User talk:GoodDay/Archive 37

Comma after year

I've again restored a comma that you've removed after a date ending with a year ("On September 1, 1864, the Charlottetown Conference..." as opposed to "On September 1, 1864 the Charlottetown Conference..."). The MOS calls for a comma after the year in such a situation: this is stated at MOS:YEAR, and the no-comma-after-year usage is expressly deprecated in the second bullet point at MOS:COMMA. Please don't remove any more such commas, and please go through your recent edits and restore any such commas that you've incorrectly deleted. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been removing them for years. You're the first to protest. There's no way I'm going to go back & reverse 'so many' changes. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Bryce Salvador

Hi,

Please show me WP:Ice Hockey's consensus where it states this. Please keep the discussion on your talk page and don't answer on my talk page as that can lead to confussion. Thanks in advance. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of current NHL captains and alternate captains page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Have I entered the twilight zone?

What is going on at ANI?Dubs boy (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It can certaintly feel that way. Ya just gotta let it go, before it overcomes you. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hard luck. I'm not sure what happened but I feel sure you don't deserve it. Deb (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

My experiences from 2011 to 2014, were certainly not pleasant. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I think it's a miracle any of us are still here. :-) Deb (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm too stubborn to retire :) GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That's my preferred approach as well. I've seen so many people come and go. It's all about endurance. Deb (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I'm a member of WP:RETENTION. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes on Presidential election pages

Desist from unexplained and unjustified deletion of informative captions of candidates. See Talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mind your descriptions of my edits. I removed the captions as they were (IMHO) un-needed. The descriptions of the candidates, were already mentioned in the preceding lists. However, I've no interest in any edit wars. Therefore, I won't contest your personal preferences for them. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but what preceding lists? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a sub-section of lists of candidates, before the sub-section of the image gallery of candidates, in every US presidential election article. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you would not make uncalled for changes to the candidate galleries on presidential election pages AvRand (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

They needed less repetition. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Where?

Where is the request for protection ? Qexigator (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

At here. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth_II#RfC_Candidate_versions_of_lede

Hey Mate,

For the record; this debate has played out over and over on EII talkpage. There are a few committed editors who are very resistant to change. Several RfC's have demonstrated a strong preference for a change in wording, but they have met with some resistance. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect there's Canadian patriotism behind some of that resistance. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - I suspect your suspicions are accurate. A certain flavor of Canadian patriotism at least. I've met Canadian patriots some of whom aren't delusional.

My experience with hardcore monarchists though....... IRL they are a sad sort. Sorta like a group of Bronies who are trying to take themselves seriously. NickCT (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness, almost everyone agrees that Queen of 16... or Queen of the Commonwealth realms, is completely absurd. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay arbitration amendment request archived

The GoodDay arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 11:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Change

I suggest you change this. I appreciate you think you're being flexible and seeking compromise. In truth, the compromise you're opting for offers essentially zero improvement over the previous versions. If this version gets opposed then a closer is going to look for the version with the most support, which is currently your preferred version. Why give up your preferred version for some sad compromise? NickCT (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's an improvement over "16 of 53", as a monarchial intro must have atleast one country mentioned. I understand your frustrations, but some of my concerns have been met by the 'compromise' version. I know that the 'compromise' appears to be giving in to a couple of pro-Canadian PoV pushers. But, I can honestly tell you, atleast one of those fellows is just as frustrated that the UK is placed at the head of the lineup - not to mention how it's done in the infobox. I've know the fellow-in-question for years & believe me, his conceding that the UK is unique among the realms, by agreeing to its placing in the intro at all (let alone at the front of the line) is mighty big of him. He & I have been around for years & still have our clashes over this issue across Wikipedia, but we are capable of ironing out our difference. When you've multiple editors involved, sometimes all you can do is compromise. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

PS - All participants haven't chimed in yet, so the outcome isn't certain. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, you can always set up a Support or Oppose for "... of the United Kingdom and the 15 others", there. I would put my support there, as 'again' it's my first preference. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

re "atleast one of those fellows is just as frustrated that the UK is placed at the head of the lineup" - That's irrelevant. What you and I know is that the Queens relationship with the UK is fundamentally and dramatically different than it is with any other country. The compromise version clearly doesn't make that obvious.

re "you can always set up" - I'm not sure that makes sense. It's already been proposed. NickCT (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand your frustrations with the way things have gone in the last several hours. Indeed the entry should be "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other...", but I know that if that's adopted, Mies (and possibly Trackratte) will never accept it & would continue to kick the ball down the road, until (I fear) we end up with something totally crappy. If you check over Mies' contributions over the past 10+ years, you'll get an appreciation for how determined he is to downplay the UK's role in relation to the monarchy. I was site-banned for a whole year & I won't risk it again, just because some editor might report me for opposing his agenda. I simply won't take that risk, Nick. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You're not going to get site banned for changing your opinion here. You're giving in to some whiner who will throw a tantrum if he doesn't get his way. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I will not set myself up for another site-ban. There's over 200 editors monitoring me & my block log will always be hung over my head. I won't risk it. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? That sounds seriously paranoid my friend. Man, I guess someone scared you into tameness huh? Just like Canadians to not stand-up in the face of adversity. NickCT (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The last time I stood up for myself at Wikipedia. I got topic-banned from British & Irish articles for 'bout 3-yrs. Eventually got site-banned for 13-months & I'm stil Arb restricted from another area of the 'pedia, going on 4-yrs. You betcha I'm paranoid. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... Well listen, not knowing the details of your case, I can say that in my experience, people don't usually get admonishment for having done nothing.

