User talk:GoodDay/Archive 47

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

British monarchs article titles

Hello, @GoodDay, and Happy New Year. I noticed your comments on the talkpages of various British Isles monarchs addressing the need for consistency between the article titles of such monarchs, most notably here. I was wondering if we could work collaboratively on writing a proposal for a sort of topic-specific policy that applies specifically to English/Great British/United Kingdom monarchs to finally come up with a set of rules to not have these issues crop up again. Would that be within your interests? I am not sure if this sort of policy is possible or allowed (I don't see why not), but we could have a shot at it. WP:PROPOSAL says a proposal should be "sufficiently discussed among early participants to create a proposal that has a solid chance of success with the broader community" which is why I think it should be a group effort rather than one person alone.

I have written a very rough draft here. If you do want to go forward with this, I invite you to edit it and add your own ideas.

Look forward to hearing from you,

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: If it means restoring the "Name # of country" article title style? Then I'm all for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's the issue. I really don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm sure that you agree consistency should be the overriding policy. I am indifferent, and just want the titles to be consistent which is the reason for the proposal. What I've put forth is for a return to the # of country format, but that is for consistency's sake, not necessarily because that is what I want. However, that is probably how it will go, yes. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The unravelling of the consistency, mainly began years ago at Elizabeth II's page. In that situation, many editors were resistant to the UK getting mentioned in the article title. I suspect many of these objectors, may have been Canadian, New Zealand, Australian monarchists. End result, it basically began a push to remove 'country' from monarch bios, with a 'new' argument that they were the only monarch with such a name & regnal # - examples: Henry VIII, George III, Louis XIV, etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

My only worry is that people will use WP:COMMONNAME as a sort of auto-blocker to discredit the proposal. I'm all for the overthrow of WP:COMMONNAME, but that's another argument for another time. The thing is, I don't know if I can reasonably justify retitling things like Henry VIII to Henry VIII of England when it is, admittedly, the common name, and the policy stands in the way. I suppose we'll just have to say "that's an unfortunate by-product of consistency" or some such like that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

COMMONNAME was indeed used (mostly by the same editor) in their reasoning for opening up so many RMs, in the last few years. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I have written nearly everything I would like to on the proposal and intend to put it forward at WP:VPR soon. If you have anything you would like to add of clarify (particularly your point on the UK's lack of governors-general) then now is the time. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: JTLYK, I am going to formally propose it on WP:VPR and notify WP:BROY on their talk page as recommended by WP:PROPOSAL within the hour. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's done now. Feel free to correct any errors I may have made. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

As you can see. There's going to be resistance to "Name # of country", basically because some don't want one country getting the 'spotlight' in the article title. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty poor excuse for opposition. They've been monarch of a United Kingdom in some form, in roughly the same place, for almost 1000 years. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The response has been overwhelmingly negative. I think I might withdraw the proposal. However, it is a joint effort and I do need your consent on it. What do you think? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by the opposition, considering the RM results in the last few years, which have moved 'away' from the 'Monarch # of country' style. So @Tim O'Doherty: if you want to withdraw the proposal? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Withdrawn. Maybe one day... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Article names

What do we do when we have to state politicians with the same name? Kansas has the senator Mike Thompson (Kansas politician) and now a representative with the same name... both Republicans. I'd personally move the senator to Mike Thompson (meteorologist) as that's what he is more commonly known for, but I don't know the standard here. Thanks, Corky 21:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:, perhaps renaming the bios Mike Thompson (Kansas Senator) and Mike Thompson (U.S. Representative), might work. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I'll move them to those names. Appreciate it! Corky 21:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution board

I've requested an arbitration regarding the Barbra Walters 2022 article dispute to the dispute resolution board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2022 Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I've decided to concede the dispute. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

recent deletions at List of premiers of British Columbia

Hi... could you provide the link to the RFC you are using to justify your removals? Preferably in a dummy edit or at least on the Talk page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: the RFC decision. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

could you please add that to the article or its talk page, as requested, since it is what backs up your edits? —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick:You may add it to all the list of premiers pages & the list of Canadian prime ministers pages, if you like. Nowhere's to add in on the articles, but you can add it to the 13 talkpages, if you like. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I asked you to add it to ONE article. But sure, make someone else do the work you should have done in the first place. Classy. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Why one article? Aren't the list of Canadian prime ministers & the lists of the other premiers equally important? Why single out British Columbia's list of premiers? GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Small font in the infobox

Hello, Just letting you know why I removed the small font in the infobox for Adam Gregg. The infobox font is already reduced by 10% and if a person has some kind of disability, it most likely wouldn't be readable to them in even smaller font. MOS:SMALLFONT has more on it! Thanks, Corky 00:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: looks crowded without small font. Small font is used at Dilma Rousseff's & Michel Temer's infobox, just to name a couple of bios. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I was the same way at first, but it’s fine imo. There’s some that will still have it if no one has caught it yet. Corky 17:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hereditary Monarchy

I am just wondering why you removed ‘hereditary’ from every article regarding a monarchy of some country even though most are hereditary. I’m not going to fight or argue against you, I just want to hear your reasons. DDMS123 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Because @DDMS123:, one isn't appointed to the throne. The parameter needs correcting, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand and I agree with you. I only added the hereditary bit to maintain consistency with other articles regarding the monarchies of different countries. DDMS123 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed the parameter, so now all the pages are consistent. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool DDMS123 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Images

@Darknipples: I don't favour inclusion or exclusion of either the NY Post or Laptop images, at the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Anyways, you're free to contact me 'here' about it. If or whenever, you wish. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I've no objections to more options being added to the RFC, which is only a few hours old. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I will admit I may have done some hasty edits last night, I received notice from Cal that I had violated the revert sanctions. I think I'll try stepping away from the dumpster fire over for a while until I have more time to look at it more clearly. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

