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.

Hi. I noticed this edit but can't find the relevant text in WP:DATE. Please can you help? --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It prefers just the dates. If places are already in infobox? then there not required in the intro. WP:DATE, is striving for simplicity. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you point to where the text at WP:DATE says that? --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:DATE, doesn't mention using 'birthplaces' or 'deathplaces'. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's guidance on the opening paragraph for biographies. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahah, that's where I had read it. I should've been using WP:OPENPARAGRAPH for such changes. Thanks, Isaacl. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Note WP:OPENPARAGRAPH says that the birth place should not be placed within the opening brackets (I assume it means parentheses), and so this edit is counter to Wikipedia's style guide for biographies. isaacl (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is border line a casual comment not really engaging with the content issue----Snowded ^TALK 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seemed harmless enough :( GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your topic ban was lifted under the following conditions:

• No changes in nationality for any person on any article

• No removal of non-English names on any article

• No changes or participation in talk pages on known areas of controversy such as Derry/Londonderry and the various British Isles issues

• No comments on talk page that express opinion without supporting references or argument

While your comment here (and here and here and here and here) is only a borderline breach of #2 (by commenting on the 'removal of non-English names on any article') and of #3 (by participating in a discussion of an obviously controversial topic), it is an actual breach of #4 i.e. (by providing 'comments on talk page that express opinion without supporting references or argument'). That you believe "There's nothing further for me to add at that discussion" or that it "Seemed harmless enough :(" shows you do not intend to abide by the conditions laid down for lifting your topic ban, or you do not understand them. Which is it? Daicaregos (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't need a source to prove that I don't understand the Welsh language. Therefore #4 hasn't been breached. PS- If you're still not satisfied? contact my mentor Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Due to feeling intimidated by you, I've 'scratched out' my comments at WP:WALES. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

While the manual of style suggests that birth place is omitted from the lede, can you please ensure that when you remove it from the lede you don't remove it from the article entirely, i.e. move it into the main body of the article as the MOS suggests. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I leave them in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please insert them elsewhere in the article as well as leaving them in the infobox. There's nothing that says they should only be in the infobox. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:GoldRingChip#Problem with User:ANTONI20. —GoldRingChip 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI, is your best route. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have seen that this nonsensible user has complained regarding edits I have done. The edits I have done were to add additional information, edits which GoldChipRing did not appreciate. His argument with me does not have to do with content, rather it has to do with format. I have sought to compromise with him, yet he believes he is the dedicated editor for congressional districts and that only he can make edits and dictate format. With GoldChipRing, it's like having the Chinese censors removing any useful information and replacing it with outdated information, along with broken hyperlinks. My final offer of compromise to him was that we would list election results in descending order, starting with 2012, a very common practice. However, I also agreed to list past election results from 1990-2004 in ascending order, as he requested. Instead, he rejected my offer and switched the pages back to his broken link edits. He references Wikipedia rules constantly as justification for his edits, yet there is no rule in regards to listing electoral results, other than that which was created by GoldChipRing. If he is unwilling to accept and listen to the opinion and recommendation of other Wikipedia user's, then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You both may consider WP:DRN from this point onward. PS: I wish you'd learn/remember to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Very difficult to work with editors, who try to re-write history. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)".
Hmmmm, yeah, so why did you make the change at James Johnston (Secretary of State)?
Looking forward to yr explanation! Eddaido (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about an edit I made early today a 0:50? it's called an editorial mistake, which you could've easily corrected for me. GoodDay (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But then I'd no idea at all just what was in your editorial mind, did I?
I've now had a good laugh since I've realised you must have wanted to add (have now added a totally superfluous) Zero ;-) Eddaido (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No harm, no problem. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Per AN unblock request. Obviously I have no choice other than to choose option B for the moment, but I hope that when this comes up again you will be available to support the removal of that restriction. If you imagine a pie chart with three slices, I can work on one third of wikipedia and not another third – not because of any topic ban but because of privacy concerns. Normally I split my edits between those two slices of the pie, so it effectively cuts my edit subject matter in half. The third piece of the pie I could edit if I wanted, but would not under either situation. Apteva (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You will never get a different result unless you can explain the nature of your "privacy concern". Nothing in any of what you said made clear why you can't edit in different areas with one username. The word "privacy" is not magic; you have to give an actual explanation of why you need what you are requesting. If you can't do that, it is your problem. -Rrius (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Then try Option C. Request that both your accounts are 'deleted', then create a new account & inform the community of it. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for expressing your concern. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well done on the third entry, the first and second might have been problematic ----Snowded ^TALK 17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's taking awhile, but I'm gradually smoothing my rough edges. Thanks, for giving me the oportunity to improve :) GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Since when were YOU allowed back on British/Irish articles???217.43.208.103 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Back in December. See Snowded for more information. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your removal of this from last month. It is easily verifiable from the Marr source it is referenced to in the article. I think it was also discussed at the GA and subsequently in article talk and the consensus has always been that it fulfils NPOV as it's an important part of the story. So I put it back in. --John (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Seen a ^{[citation needed]} tag, so I deleted the sentence. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'd request as I did to the tagger that you look a little more carefully the next time, especially on a GA. It took me less than 30 seconds to recheck the source. --John (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed a number of edits where you changed the indent level of some editors' comments so it would not appear that they were replying to themselves. Where there is no ambiguity in the discussion thread, I suggest it would be better to leave it alone. Sometimes, an editor does want to make a followup comment that he/she perceives as an add-on to the original comment, and so would like it indented. But in any case, if there is no confusion, it doesn't do any harm to leave the indentation as originally entered.