You certainly wouldn't get admonished for expressing opinoins on a talk page. No one ever does. NickCT (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Read up on my Rfc/U & Arb case. You'll understand why I practice restraint, particularly in politically charged areas. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed my endorsement of the "...UK, CAN, AUS etc ec" & have departed the Rfc. The compromise is acceptable to me, as I mentioned above. But you & TFD are also correct in that by not adoping "UK+15", we are merely giving in to Canadian PoV pushing. Therefore, I find myself in limbo. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Haha, who'd a thunk it, NickCT. A third version for the lead is being proposed. This one links the countries to their respective monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for 1864 Republican National Convention

An article that you have been involved in editing—1864 Republican National Convention —has been proposed for merging with 1864 National Union National Convention. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Justin Trudeau. Thank you. Nhajivandi (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What?? GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were stating that he was PM when he is only PM elect. I've just seen a lot of vandalism and disrupted editing on the page and i thought you were doing the same. when i saw after i edited that you put PM-designate. I realized i was wrong. I apologize. BTW i see that your Canadian and congratulations on your new PM. From the USA!!! Nhajivandi (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Trudeau won't be replacing Harper, for another 10-14 days :) Thanks, he'll be the first child of a Canadian PM, to become Canadian PM. You had the Bush dynasty (which might not be over) & now we'll have the Trudeau dynasty ;) GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You're still way behind Ireland when it comes to modern-day feudalism... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils paragraph wording discussion

I just thought you should know that I have initiated a discussion on the New Jersey Devils' talk page, if you want to weigh in. I'm hoping to reach WP:CONSENSUS as to how the lead paragraph should be written. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Pete (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring report has been closed

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GoodDay reported by User:Legacypac (Result: No action). The complaint is closed with no block on the understanding that you won't make any further reverts about the date when Turner's term ends. This is my reading of what you said on the 3RR board. If other people don't stop reverting then we'll have a new problem. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks EJ. FWIW, I was merely reverting Crystalballing. But I understand how I should've handled it better. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaker

Boehner resigns his house seat effective tomorrow. Paul Ryan is now the Speaker of the House, he took the oath of office, watched it myself on television. Undoing all your edits.   Spartan7W §   18:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I had understood that the Speakership wasn't going to change hands until October 30, 2015. No probs :) GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for involving you GoodDay, it asked who was involved in the discussion. And Snowded did delete your edit Btw. So just want to apologize if I brought any unwanted attention. (N0n3up (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

You may mention myself & my edit there, in your summary & statements. I just won't be particpating in the DRN, thus my reason for deleting myself from it. No apology necessary. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW N0n3up. IMHO, you should've 'first' gone the WP:RFC route. GoodDay (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

National Union conventon merger

Looks good, nice job. Orser67 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

Being a member of the House of Commons is quite a separate thing from being a member of the ministry, though. It's perfectly acceptable to hide the templates that are directly impacted by the fact that he isn't officially the PM yet — but "Current Members of the Canadian House of Commons" is already true today. And since he was an incumbent MP who won re-election last week, rather than a rookie, even the "hasn't been sworn in as an MP yet" argument wouldn't carry so much as a drop of water. So his status as PM-designate rather than PM-incumbent has nothing at all to do with the "Current MPs" template. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've put Designate next to the status of the parties, to clarify their positions 'til November 4, 2015. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Except that they aren't "MP-designates" until tomorrow; they're already MPs today. The date of that event is completely unrelated to the matter of Trudeau's swearing-in as Prime Minister. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

They're are MPs (except for the incoming ones), however the Liberal aren't the government yet, nor are the Conservative the official opposition yet & NDP the third party. That's why I put Designate for the status of the parties. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to you before, though, new MPs aren't all sworn in en masse on the same day, but in fact the process takes several days (especially in an election when there were this many rookies to induct) — and because it doesn't get covered as news in its own right, and even Parliament's own website undertakes no effort to strictly notate the exact date of any individual MP's individual oath either, the exact date on which any given new MP was formally sworn in is almost always completely unverifiable. Even on Parliament's own website, a newly elected MP's term in office is denoted as beginning the day of the election itself regardless of the technical nuances of the situation, and so we follow the same practice here.

And because the House isn't sitting at all at the moment, the question of which party holds which status in House standings is a moot point that has no bearing on how the template should or shouldn't depict things either.

Executive roles like the Prime Minister and the cabinet are certainly still held by the outgoing incumbents, in a caretaker sense, until tomorrow — but those roles have nothing to do with the "Current Members of the Canadian House of Commons" template at all. Outgoing MPs do not stay on as caretaker holders of their individual House seats — for both our purposes and Parliament's itself, the new MPs elected on October 19 are already deemed as the incumbent representatives of their ridings, and the House standings are already deemed as matching those numbers and those names, regardless of the technicalities. The Prime Minister's and cabinet's inauguration as Prime Minister and cabinet is a separate and unrelated issue that has no bearing on individual MPs. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps 'deleting' Government, Official oppositon etc, would be best. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Still a distinction to which the matter of the PM's swearing-in as PM is completely irrelevant — there's no value in making one-day temporary adjustments to the structure and appearance of a standing permanent template just because of technicalities that are completely irrelevant to the template's purpose. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, although within 24-hrs, it'll be moot. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

a Merger is a Merger

[1] this edit is incorrect. All sources refer to the PC-Alliance Merger See infoboxes here and [Conservative_Party_of_Canada] Kindly try to write for the reader, instead of trying to lawyer the words. Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge away. It's not something I'm overly fussy about. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:elected officials

I think "wrong" is in the eye of the beholder, and is it honestly that big of an issue to be inflamed about? I do genuinely recall that we discussed this and agreed hiding the navbox wasn't as helpful the the reader as displaying them as elect/designate. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