NY Post front page image added as RFC option. As for laptop image's inclusion/exclusion? That's best left for a separate discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Whitespace again

Hi GoodDay. I wanted to be able to name a few of the gnomish edits you frequently make in my AE statement, so I scanned through some of your recent edits. I was sad to see you've returned to making cosmetic whitespace edits like this one. During our last discussion on this matter, you told Number 57 and me that you would stop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've reverted it. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting. Do you plan to continue making such edits? Do you understand why other editors find them objectionable? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, many editors "don't see" the white spacing & more so, being sports pages, they're on many editors watchlists & so seeing my name appear multiple times is a bit of a headache for them. So, its best to not continue 'reducing whitespace'. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your edit at Jennifer McKelvie as Toronto Acting Mayor Designate

Thank you so much for your edit at Jennifer McKelvie. There is a disruptive user (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nfitz) on that page who keeps undoing your contribution & undoing edits, and that user is not understanding the notion that McKelvie has been Deputy Mayor since November 16, 2022 and is set to become Acting Mayor on February 17, 2023. As she is not yet Acting Mayor yet, she is Acting Mayor-designate. This user keeps disrupting the page, and undoing your edit. But I have been restoring your contribution. They are not understanding, even though I have added many sources and explained very thoroughly to this user. Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for upholding the edits :) GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the disruptive user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nfitz) does not seem to understand the notion that the term “-designate” or “-elect” indicates that the office is yet to be assumed. And this user keeps disputing the fact that McKelvie has already been appointed Deputy Mayor in November 2022, and is set to become Acting Mayor, as per all major news sources & the Toronto Municipal Code as enshrined by the City of Toronto Act. This user has been disruptively undoing your edits countless times, each time I uphold your edit. I have explained with cited sources at their talk page but they are still refuting the information, despite all the news sources. Yeungkahchun (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You may have to report him for edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Yeungkahchun: Anyways, that's all I can do. It'll be all moot, by the time Tory resigns. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

AE result

Per this amendment request your topic ban is modified thus:

You may make edits that would otherwise be covered by your topic ban from gender and sexuality so long as they are entirely uncontroversial (such as formatting or fixing typos) and do not touch on anything substantively related to gender or sexuality. You may also respond questions about those edits on your talk page or article talk pages if requested. You may not reinstate your edit if it is reverted.

I hope this amendment paves the way towards a further reduction of the topic ban but I won't hesitate to rescind it if it results in wikilawyering over what is uncontroversial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

My thanks to you, @HJ Mitchell: & the other administrators. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry

Hey. I see you've deleted the ancestry in a lot of the Greek royalty articles. So it doesn't look like I'm reverting everything and edit-warring, which I really don't want to considering the heated discussion about Albert II of Monaco I am already part of, I'm here to ask you if you could please re-add them back. I ask this as it is just standard on royalty pages. The only exception is if one of their parents is a "commoner" as we start including the names of random people, but in the case of Pavlos, for example, there is no reason to remove it as his father was the king of Greece and his mother was the daughter of the king of Denmark. I just think that the ancestry boxes should be re-added as it doesn't make sense for just the Greek royal members to have theirs removed, but keep others' on Wikipedia. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an: See discussion at Maximilian I of Mexico, which links to other related discussions on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Styles & Titles sections

@Miesianiacal:, I just wanted to let you know. I have been encouraged by your willingness to accept that the basic consensus on Wikipedia, is that the United Kingdom is treated separately & differently from the 14 other Commonwealth realms. As a result, I'm considering starting an RFC, concerning the Styles and Titles section, in the bios of Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, etc - which will include a third option - changing "...line of succession to the British throne..." to "...line of succession to the British throne and the thrones of the 14 other Commonwealth realms...", with a footnote listing the 14 other realms. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Charles III Infobox Picture RFC

Hello, I am wondering if you think the RFC for the infobox picture on Charles III’s page should be closed because it has been a month. The current votes are 18 for a new image and 16 for the current. If the infobox RFC were to close now, would a majority of 2 be enough to be called a consensus? DDMS123 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@DDMS123: I'd recommend seeking its closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, where an uninvolved editor will evaluate the RFC & render a decision. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The reason I asked was because I am not familiar with the RFC process as I haven’t really participated in many of them in my years on Wikipedia. DDMS123 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