Regarding your recent comment on my talk page, I appreciate your input, but since the editor is understandably upset, I'd as soon let matters rest. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Ozoliņš article is now up for full protection by another editor. Fair warning, if the edit warring simply moves to another article, I will be taking this to ANI and requesting wholesale blocks. I would request that you keep further debate to the talk pages. Resolute 14:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, the ANI route is best. It's gauling that these Baltic nationalists haven't been topic-banned, yet. There comes a point where editors have got to protect this Project against stupidity. Honestly, claiming that Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia were never a part of the USSR? Anyways, message received & understood. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope so, because dude, if I take this to ANI now, you're getting a block, and probably not a short one. You, Jaan and the one IP are doing most of the reverting. Resolute 14:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood, considering my past. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the Baltic states are considered to have been occupied territory for the duration of the Soviet+Nazi+Soviet presence. If you need a different example, no one claims someone born in Israeli-controlled Palestine is born in Israel except perhaps for the imported Israeli settlement residents. No other parallels implied, of course. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Latvia, Estonia & Lithuania were 3 of 15 Soviet republics. Communism was a perversion of history, however Wikipedia isn't here to 'right' any 'wrongs' done to people. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Observing factually that no one considers the Baltics to have been legally part of the USSR is not righting any wrongs, it's simply sticking to encyclopedic facts. Get off your high horse. If you don't want to, there are blogs for that. WP is not a blog. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

They were a part of the USSR & no revisionism can alter that fact. Leo Komarov was born 1987 in the USSR. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I love the "No one considers them to be LEGAL" when "no one" really means "no country I like"--Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, GoodDay! I'm working with a group of Wikipedians on a Legislative Data Workshop to explore ways of using legislative data to enhance Wikipedia, and since it's a subject area you've been active with, I figured you might like to know of it. We've set up a provisional WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data (WP:LEGDATA) where we're developing new ideas, so if you'd like to offer your views or help out, we'd love to have you join! Cheers, WWB (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please help me to understand the history which informs the term "wiki-practice" here. I am unfamiliar with this consensus decision. Is it a policy or convention?

My guess is that information (+ cite support) which you removed needs to be restored. --Ansei (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I followed the practice that we don't number the former popes. We don't have 264th at Pope John Paul II, 263rd at Pope John Paul I etc etc. So why would we have 265th at Pope Benedict XVI? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning is clear, but it is not a consensus policy. The cite you removed explicitly mentions that the numbering has been considered significant for centuries. As it happens, your point of view is mirrored at Vactican.va. However, this is not sufficient to exclude information from cited reliable sources.