When you add the navboxes in. Don't show them as Official-Elect, because not every predecessor is an elected official. Some have succeeded to the office. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Which are you talking about? Everyone I'm doing right now were just elected. If they're appointed, we use designate. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Take for example Jeb Bush, upon his election as Governor of Florida in 1998, it would have been a mistake to put Governor-elect into his navbox, because his predecessor Joe Kernan was 'never' governor-elect. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, I know what you're talking about and I think, personally, that that notion isn't that confusing. Certainly "Elect/Designate" disappear after they assume office, and is presented in a sub-format to emphasise that. Similar to the use of "Acting" in sub-font doesn't in any way imply their predecessors/successors were also acting, unless they have their own indicator under their name. I was under the impression that including the box during the transition was more useful than pretending it's not there for the reader. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I just find that adding Elect to the navboxes, is confusing. Chalk it up to editors descretion. PS: I'm glad we're able to communicate better. In the past, you seemed reluctant to converse. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean I've tried to be less fussy about defending a certain style, especially when they come down to a more cosmetic, or time-limited issue. And, yeah, I said I'd try and I am trying. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No probs. It comes down to editor's choice, I guess. BTW, don't push Steve Beshear out the door, until December 8 ;) Meanwhile, it seems we have a determined IP at the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha, well that's usually the aim of my post-election edits. To try and convey the transition in a way that doesn't have less aware IPs come in and make more sweeping edits defenestrating someone before their time is up. Therequiembellishere (talk)

I think whenever an election occurs & it's certain that there's going to be a new official elected, the pages should all be semi-protected from the IPs. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think it's good for our readers, if you add the departure year in the navbox of the incumbent, before he/she leaves office. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, maybe. Though I don't know if some of the down-ballot offices would be seen as eligible for such protection. But feel free to make the case to the powers that be! I think I'm finished with the elections for tonight but good luck! Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just think about how much fun we'll have in November 2016 :) Nighty night. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose, since most (democratically) elected officials have a set end-date. I've only done it after the successor is named and waiting but I see your point. And, yeah. But considering the circumstances, I don't think anything will top the fever pitch of 2008 and Obama. Though I do miss the days when there were so many editors around... Ah, well. Good night! Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nighty night :) GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Kostas Tsakonas

Just to give you a heads up, it appears that Tsakonas has died. I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece seeking help with confirmation. Cheers, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Harper ceased to be CPC leader October 19

See http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Party.aspx?Item=0c0ef0db-d14a-4438-8818-784c924f06ae&Language=E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.130.245 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Conservative Party of Canada

GoodDay – Presented here is a complete list of Conservative Party leaders, including Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition. Might you study this, do some research if you will, and use it as a replacement for what is currently shown in the [Conservative Party of Canada] article.

Party leaders

Leader		Term start	Term end	Notes
	John Lynch-Staunton	8 December 2003	20 March 2004	Interim leader
	Stephen Harper	20 March 2004	4 November 2015	Prime Minister (2006–2015)
	Rona Ambrose	5 November 2015	Incumbent	Interim leader

John Lynch-Staunton served as interim leader of the newly created Conservative Party of Canada from 8 December 2003 until 20 March 2004, when the party elected Stephen Harper as its first leader.

Thank you. --ParlaCanMan (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd remove the column about their Ridings while leader. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, go with that. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice working with you! --ParlaCanMan (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No prob :) GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

List of state leaders in years articles

What do you mean by 'Canadian PMs are only counted once'? And why would that make someone's political history (previous or future tenure) relevant to the question of who was in office in a given year? Plus adding this historical information to the leader of one country but not every other makes the article inconsistent. Or did you plan to add that for each country? ZBukov (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping it would be added to the other country leaders aswell. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Receiving your message on my talk page, I honestly believe we should just keep the so-called overlinking just to keep consistency within the articles. It would take ages to de-overlink all the articles; with this as an exception, I think it should be left be. Neve-selbert (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping that I might be able to start a move to de-link the repetition across those articles. But, I won't bother anymore, since it's being opposed. Feel free to revert my changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Thanks

And boy aint these folk a piece of work? Got a spot next to you on the group W bench? Juan Riley (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See edit history & discussions at Elizabeth II, Rideau Hall, Rideau Cottage, List of Canadian monarchs, to name a few. There, you'll see why I've chosen to walk away from the discussion at Commonwealth realm. PS: I shant elaborate, so I'll allow you to make your own conclusions. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No need to elaborate. Tried to get a professional historian editor involved last week or so on refining these Commonwealth articles. He politely declined in a way that led me to believe I was trying to be Sisyphus. Juan Riley (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha :) GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave you out of current goings on (now being accused of 3RR) since you may be feathering a nest I may soon need to nest in. Good luck GoodDay. Juan Riley (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Good luck to you aswell, JuanRiley. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

personal info

For me it would depend on what personal info they wanted. — Ched :  ?  16:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody (including WMF) is getting any personal info from me. It's too bad, though. I think I would've made a very interesting Arbitrator, if I'd been elected. Becoming a member of the very body which site-banned me one for a whole year (April 2012 - May 2013), would've brought a interesting incredient to the comittee. As an Arbitrator, I would've restricted myself to banning only vandalizers and sock-masters, as I'd have a full appreciation of what being banished is like. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

More often then not. Arbitrator GoodDay, would've been like Henry Fonda's charactor in 12 Angry Men (1957 film). -- :) GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually - having read through the link that Risker provided, and watched the video - I wouldn't object to that sort of identification at all. I'd also say that from what I know (which isn't all that much), I'd be inclined to support you if you chose to do it. — Ched :  ?  17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd only run if there were absolutely no identification requirements, the way it is for running for Administrator. BTW, within the next 2 years, I just might run for Administrator :) GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't want to give out my exact address, SS # or anything - but ... Anyway - I look forward to a RfA, and wish you luck. You'd likely have my support. — Ched :  ?  17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ched :) GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• If memory serves me, when I identified to the WMF (a couple of years ago), they only needed name and date of birth; I sent them a copy of my ID with all other bits of information redacted (at the time, they would destroy it after making sure the candidate was at least 18, or so we were told). Then again, policy has changed; we've been asked to complete an NDA. So I don't know what info they'd need now. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, confirmation by WMF (if elected) should be the same as a successful RFA. They have their reasons for wanting such info, of course. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Marie Serneholt