List of speakers of the United States House of Representatives

In January 2023, you removed the list of speakers by duration of tenure, with the edit summary per RFC at WP:POLITICS. Can you provide a link to the specific RFC discussion? The table has been restored, and I'd like to revert that action if there was consensus to have it removed, but if I can't identify the consensus, I don't have a good cause to revert. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I've reverted the edit-in-question. I'll look through the WikiProject's archives. It's there, somewhere. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I'm not sure if I can find it. That WikiProject has 45 archived pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there @GoodDay I made the edit that restored the table in question and I would be interested to see the link to the community consensus discussion that determined this would no longer be tracked on this page. If that is the consensus, shouldn't the corresponding tables tracking duration of tenure also be removed from the list of Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, governors, federal judges, members of congress, and Vice Presidents, etc. for consistency? I appreciate your response. Thaddaeustoad (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiDan61:, @Thaddaeustoad: The discussion GoodDay is referencing can be found here. The second question just about covers this. Although it was not explicitly asked whether separate duration tables should be included or excluded, there is a strong consensus that articles should not contain any extra tables, i.e. that all information deemed relevant should be included in the main table or it is not actually relevant; alternatively, if it is itself the subject of research in reliable sources, it may be moved into a standalone article. Surtsicna (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Thank you for your diligent search. In the present case, an argument could be made for adding the duration of tenure as a separate column in the table, but I think it is somewhat irrelevant, as the listing of the actual terms provides sufficient information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna Yes thank you for the reference to the discussion! What I gleaned from it is that the table that was removed should instead be placed in a standalone article titled, e.g. "List of speakers of the United States House of Representatives by time in office," to correspond with the existing pages for List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service, List of United States Supreme Court justices by time in office, and List of presidents of the United States by time in office. Would it be acceptable to create such an article? Thaddaeustoad (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I agree fully with your assessment. @Thaddaeustoad: That would be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that sources discuss which speaker ranks, say, 12th by time in office. I doubt there are any, i.e. that there is sufficient coverage in published sources. Of the articles you listed, I assume that only List of presidents of the United States by time in office passes our notability criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna Thanks for the guidance! Considering the office of Speaker is specifically laid out in article 1 - in contrast to say, Senate Majority leader - and is 2nd in line of Presidential succession, I would think a superlative listing is at least (or more) notable than say the List of vice presidents of the United States by time in office. Regarding sourcing for the ordinal rankings, wouldn't this be apparent on its face based the number of days? One question that I have about these various lists is why the articles are not consistent. The one for President calculates length of tenure "in days" alone whereas the one for Members of Congress calculates the length in "year(s) and days," and the one for Supreme Court Justices uses both "in days" and "year(s) and days." Considering the note in the Speakers list said "time after adjournment of one Congress but before the convening of the next Congress is not counted" it might make more sense to simply use the length "in days" only model. Thaddaeustoad (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thaddaeustoad: The problem is not the verifiability of the information but its notability, and the notability of a topic is not determined by comparing the topic to another topic. Coverage is what determines it. Unless there is a sufficient number of sources deeply invested in the issue of who is the 12th-longest-serving speaker of the US Congress, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've no objections to the creation of such a page. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding Woman league on the NHL infobox

Hi Mr.GoodDay I added the Woman league Affiliate teams on the Minnesota Wild and Boston Bruins infoboxs and I could only add the league on the minor-league affiliate spot can you help me put the Woman league Affiliate on the infobox in its own spot :) FYE31 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

They are not NHL minor league affiliates, so please don't add them. GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

it is apart of the NHL and needs to be on the infobox spot can you help me put the Woman league Affiliate on the infobox in its own spot please! FYE31 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a part of the NHL. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

it is a part of the NHL. like the NBA WNBA FYE31 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Recommend you seek input from somebody else. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

from who? FYE31 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, where others will chime in. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you FYE31 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

New RM

Hello GoodDay. I remember you had asked to be notified if a new RM was held for Camilla's page. Well, it's taking place now and your input, whatever it is, is needed. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 21:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: thanks. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Outside opinion has been sought

Input from an uninvolved party has been requested. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. 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!

₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: thanks for the notice :) GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Charles III

Hello GoodDay. Sorry if the talk page gets a bit heated sometimes: what would you say about the RfC continuing until 1 May (one month on from the beginning of the RfC), but nominating it for GA a bit in advance, so it's not too last-minute before the coronation. I know there's no deadline, but 6 May seems an ideal target. Until then, at least let the edits that have already been made stand, so that readers don't have to look through the extra 50,000 bytes to get to where they want to be. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: Maybe no more editors will give their input at the 'survey', or maybe more editors will. I will (when the tag expires in two weeks) request closure, at the appropriate board. As for all the recent changes made by yourself & 109? there's too many of them, for any 'one' editor to undo. If the RFC closer rules against those implemented changes? Then they would have to be undone. Anyways, from now until then, please wait. After all, I'm sure both of you wouldn't be happy, if most or all of your changes, ended up being reverted or altered by others. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, but what I'm really asking is: a.) Would you be OK if we shifted the date slightly to 1 May, and b.) Do you yourself, regardless of the way they were carried out, think the changes actually improve the article? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The tag will likely expire on May 1, as the RFC was opened on April 1. As for have the changes been an improvement? I'll leave that with other editors to decide. Alterations & deletions have already occurred, to some degree. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

My mistake GoodDay, I'd thought that you wanted the RfC to end on the 6th. Despite our disagreements on this, I hope that we can still continue to collaborate in a way that will improve Charles's article :) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I rarely take disagreements on Wikipedia, personally. No worries. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

On a more positive note, GoodDay: I believe we are close to getting to GA. I think the article will pass when the review occurs. Hopefully. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

'Tis possible. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal:, I expanded on your recent changes at the "Accession..." section, for your sake. I don't want to see you being taken to WP:ANI for disruptive editing, by another editor. PS - I still prefer that we keep the status quo until the upcoming RFC has concluded. Thus my 'edit summary' of not objecting 'if' the status quo is restored. @Tim O'Doherty:, just want to let you know. I'm not consenting to Mies' content preferences. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay: & @Celia Homeford: (see above), why I made the latest edit (at Charles III's page). Again, I won't object if the status quo is restored. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Charles the Three

Happy coronation eve, GoodDay. I trust that tomorrow you'll be riveted to your television set playing the encrownenment of our Most Gracious Sovereign? ;-) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Ha ha. I reckon there'll be a lot of commotion in London, United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't know; I live in the north. I tell you what, I don't envy Charles. Imagine a horse misbehaves or the archbishop trips on his robe: a lot of things can go wrong, and bowel-shattering to do in front of billions of people live over the box. The UK needs a pick-me-up right now, with our revolving door of prime ministers and Gregg's lifting its prices three times in as many weeks - just so long as Westminster Abbey doesn't explode and Meghan Markle doesn't gatecrash with Archie in tow, we should be fine. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the coronation will have to be less elaborate then his mother's was. Gradually, the British monarchy (I believe) will become more like (for examples) the Norwegian, Danish & Swedish monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to be heading in that direction. Charles looks to be pushing for his "slimmed down" royal family, i.e. the heir and the spare, and given recent developments, the spare's out too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

What we're hearing over here in Canada, is that it's just gonna be the King & Queen, Prince & Princess of Wales, little George, Charlotte & (ears covered) Louis, who'll appear on Buckingham Palace's balcony. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

