --Djsasso 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah as long as he doesn't come right out and say they are the same clubs that is fine in my opinion.. He can put all he wants about honouring the past as far as I am concerned as this is the right article for that sort of thing. My biggest issue was that he was putting facts that didn't belong in the team article. So try not to be too harsh on him in this new article or it will just all flare up again. :) --Djsasso 14:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Canada-article lead

I'm having another go at a one-thing-at-a-time approach to editing the lead, beginning with whether or not the first paragraph should be exclusively geographic. Please look over how I've shown the views given so far, at the talkpage and ensure that yours is accurately shown by my treatment. Thanks. The goal, of course, is a definite result to build upon. -- Lonewolf BC 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to "Blogging" message

I've seen your 'advice' to El Jique at talk: Larry Craig, concerning his 'blogging' the talk page with gossip. He's been doing the same thing at Talk: Cuba and Cuban related pages. Does his action fall under 'Wikiquitte'?

I'm not following you as to the person you're referring to in your message. I don't recall commenting on someone "blogging" talk page with gossip. However, I did ask one of the editors about whether the "John Glenn" tag was for a campaign for something - Are you talking about this person? Otherwise, I don't know who you're referring to. Could you point to what I said on the Larry Craig talk page? →Lwalt ♦ talk 19:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK...I see what you're talking about now. That person seemed to be looking for a conversation by introducing "opinion" pieces that had nothing to do with improving the article. So, I simply point the person to "What Wikipedia is not" to let the person know that we're not in the business of continuing the gossip line of those who want to speculate on some side issue. And yes...it's a breach of Wiki-etiquette to use the talk page of an article as a chat forum. Thanks for reminding me, because I had forgotten about that conversation. Some editors place warnings on the user's talk page when the person misuses the article's talk page for chatting, blogging and so on through the use of the warning templates for uw-chat1, uw-chat2, uw-chat3 and uw-chat4. You can look up these warning messages by searching "Template:<name of template>," where "name of template" represents the name of the chat warning tag (for example, Template:uw-chat1). The messages for these templates link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.→Lwalt ♦ talk 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Trust me, that won't curb El Jigue's actions. In the past, he's been 'blocked' by Administrator Durova for 'talk page misuse' to no avail (even accusing Durova of communist sympathies). He's response to 'blocking' & complaints of his actions? he see us as 'aiding' the Cuban communist in suppressing Cuban events (ie Cuban soureces as unreliable). I've let it go for months, because 'other editors' (who edit those Cuban related pages) desired his presence (citing ignore all rules). I don't know, maybe I'm complaining too much (perhaps I should stay away from those articles). I see. Well, my message is the typical way that I deal with those who want a "soapbox." From that point, I usually ignore the person and move on so that I don't spend precious time engaging in conversations that don't have a bearing on improving the article. Thanks again for writing. →Lwalt ♦ talk 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your query at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#British_monarch_forebearers. Cheers. --Mais oui! 17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable edit in the Larry Craig article

I noticed that, during the time I made edits to the External Links section of the Larry Craig article, a mysterious edit was made by someone else who added an end of term date (September 30) to the article. I want to assure you that this change would not have been made by me under any circumstances, because the end of term date would be speculative in any case. I can only theorize that, while I was editing the change to the External Links section, another editor had added this change at the same time that I saved my changes, particularly since the change history does not reflect the identity (names or IP address) of the editor. This situation has me really concerned, particularly since I consider my password a strong one that's likely to be cracked by anyone and that I am the only one who would be able to access my Wikipedia account.

Here are the changes that I made to the article, as noted in the edit summaries related to each change: first change, second set of changes and third change before this mysterious change also was recorded under my name. Note that the section name "External Links" shows up in the revision to the beginning of the document.

Just wanted you to know this since you have properly reverted that change to the article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Got your message. I reported this situation to Metawiki as a bug, with links to the diffs for the edits and a link to my contribution history. The mysterious edit that was recorded on Sept. 4, 2007 at 18:12 UTC does not appear in my contribution history. →Lwalt ♦ talk 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators

Your revert was incredibly inappropriate, esp. given that you did it on the basis of an issue for which there is no consensus. Rather than get into the old battle over whether it is the same franchise or not, and whether it is the first finals or not, I put forward "An Ottawa team in the Finals for the first time in 80 years" as the heading. Those are the facts. It is the first time an Ottawa team is in the finals for more than 80 years. The heading does not suggest that the two franchises are linked, nor does it suggest that it was the Senators' first visit to the finals. In other words, the wording does not favour either side in this dispute. It's fine if you want to suggest some other language, something neutral, but don't kneejerk revert. Skeezix1000 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to add -- the fact that the city (i.e. Ottawa, not a reference to a franchise or fanchise(s)) had a team in the finals for the first time in 80 years was a big deal. The current heading is somewhat awkward, but that appears to be necessary to maintain the 80 year fact, but without favouring either the same-franchise or the new-team camps. If you can come up with something better, please let me know. Skeezix1000 19:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

El Jigue

Yes it is quite irritating this situation with this "user" running rampant within a page of such importance. Shouldnt wikipedia be prepared for situations like this?, this is a person who clearly doesnt do anything but "contribute" in cuban-related pages [1], almost obsesively. Whenever someone says anything he turns to logical falacies or ridiculous attacks towards other users (then again i guess you already know about this). Isnt there something one can do here?, if you have any idea about it, you have my support.Kessingler 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile

SJP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

Smile at others by adding

GoodDay (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

to their talk page with a friendly message.

BTW, I love your username. It sounds very...friendly. Have a nice day:)--SJP 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks:)--SJP 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sakic?

Oh hush, don't jinx us! lol, you do make a very good point though. I'll leave it until the season opens.  :) Jmlk17 23:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistent disruptive editting

No, the heading isn't about you!.... I must say however, I'm becoming increasingly concerned with User:TharkunColl and wondered what you thought. His approach (to me at least) seems to breach multiple behavioral guidelines, and consistently disrespects talk pages, consensus and citation.

Not only do you seem to have conflicted with him about various aspects of the UK and British royal family, I've only seen simillar, unreferenced, unsummerised edits to Manchester and the Second city of the United Kingdom - often skewed to a sole point of view - which I (or a wider sect of editors) have had to deal with.

If this continues from this user, it may be wise for us to go through Wikipedia's formal dispute process, including getting an impartial observer to watch edits closely and take appropriate action. It doesn't seem fair that users should have to take the role of gaurdian when they should really be contributors. Jza84 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New NHL-related page

I've created a new NHL-related article, NHL player salaries, based on the French "fr:Salaires des joueurs de la LNH". You may want to check it out. (I posted this notice at both WikiProject National Hockey League and WikiProject Ice Hockey). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)