If you want to, please take a look at the article Marie Serneholt, which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

10-YEARS

Wowsers, I'm a 10-year old Wikipedian today :) GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Surprised you have survived? Juan Riley (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JuanRiley :) GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Queen of Canada

I think he may mean that the "the law has been passed and enacted" but may be found unconstitutional. The government's position goes against everything he has been arguing for the last 10 years. TFD (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Prepare for a long drawn out discussion at Monarchy of Canada, TFD :( GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just remember you share the responsibility for its long drawn out-edness if you keep it going. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you or get bogged down into another one of your filibuster quagmires. I don't know what's gotten into you lately, but it's not gonna be my problem. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how many will notice the Rfc at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, but I betcha some will be surprised that there is a Canadian throne ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to cause any problems, but who did England steal the stone/stool/etc from to create it? Juan Riley (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Holy smokers, don't say England, it's the United Kingdom :) GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Us folk south of the boarder are insensitive. Gotta go pet my chihuahua. Good night. :) Juan Riley (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha, no probs. Nighty night. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah TFD, he does appear to be upset over the Succession to the Throne Act's wording, how it was passed & enacted. PS - Though highly unlikely, I'd luv to see the legal challenge go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada & they declare the act, unconstitional. Then see it all unravel & Canada become a republic :) In truth, the SCOC will likely reject such a challenge & the monarchy will continue with its new succession law. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Up the Republic! (Tell me at anytime to stop lurking GoodDay.) Juan Riley (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've a theory. The way the Act was passed & enacted, was a Canadian republican conspiracy. Designed to cause a Constitutional fight & show the people how the monarchy is more trouble then it's worth :) GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A monarchy makes for a rich philosophical discussion. Such as: how many queens can dance on the head of a pin? Juan Riley (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Kinda funny: The professors challenging the Act's constitutionality & the court that's hearing the challenge, are both from & in Quebec. The lone province that didn't sign onto the 1982 Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template editor

"The template editor user right allows trusted coders to edit templates and modules that have been protected with the "protected template" protection level"--Moxy (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I put in an edit request at the appropiate Template. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada

I believe you've hit three reverts at Monarchy of Canada now. 1, 2, 3 (reverting back to here). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't as each is slightly different. Anyways, I'm leaving your last edit (with the dispute tag) to the infobox, in place. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Being slightly different doesn't make them any less reverts. That was one of the first things I learned at Wikipedia.

Since I wrote a response to your remark at Talk:Monarchy of Canada as you deleted it, I'll drop it here, anyway:

What was wrong with your edits was already stated in my edit summaries: The residences are still the monarch's when he or she is not physically present in them (this was already explained to you ten days ago at Talk:Rideau Hall; though you did dismiss it with your usual argument closer). If you insist on making the change you want here, you going to have to be consistent with your logic and modify all the references to official residences to make sure they state the buiilding is only the residence of the prime minister, president, monarch, leader of the opposition, whatever, when that person is physically in the country. According to your thinking, the White House ceases to be the residence of the President of the United States when the president is off at a G8 summit in Europe. I'm fairly certain you know that isn't true. Further, the monarch can and does stay in a number of places when in Canada. So, stating Rideau Hall and La Citadelle are the monarch's residences only when the monarch is in Canada is doubly false.

The "when in Canada" statement following "list" just didn't make any sense. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That you're using the White House as a comparison, merely shows me that you really don't get it. That's alright though, as I understand your feelings about the Canadian monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've left your dispute tag in place. Actually, instead of reverting, you should've placed dispute tags right after I added "When in Canada", the first time. Furthermore, my first edit to the infobox, should've been to delete the residence section. From what I can tell, all the Commonwealth realms' infoboxes don't have residence listed, accept Monarchy of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I noticed your usage of "(When in Ottawa") at your Sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting your recent post & reverting, along with your edit summary. Your refusal or inability to recognize your problems in this topic area, makes it impossible to reason with you. To sum up, you're always leading with your heart, not your head. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't even presented a cogent argument in defence of your edit. I have for mine. You keep repeating the same assertion over and over and over; a statement repeated is not an argument. So, let's glance at your user page and then look again at who's being driven by their heart. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't help you any further. Please remember, that I tried. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Succession to the Throne Act, 2013

FWIW, if the Quebec court rules that the Act is legal & thus in effect since March 2015. Will you be ending you opposition at the article-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take your lack of response, to mean you won't stop your opposition. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a knee-jerk revert; the edit and the edit summary do not align at all. What you did was add duplication back into the section (the Succession to the Throne Act was enacted on...) and re-inserted words that were removed so as to be neutral; i.e. not take sides on whether the succession is or was and just leave what's sourced: the parts of the constitution pertaining to succession.

There was some remark about "minority" view, but, it's unclear what exactly that referred to. Putting aside the fact minority views aren't banned from Wikipedia, if you meant "succession is", a) I didn't add anything that says "succession is" and b), ignoring both the absence of a cite stating succession no longer is by male preference and the fact "majority" isn't a synonym for "correct", where's your proof "succession was" is the majority view? If you meant the Act of Settlement, Bill of Rights, etc., are part of the constitution, a) you left that in and b), not counting the constitutional experts' opinions, is the Supreme Court and Ontario Superior Court to be dismissed because you think they are together a minority?

Please explain or undo your revert. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The succession to the throen, is no longer male-primogeniture. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain (considering your & Qex's edits since then), but I think you've already restored what you're complaining about. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I wish you'd stop preventing progress at the article-in-question. I can't speak for the others, but I'm finding it very frustrating there. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, what's frustrating and certainly not aiding progress is ignoring what I ask you. I spelled out at length the problems with the edit you made and the summary you gave for it and you retorted with a one-liner non sequitur. And no, what I was "complaining" about wasn't remedied; in full, anyway. I took out the "succession was" part again. The repetition is still there. It's not a policy issue; just sloppy writing.