King, queen, heir, heir, spare, spare. Either that's a Buckingham Palace balcony roster or a lousy chessboard setup. Surprised Anne isn't putting in an appearance; not so surprised about Randy Andy and Princess Privacy. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering, aside from the United Kingdom, how many other Commonwealth realms will be left, when William ascends the British throne. Wouldn't surprise me if in 20-25 years, it's just the UK & Canada left. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope the CRs don't decide to ditch the monarchy, but then again, it's entirely up to them to decide, and what I think doesn't matter. If I was to place bets, I'd say Australia's going to hold a referendum in the next few years, but I've no idea what way the vote would go. New Zealand probably stays; Jamaica, I'm not sure on. Canada, I think (and I'm not going to Canadasplain to you) also stays, given Trudeau's acted like Elizabeth's personal lickspittle over the last few years. But then again, take my opinion with a grain of salt. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's actually easier for the UK to abolish the monarchy, then it is for Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

If that's true, the future looks grim for Canadian republicans. The monarchy is so engrained into every facet of British life: money, stamps, letterboxes, KCs, passports, bills, museums - not to mention the government is built on the concept of the monarchy, to the point where Rishi is officially just Charles's advisor - that it would take decades to scrub them away for good; that's besides the fact that the neither Tories nor Labour would ever dream about any referendum on the monarchy's future. Although, if the SNP got their way and Scotland became independent, Yousaf might hold a referendum on the royals, assuming he doesn't go the way of Truss. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not overly convinced that an independent Scotland, would chose to become a republic. But, one never knows. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It took Canada 51 years after the passage of the Statute of Westminster to finally agree on a homegrown constitution, and we only got there by stabbing Quebec in the back, so it still isn't universally ratified another 41 years later. At some point the Commonwealth will be just Canada. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The Canadian Supreme Court has made it quite certain, that Canada won't become a republic anytime soon. I don't know if the three territories have a say, but the ten provinces have to all agree to abolishing. BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba & Quebec opting for a republic, is quite likely. However, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia would go against a republic. Also, Canadians overall are so indifferent to the monarchy, that it's likely very few would show up to vote either way. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not overly convinced that an independent Scotland will ever exist. Some are saying that Elizabeth made the shrewd move of dying in Scotland to foster a stronger sense of union between Scotland and the rest of the UK. If Scotland did decide to leave (which I think would be a lose-lose scenario - it makes both Scotland and the UK poorer and weaker), and Yousaf oversaw that, and he decided to hold a referendum, I think he would lose too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Imagine, if England chose to leave the UK? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

We'd need an English parliament in that case. So long as it's not in Yorkshire, I'd be happy. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe (while they're in the UK) England deserves its own devolved Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I supported (and continue to support) New Labour's push for devolved government in NI, Scotland, Wales, and London. But if we get a devolved parliament in England, you end up with a B-rate House of Commons, but with the same level of sleaze. If we were to have one though, Winchester would be the best place for it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, if Ontario can have the Canadian & Ontario parliaments within its borders? Then England can have the British & English parliaments within its borders :) GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. But then, I don't know what would happen to the British parliament. Relegated to light supervision over the constituent countries, I imagine. Mind you, the federal government of the US does just fine with a similar-ish arrangement. But with things like the NHS being devolved powers in Scotland and Wales, and with the British health secretary governing NHS England, it almost acts as a de facto English parliament anyway. But, even though the devolved governments can do their own thing the vast majority of the time, the British government still gets involved in the devolved countries, which is something that might not remain unchanged if there was an IngParl. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

"Constituent countries"? My goodness, many years ago, I tried to get that kinda description put into the intros of the England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland pages, to explain what kinda countries they were. Needless to say, I wasn't successful :( GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Bummer. I'm not touching British Isles, Northern Ireland or Scotland's articles with a 50-metre pole. I've had my fill of things that shouldn't be contentious that are on talkpages, especially regarding things that the King rules over (note the artful subtlety I've put into that). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, content disputes should be worked out on talkpages. If it involves more then two editors, then an RFC is the best route. Multiple attempts to change the status quo (without a consensus), isn't the best course of action. Is such behaviour disruptive? I'd rather let the community decide that matter. I find the results of an RFC will provide whether or not there's a consensus for such changes to any page, particularly bios. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they should. Just noting that (long before I began to edit in November 2021) the "is King of Y and X Zs" dispute was already a contentious topic. I've tried not to involve myself too much in that one. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, its gotta be ongoing (in spurts) between 15-20 years, now. Nearly as old as Wikipedia itself :) GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to say the RfC will settle it. It won't. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, it will. For my part, I will accept whatever the decision is, of the "Accession section" RFC :) GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Mm. In similar news, we've got a second opinion for GA. In my neck of the woods, it's 6 May, so I didn't manage to get it there in time. Hopefully, we'll get it finished by around the 20th. If not, we'll try to get it done by William's coronation. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I think my advice (at the taskforce) on avoiding a deadline, was sound. After nearly 18 years on the 'pedia, I've learned that GA & FA attempts worked best, without a deadline. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you might be right. But, the original review was before the 6th. If only it had been someone with a bit more experience, we could've made it by then. If we get it done by the end of May though, then that's close enough. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't stress too much about. Pre-coronation or post-coronation, Charles' status will remain the same. Just means from tomorrow onward, he'll be able to wear the Imperial State Crown, at the future State openings of the UK Parliament :) GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Charles III - content dispute

@DrKay: & @Celia Homeford: I think it best, that you both be aware of the discussion taking place, here GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (More directly: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III ₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

List of NHL Teams' Seasons

Why do the NHL teams seasons list only include the current iteration of that team? Such as, the Arizona/Phoenix Coyotes seasons list as a separate article from the 1972–1996 Winnipeg Jets seasons list or Colorado and Quebec? I mean the teams are considered the same according to the NHL and Wikipedia despite the relocation. The NBA, MLB, and NFL seasons articles do not have separate articles for relocated teams. So, is there a precedent or former RM/RfC that does not allow for these articles to merge? Conyo14 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Conyo14: I've no objections to combining NHL seasons of the same franchise. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Solidarity

