Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 16 years, 9 months and 20 days.

You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talkpage's 'history'.

Awards

I've an Awards page, where I keep a list of Wikipedia awards bestowed upon me.

Edit count & Pie chart

Edit records

My Arbcom Case

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay
Opened/Closed in 2012.
Amended in 2013, 2014 & 2016

Nomination of Christine Fang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Fang 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/Christine Fang 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.

Comma following a date

Hi, I thought I would bring our discussion here, rather than continuing a tit-for-tat on the John Hopoate page. I think the relevant "rule" here is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Date commas, which provides that "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation". Note the M-D-Y format. If Hopoate's DOB was reported as January 16, 1974, then I agree that a comma is required after 1974. In his case, however, his DOB follows the Australian system of D-M-Y, which does not have a comma after the year. Thanks for reading. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WWGB: I've always understood it as "born August 10, 2022 in county" or "born 10 August 2022, in country". GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That first one definitely needs a comma after the year, to come back from the aside entered by the comma before the year. In the second one, I'd say it's optional, and I'd generally omit it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen a lot of them done as "M D, Year in country & "D M Year, in country". GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2022

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: pardon me, but I seen 1991 as the BLP's birthyear at a page about his lastname (I've since removed it, upon your pointing out my mistake) & assumed that it was the BLPs birthyear. It was a mistake & not an attempt at disruption. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GoodDay (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The page Briner had the year 1991 (which I since removed) as the related BLP's birthyear & thus my reason for adding the birth year to Justin Briner, earlier. I made an error & wasn't attempting to disrupt or vandalise. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accept reason:

I've reviewed the circumstances surrounding the block and the discussion below. This block has served its purpose, the editor has admitted that they made an error, and I believe that this public flogging and 12+ hour effective block duration is probably sufficient for them to learn their lesson. I don't see any preventative reason for keeping the editor blocked for 3 full days, and I don't have any legitimate concern that unblocking now will allow any imminent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. While GoodDay's edits were clearly problematic, there seems to be a consensus forming here that a simple conversation may have resolved the issue just as well as a block. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I've read over the blocking administrator's reason for giving me 72 hrs. Honestly, I wasn't vandalising Justin Briner. Merely made a mistake in adding 1991 as a birthyear. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cullen328: & @Tamzin: perhaps you can both explain this to me. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just passing by, but, WTH?! GenQuest "scribble" 04:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well @GenQuest:, it shocked me too. Suffice it to say, I'm a little upset. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You "merely made a mistake"? A mistake is when you mix up your citations. For example, one source might say that someone was born in New York City, and another source might say that he's 25, but I accidentally paste in the URL for the "born in New York City" source in both citations. Then I have to search through my closed tabs to find the actual URL for the source that I wanted to cite. That has happened to me, and I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened to most people on Wikipedia. But it's quite different from thinking that adding sources is not necessary. I can't be the only person on Wikipedia who actively skims over the edits on Special:AbuseFilter/712. But it sometimes feels like I am. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: please look at the history of the Briner page, which (until I deleted it, after seeing your delete at the BLP) had 1991 as his birthdate. I went by the info there, in adding the birth year to the related BLP. GoodDay (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that's why you're blocked. Do you seriously think this is a policy-compliant action? That you can just pull dates out of thin air, add them to BLPs, and not have to bother with pedestrian things like sourcing your edits? Just because you've made a lot of edits doesn't mean that you can completely ignore major content policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The birthdate (1991) was already in the Briner page, which is what I went by, when I added the birthdate to the BLP. GoodDay (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate Mistake or not, a direct block without any warning or dialogue is very harsh, to put it mildly. It's not like we're dealing with an obvious vandal here. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Already alerted to discretionary sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What BLP was that non-warning for @NinjaRobotPirate:, fwiw? GoodDay (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entire topic is under discretionary sanctions, not a specific article. It's not a notification about a specific article. That wouldn't really make sense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would help me & other editors, if a 'big' notice was put in place, to appear on every BLP. Otherwise, we're gonna end up with over half of the community blocked for having added birth-dates & death-dates without sources. There's hundreds of BLPs that don't have such dates sourced. GoodDay (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean that large red box that shows up whenever you edit an BLP? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't vandalise the BLP or create a disruption. I made a human error at the BLP-in-question, thanks to an error made by another editor on a related page. I've no intentions of going back to the BLP-in-question & reinserting that error. GoodDay (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding unsourced birth dates to BLPs is not disruptive? You keep saying that the date was in Briner before you added it to Justin Briner. Dude, it doesn't matter that it was in some other Wikipedia page! Half of the stuff on Wikipedia is wrong! I just reverted Special:Diff/1106764200, which vandalized a birth date. What if you blindly copied this date to some other article? You can't just copy whatever text you happen to see in an unreliable source and stick it in Wikipedia articles without even bothering to cite any sources. You have to check the sources, make sure they say what you want to add, then cite those sources properly when you add the content. There will occasionally be errors and mistakes, like I said. But you seem surprised that you need to even go through these steps – in a BLP, no less! This worries me. You have to put those worries to rest. What are you going to do next time when you want to add a birth date to a BLP? What sources are you going to check? What about the IMDb? Famous Birthdays? Tabloid journalism? Blogs? Are these valid sources for birth dates? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's obvious that you're not going to lift the block (which IMHO, is a punitive, rather then preventative measure), so it's best you start blocking over half the community. As for you & I? there's nothing further to discuss, between us. GoodDay (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW - @Marbe166: & @Aoidh:, the edit I've been blocked (three days) for, was made several hours ago at 16:49 25 June 2022 in Justin Briner's bio page. Sorry, I don't know how to link to it. GoodDay (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some people just luuuuuurve smashing that block button. I hope nobody checks half the articles I've created, with their now-presumably-unsourced DOBs. – 2.O.Boxing 09:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For God's sake - blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. This was clearly a minor error, which I'm sure GoodDay won't repeat. Bad block, NinjaRobotPirate - the best course of action would be to lift it immediately. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This block is totally undue. Goodday isn't some IP or new user messing with articles for the fun of it. This block is a serious over-reaction and must be lifted asap. Masterhatch (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did indeed, a 72-hr block. I was wondering if the blocking administrator has been doing this to other editors. If so? Perhaps that individual should have the administratorship removed. Thankfully, another administrator came along & repealed the block. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Damn sorry this happened. I caught a block when I began editing in 2018 preventative not punitive is not practiced here. But your block is a jaw dropper. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankfully, it was over-turned after 14 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Production

Hello again. I will always be thankful for the kindness you showed me when I returned from time off. I managed start a bunch of articles and started a few DYK areas. I think from your actions when I first returned, that you believe I am here to help do the hard work. Please remind me to get back to being productive in when you see me getting wound up in controversy. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lightburst: no prob. Sometime before this year is out, the whole article creation/deletion/separating/merging situation, will clear up. PS - I've noticed that 'most' of the individual dino skeletons pages, are T-rexes. Indeed, the only Dinobot with his own page, is also a part-time T-rex. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. It felt sneaky. I understand why they merged it that way -much easier to have one side ivote. It is the definition of a kangaroo court. Also I am not married to the article, but I feel like there is a process that was not respected, and as someone on the talk page said, it was a classic badnac. Now it is a pissing contest. Why shouldn't we have an article on this dino? You would think the paleontologist would want an article on every tooth and bone ever found. Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will be interesting to see how all these individual dino skeleton pages turn out. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for assistance: COI edits on Daryl Katz

Hello GooDay. I saw that you are an active participant in WP:HOCKEY. There are some recent developments regarding NHL team owner Daryl Katz that I would like to clarify in his article. I opened an edit request to revise the text and a different editor brought it to to the talk page of that project. I feel that it is important to modify the current language about the dismissed allegations to provide context, adhere to NPOV, and make the details about the entire issue more readable. I would be grateful if you could review my request and suggested language, implementing these changes as you deem appropriate. A different editor closed my initial request, but it seemed premature to me. Thanks in advance. DJ for Katz (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]