Your attitude toward opposition is a little concerning, as well. It appears as though you're trying to silence me by labelling my challenges and questions as "preventing progress"; it's a passive-aggressive way of accusing me of disruption. If so, you can only mean "progress" by your definition; i.e. movement toward no end other than the very specific one you want. Sorry, but I have as much right to challenge material and proposals as you do. If you have the required sources to back up what you put in the article, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the current Rfc, says that you're in the minority of one with your objection to adding that the succession is absolute primogeniture & no longer male-preference primogeniture. I believe, you're taking the chance that others are as patient with you, as I am. As I mentioned earlier, you're leading with your heart not your head. Like you, I also am peeved at the way the Harper Gov't handled the whole thing. But unlike you, I accept that it has happened & the succession has changed. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be reminded of WP:DEM? "Minority" and "majority" are irrelevant to consensus.

There are cited facts to deal with. If there are ones that happen to not align with your personal or personally preferred opinion, that's too bad. The current situation with succession in Canada is obviously not simple. You can thank Harper and friends for that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to fight against the 2013 Act? then please, go join the two professors who're currently fighting the constitutionality of it. I will certaintly cheer the three of you on. Meanwhile, don't continue that challenge at the article-in-question. PS- I will not edit-war with you, as I'm already aware of your refusal to give in. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to remember it if I ever start to fight against the 2013 act. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I fully appreciate that what the Harper Gov't has done, goes against what you've been pushing for on Wikipedia, for over a decade. I can't begin to imagine what you've been going through. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Good try. But, no thanks. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, Miesianiacal. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Will a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the 2013 Act & the Harper Government's actions, satisfy you? GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rfc at Monarchy of Canada

At the moment, Qexigator has chosen to support your edits (via reverting my corrections) & so far, TFD has limited himself to the talkpage. Furthermore, Graham11 & FactStraight haven't been around in days. I'm quite practical about discussions on Wikipedia & therefore it appears as though the Mies-Qex version is going to prevail. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: I only hope, the 2 professors are as successful in persuading the Quebec superior court of their arguments (and if necessary the Supreme Court of Canada), as you've been successful in persuading Qexigator of your arguments. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Purple robes

Oh, I dunno. I thought "unique style" was pretty good. --Pete (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha :) GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Purple as in Imperial(?) probe droid? Juan Riley (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's just about a dispute that's been avoided at Head of state. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Then the same. :) Juan Riley (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently so. PS: I've been watching events at Commonwealth realm, btw :) 23:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There the talk page discussion goes on. Note how whenever for some reason the 'throne' issue comes up I am quite silent? Whatever. Juan Riley (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You're smart, indeed :) GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you clue me in to what the hell the TFD vs. Mies current discussion on Talk:Commonwealth_realm is all about. I've long since outlived the stage where I would step into a (bar) fight without caring what it is about. Juan Riley (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not certain, but I can't wait to see the results. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

:) Juan Riley (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I am merely saying that unless a source is talking about the topic in the article then it is outside its scope. It is not a catchall article for put in anything and everything about the 16 nations or any relations between them that have nothing to do with their constitutional positions. TFD (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

TFD: Sorry to hijack GD's page but I just kinda lost track of exactly what the discussion was about. Juan Riley (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary

I will shortly write a summary, I just need to back up some of my claims. --Killuminator (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There it is ! I also left some messages at the talk page with some sources. --Killuminator (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. Hopefully, these dispute will be resolved :) GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And in a list of things you should not say: ERII is a nominal figure head and how can you list her with other actual heads-of-state? Juan Riley (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just had my second beer and suggested as much on the dispute page. No explicit mention of her majesty though. I am decorous if nothing else. Hiccup. Perhaps should sign out before the diatribes? Juan Riley (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you sleep it off. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

List of oldest living state leaders

Qexigator, I would gladly answer your question at the aforementioned article. However, comments by you like "A commentator who is unwilling to participate civilly and assume good faith is well-advised to stay away" and "Have you anything useful to contribute in reply to my above question", are quite condencenting. If you wish to make or propose any changes to an article? it's best to change your tone. Otherwise, you risk causing those who oppose your proposals, to dig in their heels. In otherwords, your arrogant tone, is a turn-off. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed that, with edit summary selfserving nonsense thinking it was on my talk page. Qexigator (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You're forgiven :) GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

I think that may be a picture of the Queen of the UK who is a different person from the Queen of Canada who resides at Rideau Hall but rarely appears in public. Most people in the world know that Elizabeth II is queen of Canada but many are unaware that the UK also has an Elizabeth II. TFD (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

LOL, that's a knee slapper :) GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

A Brave GoodDay

As if Canadian monarchy is not a hot enough pool of lava, you dip your toe into the NI flag conflagration. Oh my! Kudos. Even I (who spent some years a long time ago as a boy in West Belfast) fear to tread there. Hope your weekend is going fine otherwise. :) Juan Riley (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Irish people, indeed. One must walk carefully around British & Irish articles. Who'd know better then me? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusing colloquialism I first used. On the article you mentioned though: Frankly my thoughts on that list is it should be moved to Guinness World Records site. Juan Riley (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Why? GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Taint of any real encyclopedic significance. Sounds like a category for the Guinness Book of World Records, or Trivial Pursuit or an argument between adolescents. Especially when there is no distinction between real or symbolic head of state. Juan Riley (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. What record have the Irish people set or broken? GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, you're speaking of List of the oldest living state leaders article. You're allowed to nominate that article for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Yes. I had switched back to your original comment about the List of the oldest living state leaders article. My fault. Juan Riley (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How about we request flags to be deleted from wiki space? I am not Don Quixote though. Would barely serve as Sancho's donkey. Juan Riley (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I already support deleting the flags from that article. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I know. I lurk a lot. Juan Riley (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking in today I see that your rather rational rationale was basically adopted in Irish People (so far). I stand corrected for thinking you were tilting at wind mills. A Nobel Peace Prize for GoodDay...well until the parade season starts again. Juan Riley (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've learned to walk softly, around British & Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect British Imperial Historiography (write it "as you like it") is another article to quickly walk over the fiery coals away from. Hope I can avoid saying anything more there (but doubt it). Is there a category for AfD's that says an article is "encyclopedic, interesting, and of note but there are too many active editors out there that don't like it"? Juan Riley (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with British Imperial Historiography, but it seems to be a passionate topic. I hope things will work out fine, there. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mayweather/flagicons