Oh boy. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Who'd a thought King Chuck, would've been so interesting. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We'll need to compile everything that's happened after this is over. Call it something like: "Charles Wars: The Complete Saga". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think cooler heads will prevail. As for content disputes, between more then two editors? The RFC process is the best route, always. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Didn't want to open an RfC on that one bit, and the debate's been settled. Not sure why it went all the way to ANI, but it is what it is. As long as this isn't the harbinger of The End for my WP account, it'll be fine: just gotta be extra-careful from now on. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you're safe from any blocks :) GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see: Charles's article has been re-nominated. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Already knew ;) GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Good news: listed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The lion's share of this accomplishment, belongs to you @Tim O'Doherty:. Congrats :) GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Too kind :) of course, you, 109.etc, and Miesianiacal deserve your share of the credit (109 in particular; if not for him/her, I wouldn't have published that comment on 6 March, which kickstarted the whole thing). Hopefully the article's green badge remains for more than a day this time. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully, the page will remain stable for a while :) GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hope so. Will be monitoring the article closely from now on. I'd asked the sysop that had protected it on the 6th to bring it back down to auto-confirmed protection, so we'll likely see more edits being made by relatively new editors, although nothing too bad will go undetected. 30/500 prot was overkill, in my opinion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Their is an ANI disussion you may have been involved in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. NicholasHui (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Gerda Arendt: :) GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Eric etc

Hello! Please see this. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marbe166:, please read SergeWoodzing's reasoning, so we can get the 1568/1569 dates straightened out. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of reverts. For days, I've been trying to figure out how to 'stop recording' a channel on my TV set. GRRRR. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Feel your pain. A few weeks ago my computer's RAM sticks popped out of their holders after I moved it a bit to the left. Was computer-less for nearly a day before I watched the "YouTube" tutorial on how to put them back in. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2021 New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2021 New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

B3251 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I need to be reassured

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish:. Just wanted to let you know, I'm aware of a discussion having taken place hours ago (which you were involved in). My name was mentioned (not by you) multiple times & it made me feel quite uncomfortable. I'm only pinging you, as you're an administrator & maybe you can reassure me, not to be worried. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about the discussion I think you are I don't believe you have any reason for concern. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Charles III Info Box

please feel free to add to the discussion on this on the Charles III talk page, pertaining to the redirect from King of the United Kingdom Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Knowledgework69: I've given my input. I think it's best to get a consensus to 'change' the redirect, rather then add a pipe-link. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"King of the United Kingdom" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect King of the United Kingdom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § King of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. . This listing also covers Queen of the United Kingdom. You are being notified because you have contributed to one or both of these pages in the past by changing or setting the redirect target. Thank you! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Your appeal at WP:AE

Your appeal at WP:AE (permalink) has been declined. You are advised to take onboard the feedback given before making another appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, @Thryduulf: & advice. I will absorb the feedback. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Manufactured Wikipedia madness

Have you seen what's going on at Talk:George I of Great Britain? My worry is, if successful, readers will think "George I of bleedin' what, exactly?". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it will be quite interesting, when considering that Greece had two monarchs named 'George'. One of whom, reigned for nearly 50 years. I think the Greece monarchs, will be the decider in 'not' moving. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hope so. I'd like the proposals on Elizabeth's talkpage to succeed, and on George I's to fail. What gets my goat is when people bring up COMMONNAME; in context, the short-form name will be the most commonly used, even for, say, Charles III, Duke of Parma when talking about dukes of Parma, or George VI for George VI of Georgia when discussing Georgia. It doesn't make them appropriate titles for those articles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been finding it fascinating, how "UK-centric" is being argued for & against the page moves. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. While it's true "Charles III of Jamaica" or "Charles III of Papua New Guinea" are technically correct, the UK is the one both acknowledged first in the lead along with the "14 other Commonwealth realms" and the one whose prime ministers Charles appoints directly, and not through a governor-general. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

True, but that's how RMs go. Everybody sees the same item, in a different light. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Now another's been fired off on Talk:Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Those kinda RMs have been appearing quite a bit, in the last few years. I believe this moving away from the 'of country' style, began with the page about Elizabeth II, which was originally Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Where there was once consistency? We also now have off shoot versions like - "William the Conqueror", followed by "William II of England" & "Frederick William I of Prussia", followed by "Frederick the Great". GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I only found out about the move request on Victor Emmanuel III of Italy via this discussion! This article title situation with European monarchs is getting way out of control. I plan on starting an RfC on NCROY about all of this when I have the time. On a side note, if it makes either of you feel better, I opened a request to make the title of the article on Victoria (of the United Kingdom)'s husband consistent with other 19th century European consorts. Feel free to participate if you wish.

Also, thank you both for having the "courage" to vote Support on my move request for Elizabeth II (of the UK), even though it was (surprisingly!) the unpopular opinion. And I especially appreciate both of your consideration of the substance of my argument. Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Voting

It's pretty fundamental at Wikipedia that it's not enough to simply vote up or down; you need to provide some kind of argument or reasoning for your position. Hence the term !vote (not vote).

A mere vote will be ignored by any competent analysis of the discussion's consensus, so why post it at all? It wastes your time, adds distracting clutter to the thread, and gives new editors the wrong idea about how to participate on article talk pages.

I bother you with this only because I see you doing this a lot, far more than other experienced editors. Here are two on the current talk page alone.[1][2] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, I elaborated further. Whoever closes, is at liberty to accept or reject, my elaborations. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I just made the same remark on one of the article talk pages. GoodDay, most of your posts on the American Politics are things like "I'm OK with whatever folks think" "I'll go either way" "I'll support consensus" "Better is better than worse" or similar comments that don't help to focus, parse, narrow down, and converge to consensus. It really would be better to explain your thinking so that others can have the full benefit of your insights. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Will take into consideration. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

109

Wonder what's happened to our good friend, 109.etc. Not edited since 10 May after a steady stream of edits for two years. I hope they didn't leave the project after the way Charles III/GA1 went. Bit of a shame either way. I found him/her a good, witty contributor to discussions. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Some folks just hang around for a short time & then it's back to real world, full time. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I know. I hope that the last comment on GA1 didn't affect them, too much. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure he just got bored with the 'pedia & moved on. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty:, I think it may be best to let things be as they are, for the sake of stability & calm. Never fun to re-visit old disputes, GA speaking wise:) GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It'll be a while before I start the FA push, maybe a year or two. Not going to deliberately disrupt consensus, although the article is currently a minefield of "don't change"s and "gain consensus"s. Will probably work on it alone, rather than go the CIII route, but might discuss changes there too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been watching your current GA review. Seems to be going smoothly :) GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Pressure's on now! To his credit, Keivan does take all the GA suggestions on board, even when, like the ref formatting, they involve loads of finicky work. Hope that William's article will also be a pass, although will need some work before we get there. Glad we avoided setting up CIII-style WikiProjects for all of them: WP:WPoW would not go well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If a certain topic is left alone, there? The review won't be too bumpy. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Office holder infoboxes

Believe me @Mandruss:, I have (in the past) contacted the other editor, concerning their apparent refusal to abide by the RFC-in-question. My messages were more often the not ignored. Perhaps, if you or another would contact them? They might be more cooperative. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Not me, I'm semi-retired and avoid the various things that caused me to get that way. You need an admin's attention, which you can get at ANI or by hitting up an admin on their UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm considering it, but I rather hope it won't be necessary. If none of the other editors (who were involved in the RFC) who don't want to show the successors-to-be, aren't going to help 'fix' or 'revert' the contrary edits? I may just not bother with any of it, anymore. Let the others deal (or not) with it . GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well @Jonesey95:, if they want to continue to ignore the Template discussion and/or ignore the RFC consensus? I'll leave it up to others to deal with the situation 'or' not deal with the situation. If others aren't going to actively help me (in fixing or reverting their edits), then why should I bother making the effort. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, because you care about Wikipedia? Why do any of us edit here? As for other people, we all care about different things and have different levels of tolerance for drama. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Just gets tiresome, when it's the same individual, who it appears will continue such edits 'again', in November 2024 & beyond. I can't always be the 'one' to stand up to them. Others, need to step up, unless they're no longer interested. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Diffs suppressed

Hello. In the "Hunter Biden laptop controversy" article, several recent diffs have been suppressed, beginning with: →‎Forensic analysis: September 2021 22:55 November 7, 2023

I wanted to review some of those edits. Do you know why this has happened? Edits were not copyvio or libelous, etc. Can the diffs be restored? DonFB (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean the edit summaries, etc being blanked? I don't know why that happened, but it would've been done (I assume) by an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The edits themselves are now hidden, in addition to the summaries. I don't see any name or ID of an admin/oversighter who took the action. DonFB (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps administrators at WP:AN might know about it. I've no clue who erased them, or why. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

NHL Captains and Alternate Captains

please can you stop removing Sean Couturier as the assistant captain of the flyers he is an assistant captain, but he is injured if you go on elite prospects he will be listed as one of the captains. Vancouver Canucks 1 fan (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Vancouver Canucks 1 fan: Very well, but keep an eye our for an IP. They keep removing Couturier, claiming there's a source that says he's the only Flyers player wearing a letter. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

When is the last time a letter appears on Couturier’s jersey? December 2021.[3] --98.21.56.147 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@98.21.56.147:, that's a question you may ask the other editor (see above), who says Couturier is an alternate. The sooner you both come to an agreement? The sooner the issue is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Hi GoodDay. I removed that RfC tag you added at VP Proposals. I hope that's ok. The RfC would get too messy if we started it with the current opener. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem @Firefangledfeathers:, Just seen an RFC in the section heading & figured the editor forgot to add it :) GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

reason for not awnsering

I was wondering if you want my insta or my cell number so we can talk privately as me going to school isnt the only reason i dont awnser you right away i have been going through alot with the passing of my brother from suicide along with getting covid in january and other illnesses plus i had to recover from a bad head injury for a couple weeks i work in a autoshop and i had the lift go into my head and had to get it glued shut. Vancouver Canucks 1 fan (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have instagram or a cellphone. I'm aware of your real life situation, now. So, things are cool between us. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for saying exactly what i have been trying to say on the 2011 ted lindsay award on the daniel sedin page to these dopes who have been reverting every little thing i edit despite mine being the accurate one. too many people on here are too power hungry so thanks for vouching for me, something not many people have done for me recently. 2601:40D:8281:F3C0:F4B9:4DD6:4221:421D (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It may help, if you create an account. IP/mobile editors tend to been seen with skepticism, by established editors. Anyways, no problem, fixing the finalist for the 2010–11 Lindsay Award. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

40-40 club

I'm curious why you changed your vote. As I mentioned yesterday there's very little hope of other things being added since it's taken me a month, an RFC, and little discussion to add a very real achievemen. This was recognized on the field and by MLB for only 5 players. I'm disappointed that I've even had to go through this process to add it. Nemov (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Opening a request (meaning to the rest of community) is always tricky. We don't know how it will end up. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh for sure, but for members of the baseball project to see baseball games stopped to recognize the achievement of having reached 40-40 club oppose this is strange to me. This has been an achievement receiving significant coverage for over 30 years. What's the real harm here? This process proves adding anything is going to take 6 plus weeks of limited input. Anyway, thanks for contributing. Nemov (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Royal standards of Canada

Howdy @A.D.Hope:, I haven't been ignoring you at the RM, fwiw. I'm just not one to get into circular debates. In RFCs, RMs etc, I make it a habit of not trying to convince others to agree with me, as they'll very seldom get me to agree with them. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, I entirely understand. Sometimes a debate can help iron out issues so a consensus can form, but I fully understand just wanting to give your opinion without being dragged into a discussion.