Good luck trying to deal with User:TwoNyce. He's the self-appointed owner of the article, and has reverted my edits four times now. Only a glance at his editing history shows he has no interest in discussing changes to boxing articles, and has quite an attitude problem if someone disagrees with him, so I predict a visit to WP:DR in the future if he won't get on board with the RfC/MOS ideas. No worries—I'm game for it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've no interest in a back-and-forth spat with TwoNyce. If enough editors were to impose the no flag idea (if WP:BOXING adopts it) at Mayweather? Then TwoNyce would have to stop reverting. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That's where I'm hoping the latest RfC comes into play. Then maybe he'll play Nyce.Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We shall see how it works out :) GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

MOS boxing

Please take a took at my progress for the new MOS: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines. Any suggestions or feedback would be very much welcome. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I like it. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Good catch!

Yes, you're right about the en dash on the Henry Wolf article. I forgot that it's not a spaced en dash when it's purely year-year with no days or months. D'oh! Good catch! --GentlemanGhost (converse) 23:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom

When you said the article might need protection, I hope you didn't mean me.. (N0n3up (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

The article may need protection, if editors continue with the back-and-forth edits. I'd rather the article protected, then to see editors getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

True. Well, I've made it clear I won't make any more reverts. Don't wanna make a mess on the edit page :) (N0n3up (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Remember, you've just come off a 1-month block for edit-warring. It's more likely that it would be you, who'd get blocked again. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	Seasons Greetings
	Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return. Buster Seven Talk 19:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This card was designed by User:Samtar

Thanks Buster7. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bzuk. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth revert 23/12/15

Hello and thanks for editing Wikipedia, may I ask why you reverted my edit? I am trying to understand why it was a problem. ps. Merry Christmas, regards.

Just saw the edit in question. Very likely because HM is not the Queen of all the nations in the Commonwealth, just the various Realms. Look on the talk page, and you'll see an ocean of discussion on the wording! GoodDay was entirely correct in his action, but perhaps could have supplied a reason that hinted at the complexities of the issue. Or he might have been full of Christmas cheer. As I am. Merry Christmas to both of you! --Pete (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you, Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Skyring's explanation of my revert, is correct. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy St. Stephens day

I hope 'tis a good day for GoodDay. :)

Thanks, JuanRiley. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Lower case d for deputy

Please raise this in the talk page if you want to change this 20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Ouime23 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You only changed one bio. There's been more the 'one' DPM of Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

no they all had lower case d as per the discussion on the Martin mcguiness talk page, it was yourself who changed it to uppercase dOuime23 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

They were not all consistent. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

yes they where it was yourself who changed it to upper case d in all three articles Ouime23 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No they weren't. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are the relevant edits change on Martin , change in Mark, change on Seamus. It was yourself who capatilized on and strangley used that as justification for changing the others. Please raise on the talk page if want to discuss this Ouime23 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No probs with your changes, as you made them to all 3 bios-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No those are your changes, you seem to have forgot you made themOuime23 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You decapitalized all 3 bios-in-question. Therefore, I'm alright with your changes. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you now agree you where wrong to capatilise them in the first instance Ouime23 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As long as the 3 are consistent, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: WP:BOXING

I don't foresee there being much interest in the UK/E/S/W/NI flags issue except from British/Commonwealth editors, or those who actually invested time in getting involved with the RfC. Likely we'll only need a smaller-scale Y/N consensus and be done with it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hope you're right. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

ARCA request archived

A recent clarification request regarding yourself has been declined and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User: Miesianiacal

Hello, You seem to Have Had Trouble with the same guy as me. This Guy seems to be Serially Stalking Just about any edit I Make Involving a Canadian Personality off and on for maybe 18 Months - 24 Months - In My Cases Mostly Governors General of Canada. Just Today I Added Information About Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis Receiving the Freedom of the City of London - His Excuse for Deleting it was that My Reference for it was a News Reel clip of Him Getting it in 1946 - "youtube is not a valid source" and He Thinks My Citations Have Errors, but rather than fixing the citation errors He Just Deletes the Edit. I Also Added a Section on the Honorary Degrees Alexander Received using sources from the universities concerned. Again deleted I Have No Wish to Get into any kind of edit wars with Him. Like I Said this is a Long Standing situation with this guy and It seems He does this to Several People. I Choose Not to Have Direct Correspondence with Him as He seems incapable of seeing the point of view of others.

He Has Already Dragged Me Into Some Sort of Wikipedia High Court of Editing Justice in August 2015 and Long Story Short the Administrators sitting on the bench sided with Me and Basically told Him to Grow up.

He Seem to be continuing His Campaign of Trolling People and Deleting any edit He does not think is 100% perfect or was not made by him.

My Question for you is I don't know How to Make this Idiot Grow up and Realize that He is Not the only editor of Wikipedia. So I'm Looking For Advice as to What to Do and Who to Contact to Get What is necessary to stop Him Serially Trolling People Done.

Thank you Michael Drew (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, if you have a problem with me, please approach me, rather than go to others "behind my back", so to speak.

Secondly, you were politely asked on more than one occasion last year to fill out your references, keeping in line with WP:BAREURLS. You proceeded to completely ignore them and all subsequent requests and queries. In fact, this is the closest you've ever come to addressing the issue; if only there were better ways to get your attention. Rather than learn or change your habits in any way, you've continued to dump bare urls into articles, as well as to not pay attention to formatting or organisation; just being inconsiderate and uncooperative in general. So, please don't cry when people become fed up of cleaning up after you, as I've just been doing, yet again.