What I was asking at the end is whether there are other 'royal flags' which might need to be added to the article if it's moved to 'royal flags of Canada', because that will affect whether I support the title or not. It's no big deal though. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Hello GoodDay,

you have likely already seen this, but as I just removed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 125 § GoodDay, clarification request from WP:ARCA, I wanted to make sure that you have been notified about its closure. Feel free to simply remove this message.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup @ToBeFree:, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi GoodDay :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Thanks for the invite. But, I'm too private an editor :) GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The final nail in the coffin of consistency

HERE LIES

WIKIPEDIA TITLING CONSISTENCY FOR BRITISH MONARCHS

(4 AUGUST 2002 – 3 NOVEMBER 2023)

No shot at resurrection here.

Unfortunate, but it is what it is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the public has spoken, concerning monarch article titles. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Believe it was Yes Minister which said "the public? You can't trust the public!". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect future RMs will be more intense, as they'll be based on who's the primary name. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: and @GoodDay: Again, sorry to barge in on your conversation. However, I need to say a word on this matter. And I do apologize if I am violating WP:AGF, WP:5P4, WP:NOTGETTINGIT, and/or WP:CANVASS by my words.

I am planning on having a conversation with that RfC closer very soon. I know I said that I was going to respect the RfC final decision. However, even just glancing at what was written in that discussion back in mid-September, multiple false assertions about Wikipedia policies and what has been going on with the RMs in the world of NCROY were stated. I am not sure if the closer took the time to assess the validity of these claims (However, I do appreciate the closer mentioning my evidence). However, I am concerned that the closer's decision may have been based on the quantity of claims instead of the quality of evidence. I would like to be assured by the closer themself that this was not the case.

Anyway, you two have been a huge inspiration for me in this Wikipedia "battle", and I thank you for that. Please know that I did my best to highlight this dichotomy between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT that we had been seeing in RMs in NCROY-related articles. Please know that I tried to make the most powerful case possible that this wasn't about WP:CONSISTENT, but what all of WP:TITLE calls for. Please know that I tried to argue that this dichotomy was not just about British monarchs, but all contemporary European monarchs. And please know that I am exhausted and frustrated like you may be.

I am frustrated that my RM rationale for Elizabeth II's article was dismissed as WP:TLDR out of hand by multiple users (even though I told all readers in that discussion that they should read the entirety of my explanation before participating). I am frustrated that because of that RM I started, I was subject to unwelcome comments about, among other things, my time as a user on Wikipedia, my knowledge of the Commonwealth realms, my comprehension of Wikipedia policies, and even false accusations that my RM was part of a coordinated plan. I am frustrated that a certain user started another simultaneous RM on British monarchs that could easily be argued as a WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE response to my challenging of the "consensus" with these NCROY titles. And I am frustrated that my RfC evidence was immediately collapsed for being a WP:WALLOFTEXT despite showing evidence to argue that the upheld "consensus" was a myth.

Quite frankly, I do not understand why the length of my text matters. Critically reading and analyzing long texts is crucial to building any encyclopedia. And as a university student, I have been assigned to read dozens of written texts that were far longer than my Elizabeth II RM rationale and NCROY RfC evidence. Were those sources worth dismissing because they couldn't be expressed in a single paragraph?

I am genuinely curious how historians are going to use this saga as a case study many years from now. Perhaps this 19-year drama can be seen as evidence of a trend of how pathos seem to win over logos as the most effective tool in scholarly debates?

P.S. On a lighter note, @Tim O'Doherty:, do you need help editing William, Prince of Wales's article? I would love to help you get my royal idol's page to FA status. We can discuss this more on your own talk page.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the RFC result either. But, that's the way the community winds are blowing, in terms of article titles for monarchs. The "of country" bit, is slowing being deleted, across the board. Been gradually happening over the years, RM by RM. Today, we have Frederick the Great (instead of the more consistent - Frederick II of Prussia), Catherine the Great (instead of Catherine II of Russia), Mary, Queen of Scots (instead of Mary I of Scotland). Some of French monarchs have lost "of France" & Swedish monarchs have lost "of Sweden", etc. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT - Sorry, hadn't clocked this in the mess of notifications I got this morning, or I would've replied earlier. I do like your lengthy thesis-like comments on this topic, makes me glad we've got something of a scholarly editor here. Also pleased to learn that I've been an inspiration to someone, which is a first for me. Re William, we'd be glad to have you there: feel free to comment in the GA, make suggestions, edit the article directly etc. Like I've said elsewhere, I don't have masses of time myself, but eventually it would be good to have many more royal FAs. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT - Getting ridiculous now. Look at this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: Well, the Norwegian monarchs Haakon VII, Olav V & Harald V, just had their country removed from their bio titles. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Damn. Missed it. Your point, in the Edward I of England RM, summed it up nicely: "it's helpful to see which country the monarch is reigning over or primarily reigning over, by reading the article title". Even more so for Haakon, Olav and Harald, as they're not exactly household names. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing the next step will be, remove the country from the bio titles of consorts & those in line of succession to a throne. Example: Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway to Crown Prince Haakon or Queen Letizia of Spain to Queen Letizia. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

More sensible is to just hack off the country willy-nilly. William, Prince of Wales? Why have that when you can have William, Prince of? Then back it up with WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRITOP and you've got yourself a successful RM. With things like this, you can argue that white is black. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect William's page title won't be changed. Those with heirs-apparent or heirs-presumptive titles, will likely be safe. "Duchess of Brabant", "Princess of Orange", etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: now it's the recent Danish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: and @Tim O'Doherty: Remember that RfC I initiated earlier this week about this matter? It did not end well. I became exhausted from trying to refute the claims participants made to the point that my off-screen life has been negatively affected. So I withdrew my request for the sake of settling things down.

And Tim, just to let you know, Surtscina had some things to say about your RfC from last January. I hope you didn't mind me providing that link. Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT - Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen. When it comes to Surtsicna, we often don't see eye-to-eye. I don't resent him/her for saying that, as I know that I've said similar (and probably worse) in the past. I just hope that in the future, if needs be, we can work constructively with each other on a project, like when I invited him/her to WP:CIII in March. So while discussions can get really spiteful and heated sometimes, I bear no grudge towards Surtsicna and have have never sought to argue for the sake of argument—I said pretty much the same thing about his/her NCROY RfC and am not surprised or angry that s/he said the same about mine: all part of the WP policy game, I suppose. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said there, in my last post. It's the editors who decide what happens & doesn't happen. Give ya examples

1) Article content - In the last two or so years, lowercasing titles & section/subsection headings within article content (the President, is now the president), has gotten the upperhand.
2) Article titles & content - A few years ago, diacritics were adopted (Peter Štʼastný, instead of Peter Stastny) by English language Wikipedia.
3) Nicknames have been adopted (Frederick the Great, instead of Frederick II of Prussia) to royal bios titles.
4) Denial of birth in the Soviet Union, has been pushed on most bios of Estonians, Latvians & Lithuanians born before their countries gained independence.

GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

More good news for you, @GoodDay: and @Tim O'Doherty:! As an uninvolved editor, I just closed the Edward I of England RM as no consensus! Your reasonings were a big factor in my decision! Hurricane Andrew (444) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

My spidey senses tell me, the close will either be challenged or another RM will be started, before the year's out. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

All three of you should be aware of how completely inappropriate and out of line Andrew's closure of that discussion was. You are not here since yesterday. Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Looks like I've wiki-ncriminated myself now. Feel like Malcolm Tucker at the Goolding Inquiry. Err, Andrew. You shouldn't've done that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:, I didn't close the RM or suggest which way to close it. I only suggested that after 3 weeks, it be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I assume, all is calm? GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Getting tired of being constantly used as a pincushion for the anti-"of England" crowd. Those who accuse me of misrepresentation are misrepresenting my arguments. I'm the only person on that talk page not allowed an opinion, apparently. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You're allowed to take any position & give any opinion you wish, in those RMs. As for having accusations thrown at you? Don't worry about it. I've lost count, how many times over the years, editors have thrown personal attacks at me or attacks at my positions. Took me years to learn, those who bark the most & loudest, soon wear out their effectiveness. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Canadian, eh

Hello @Newimpartial:, Just letting you know, that concerning pages like Rene Levesque. There's a possibility you & I 'might' get the odd accusation thrown at us, of pushing Canadian nationalism & Quebec nationalism or more broadly provincial/territorial nationalism. As a Canadian, I know it can be a sensitive topic. Let's both be on our guard & prevent such possible accusations from others, upsetting us. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump comment

On Donald Trump talk page you wrote,

However, I foresee this discussion devolving into unpleasant areas. Therefore, I'm going to stand aside & allow the content dispute to continue forward, by others.

. This remark appears to be more of a personal reflection rather than a contribution to article improvement. It's fine to step away from a discussion, but that is best done without negative commentary on the other editors who are trying to work through the content issue. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not commentary on any editor. It's commentary on the topic & knowing when to back away. I've chosen to back away. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is that you don't need to announce that to anyone. Either you have something to share or you don't and if you don't have anything to say just then, you can still comment at any time that changes in the future. It comes off as chit-chat, as if the article talk page were a facebook or twitter environment for socializing rather than a workplace for editorial collaboration. I suppose you can post personal chatter in user space, as many editors do, but it should not go on article talk pages or messageboards. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed, concerning the proposed paragraph at Trump's BLP. I see no reason to repeat myself, there. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody was expecting you to do that, so it's not like excusing yourself early from the dinner table. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll continue to watch the said-discussion at Trump's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Good. Maybe you'll want to return and comment as the discussion progressees. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Will be watching to see the result. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I was correct. The discussion there is deteroiating. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: are you still planning an RFC, concerning Trump's latest campaign rhetoric? Asking here, to avoid the traffic on Trump's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I started but I have several irons in the fire so no one should hold their breath for my RFC. soibangla (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It's never easy, trying to maintain NPoV at Trump's bio, for our readers. Would it be just as much a struggle to do so, at Biden's bio? Something to think about, in the Wikipedia Zone ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Accords

@Cessaune: when an editor continues to push for the inclusion or exclusion of material, in a BLP, where there's no local consensus? Then yes, I do tend to remind them of the RFC route, if they're failing to see that they're not going to get a local consensus. Most of the time, they won't go that route, as they believe it won't result in a consensus for their proposal. PS - What's the worst that can happen? They go that route and 'get' that consensus? GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine if you suggested some noticeboard or something. But an RfC is way too intensive for something like this. Cessaune [talk] 05:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as there's a coming RFC in the 'Fascist' discussion. The 'Abrams Accords' topic, has kinda been put on hold. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop repeating your comments there. Surely you've seen various editors losing patience with you there. Hold your fire till you have something to add. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Kindly stop lecturing me. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is lecturing you, and I am not the only editor to have tried to advise you as to your talk page contributions. Best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not one, who should be giving advice to anybody, concerning behaviour on American political pages. Respect my wishes 'here' & stop contacting me, concerning Trump's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist: Are you planning an RFC concerning the Abraham Accords? Asking here, to avoid the traffic on Trump's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As you noted, the 'Facist' discussion is attracting more interest at the moment. Also, it's Friday. Not starting an RFC today. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)