If you need assistance, just ask or say so. People originally approached you without malice. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

MDY: comma after year

I've reverted your recent edit to Tanya Cook, in which you removed a comma after the date "November 9, 1964". According to MOS:COMMA, dates written in MDY format require a comma after the year, unless it's followed by other punctuation instead. If you've removed other such commas recently, could you please go back and revert your removals? Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been removing overusage of commas on a lot of articles, for years. I doubt I can go back & undo. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't removing overusage of commas; this is removing commas that're called for by MOS.

Note that I raised this issue on your talk page in July 2015 (User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_37#Comma_after_year), at which time you said that there was no way you could go back and reverse so many changes. In view of that, could I urge you to go back and restore the commas after MDY dates that you've removed since last July? Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I gnome edit randomly. You're free to revert any such edits that I may have made since July 2015. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a name in Wikitaxonomy for editors who follow gnomes around and fix their problem edits? Metagnomes? Gnomognomes? What would the userbox look like? — Ammodramus (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm alright with you fixing up any of my gnome edits. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool. But seriously, isn't making minor improvements the essence of gnomery? Edits that violate MOS can hardly be called "improvements", even if the minor-edit box is checked. Removing necessary commas after MDY dates isn't gnomery, but its opposite, however well-intentioned. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had conflicting advise in the past, concerning the MOS-in-question. You're free to 'fix up' any of my edits that you see as being erroneous. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked your talk-page archive for "comma", and found some of that "conflicting advice": in User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_34#Desist_meaningless_mucking_about, Isaacl says that "I think I recall that Wikipedia's manual of style specifies" no comma after a date in MDY format.

Unless the guideline has been changed since 2013, Isaacl recalled wrong. The MOS seems fairly unambiguous about it, both in the table at MOS:YEAR and in the correct-incorrect example pair at MOS:COMMA. I'd suggest that unless and until another editor can point to a specific passage in the MOS that supports no-comma-after-MDY, we take comma-after-MDY as required. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe I was thinking of a different scenario in trying to explain why some different advice may have been received previously. I did not clarify further in that discussion since the topic under discussion was regarding listing birth and death dates.

GoodDay, I suggest that it would be helpful for you to take into account the appropriate style guidance in your edits from here on? isaacl (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to try to avoid it all together & concentrate on fixing the dashs between the dates. PS: My cutting down the commas, looks better though. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a version of Poe's law for punctuation? — Ammodramus (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

David Souter

I apologize! So it is typical for this type of article to read as "appointed by the president" - which would be the process of nominating and confirming? Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the president nominates the person for judgeship or the Supreme Court & the nominee has to be confirmed by the US Senate, before he/she can assume that post. It's due to seperation of powers. I had to fix up the few SC bios that had appointed in them, as the rest used nominated. BTW, if you want, we could ask Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges what would be best for all the Chief Justices & associate justices to have in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

I recommend you avoid involvement in UK-related articles. Going on past experience, it will only end in tears. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It won't end up in tears. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW Ghmyrtle, no matter what the outcome of that Rfc, I'll be content. If it's to be United Kingdom? no prob as that's Corbyn's birth-country. However, if it's to be England? again no prob, as many Canadian & American bio infoboxes, use only locations like Edmonton, Alberta or Dallas, Texas, for example. The Canadian bio infoboxes tend to use city-province/territory & the American bio infoboxes tend to use city-state. It's not an overly big deal when British bio infoboxes use city-constituent country. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: WP:BOXING

I guess they're here to stay, for now, but the 'non-consensus' was left very hazy with regards to sovereign flags and which flags to use for boxers using multiple nationalities. There simply was no agreement on either of those issues. Whenever it next comes up, I'll be sure to latch onto it and make as much of a fuss as possible (no joke) so that maybe in a future 'RfC rematch', more editors will see sense and support getting rid of the damn things. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, it's best next time, to concentrate on which flags to use, sovereign or non-sovereign. Again, most of the commotion over that, will be around usage of the British flag. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

AFD

As you previously participated in a related discussion, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024. Reywas92^Talk 23:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Are you still topic banned from UK related articles? WCM_email 09:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No. It expired well over a year ago (sometime in 2014). GoodDay (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Donnie Park

...is this weeks EotW. He is considering retirement. Encouragement to stay is needed. Thanks for all you do. Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

British empire "superpower" closure

Hi GoodDay, just wanted to know how many days have passed since our last discussion? (N0n3up (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

Wow, didn't know 3 weeks have passed. Ok so how long until the closure and memorandum? (N0n3up (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

If the Rfc isn't closed now, it'll likely expire in 'bout 10 days. I don't know if the 1-year moratorium will be adopted. That's not up to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Like I've said, can't we just let it run it's course? (N0n3up (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

You aint' gonna get a consensus for what you want. Anyways, it's not up to me, as to how long it goes. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

So who is it up to? (N0n3up (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

An reviewing administrator, if there's any that want to review the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Timothy Bradley

Looks like another RfC indeed. *sigh* So that means yet more delays in getting the MOS sealed in concrete, but oh well—I'm determined to iron out the details no matter how long it takes or however many RfCs need opening. I originally agreed with you in that "UK" should be tacked onto the end of E/S/W/NI, but I've since done a U-turn on it based on this. I don't see how UK equates to US, when the individual UK countries—not states—are able to compete at international level, but US federal states do not. For that reason, on the record table section, I've listed "[City], [Province/State], [Country]" as the top-level element, which would allow for "[State], US" but not "[Country], UK". I'm willing to discuss this via RfCs or whatever else that's needed, but I won't dig my heels in with it. There's more important things on the MOS that needs setting in stone. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: These are Professional boxing records & not International boxing records. Until England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland gain independence? I'll be supporting usage of UK. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries. If it happens to be that the "UK" suffix will win out, that's fine, but if it needs an RfC then so be it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It will need an Rfc, as a local consensus would be unlikely. For example, myself & Daicaregos never have & probably never will agree on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, you two. I can see both sides, but this is one of those occasions where a presentation/format style needs to be looked at by a non-boxing reader—but someone who is familiar with sports record tables—to garner what makes sense to them, and within WP as a whole. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You'll find that the best solution is a compromise. Use the UK for Professional boxing & Olympic boxing records. Don't use the UK for the Commonwealth Games boxing records. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Maple Leafs captaincy

Hey, just wanted to confirm where you see the Captians/Assistant captains list on the Maple leafs website, couldn't find it. I can personally confirm Komarov is the new A from watching the games, along with Roman Polak serving as "A" during injuries, but having the official team website is always a plus.

Either way, Elite Prosects lists the assistants and they have Komarov and Polak. Spilia4 (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Restored Komarov as an alternate captain, which he'll likely be for the rest of the season. As for Polak? he's merely a fill-in for the injured Bozak, so wouldn't add him. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

just to be clear...

What is the "lead" in an article? The first sentence of the top page of an article or the top page as a whole? (N0n3up (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

AFAIK, the opening paragraph of an article. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean the first paragraph of the top page??(N0n3up (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

Right at the top. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

PS - What are you up to? GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

OMG That means that my RfC in the British Empire talk page is all wrong! I basically screwed up what I was trying to advocate in my RfC. That means I messed up what I was trying to actually say. I didn't want the sentence in the lead. Now I understand why many opposed my RfC. What should I do? Should I make clear the mistake I made in the RfC or should I make a new one? I thought the lead was the entire top page. (N0n3up (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

You should accept that you're not going to get "super power" placed in the article, period. The Rfc shows, that there's no consensus for the inclusion of the term. GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

On the "lead" that is. When I was actually trying to refer to the fourth paragraph of the top page. (N0n3up (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

There's no consensus for you to add "super power" anywhere in the article. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "superpower" but something that indicated that Britain was one of the three main powers right after WWII, specially the early the Cold War. Something I forgot to mention but should have. (N0n3up (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

After WW2, the main powers were the USA & the USSR. Anyways, that's for ya'll to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know, but keep in mind that Britain was third most powerful but eventually declined as indicated around the time of the Suez Crisis of 1956. (N0n3up (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

That's something for the rest of you to discuss, at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not up to me

My last comment was tongue-in-cheek, a response to your stressing again and again that it's not up to you, that you want the community to decide. For Pete's sake (no pun), I think everybody already understands that it's not up to you, and that you know that. It's implicit in the way Wikipedia works. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

For sure, we are a community & so must make collective decisions. I'll be refraining as much as possible, from making any more comments at the Rfc. I'm grateful that from now on, the Australian head of state topic will have more eyes on it. Of course, from this time forward, those of us who've been puttering around that topic for so many years, will have to be more self-aware of our behaviour & conduct :) GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

From your username, I'd wager you're an Aussie, which means you at least have a dog in the fight (not to say you don't belong in the topic area). I'm from Oklahoma, which is about as uninterested as one can get, short of perhaps Zimbabwe. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm Canadian. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it just occurred to me to check your user page. Same Commonwealth, anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm not overly proud about my country being a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the monarchy lasting past Charles, anyway. The world is less and less attached to archaic traditions, it seems. The Commonwealth, being a historical artifact of the British Empire, is also archaic and it would seem logical to break it up at the same time. And donate the Falklands to Argentina as a goodwill gesture. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Someday, Canada will join the 21st century. Meanwhile, at this very moment (if he's reading this), there's a fellow Canadian out there, who's likely throwing debris at his monitor. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok with me, as long as he doesn't throw any at my monitor. That could damage U.S.-Canada relations. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for lending a hand

Hi, GoodDay. Just thought to let you know of my appreciation of your help and assistance over at List of the oldest living state leaders & List of state leaders in 2015 and 2016. BTW, this revert was unintentional, I was browsing through your recent edits out of curiosity and my keyboard accidentally fell off my table and a few buttons got pressed—will try to be more careful in future. Anyway, all in all, best wishes: --Neve–selbert 19:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No probs & thanks, Neve-selbert :) GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Well spotted! I should stop editing when drunk. --Pete (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't drink. But, I do have a massive headache from the discussions at Monarchy of Canada, concerning royal succession. It's embarrassing, my country allowed the United Kingdom to decide the order of its succession. We should've handled that all ourselves, the way you Australians did. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Scottish/Welsh First Ministers

Please stop engaging in edit warning, as per this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Monarch_in_Information_Boxes_on_NI_politicians the consesus is to in include the monarch in the Scottish and Welsh office holders articles Ouime23 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus to keep Elizabeth II in the Scottish & Wels boxes. Please stop showing up, making mass reverts & then disappearing for weeks, only to show up & make mass reverts again. You're behaving like an agenda pusher, trying to keep Northern Ireland different from Wales & Scotland, for republican PoV reasons. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

yes I am republican who is pushing for the inclusion of the monarch on articles... Ouime23 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You're trying to make Northern Ireland appear as unique. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well yes because is it, I wI'll make my argument on a RFC and hope common sense prevails as it did with the discussion on removing the monarch from the NI articles.Ouime23 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do, open up an Rfc, with the question "Should we keep Elizabeth II in the infoboxes of the Scottish & Welsh first ministers & deputy first ministers". GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

List of people who have opened the Olympic Games

Where is the RfC you refer to here? And why aren't you responding to my talk page comment? StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Right here. Your input would be welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Deny recognition

Regarding this edit: as I mentioned before, I prefer not mentioning this editor's name at all, in order to deny recognition. You can rest assured that there are many long-time editors watching the hockey project page who know who the editor in question is. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Note

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Time Person of the Year, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was resolved. Sorry, if I've upset you :) GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)