Since this thread was begun, I see that you have also removed the ordinal number from the first paragraph of Leo XI. This deletion needs to be restored -- not only for the reasons mentioned above, but also because this subject remains an active issue in the contemporary press. In this small matter, your personal perspective is not justified by published sources nor by consensus-derived wiki-policy.

I hope you will understand that it will be better for you to make these changes than for someone else to do it. --Ansei (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing the numbering from 2 or 3 former pope articles, is easier then adding them to over 200 such articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your reasoning, but "easier" is not the same as consensus policy. Please revert what you have done in the article about Pope Leo XI. I would also ask you to restore any other ordinal numbers you may have removed in articles about popes before Pius X -- see Frederick Martin et al. (1912). The Statesman's Year-book, p. 1142.

Please try to consider the consequences of a refusal to restore what you have removed. For example, are you giving any thought to the ways in which your plan is problematic in Pope Stephen II (III)? A process of simplification is often good, but not in this context. I hope it won't be necessary to add this small issue at Wikipedia:Third Opinion? --Ansei (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You have my permission to revert my deletions. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You were doing so well. Until otherwise, the proper name of the country(ies) is one the name used at the time in question. Russia was not Russia in 1970, but the Soviet Union then the Soviet Union should be used. Or I will have to use the Dominion of Canada in all the (ice) hockey articles!! Raul17 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I only made the edits in compliance with the Baltics Rfc. When we make edits we don't agree with, it's a sign of accepting not getting our way. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

But it appears that you are deliberately doing this; playing with fire and skating on thin ice! It does not take much for the mass to come after you again!! On a sidenote, why do you use honour instead of the English honor?Raul17 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

1) I won't be trying to apply the Baltic Rfc consensus anymore. 2) Thought it was spelt eitherway :) GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

--> 2)Yes it can be, but I was trying to make fun of you since honour French-Canadian(?)and British and definitely not American. Raul17 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha... GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Honour" is the English Canadian spelling. The French word is spelt (or spelled) "l'honneur". Bielle (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Again, I am poking fun at GoodDay. I even messed up French-Canadien (as in the Montreal Hockey Club). Everyone knows that he is an undercover Canadiens fan!! Raul17 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In fairness I don't expect every WP editor to be fluent in the unique history of the Baltic states where the USSR and its "republics" are concerned. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's likely that Soviet Union/USSR, is going to be used on hockey bio articles, for players born between 1940 & 1991. As for the Wikipedia's thousands of bios, it's impossible 'either way' to keep the 1940-91 folks consistent. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. I noticed your appeal at WP:ARCA to have your ban from editing diacritics lifted. It would be helpful if you can expand your statement. You could say where Arbcom imposed the restriction originally. The ban was one of the results of WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay and the restriction was imposed here. It would also be helpful if you can notify User:Steven Zhang who brought the original arb case and User:DBD who was listed in that case as your mentor. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a cite that he did move to Castel Gandolfo? The only references that I saw were that he was going to move. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a cite that he didn't? I'm made to the change to past-tense, based on the fact that Benedict XVI has resigned & moved (temporarily) to the Castel Gandolfo Palace. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the point. We have references stating what was expected to happen. Saying that it did happen is incorrect. If you want to make it past-tense, you should change it to "At the time of then-Pope Benedict's resignation, it was announced that Ganswein was going to move with Benedict". We don't know that he actually moved to Castel Gandolfo, he might have stayed to work for Francis - and without a published statement somewhere, it constitutes WP:OR. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I re-worded it slightly to reflect what has been published. It isn't unknown whether he moved, it simply hasn't been published (so we on Wikipedia don't know). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well. I'm content with your corrections to Ganswein's status. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

On March 22, you edited over 160 articles on popes, deleting the word "Pope" from the article subject's name in the lead sentence. By doing so, you altered the subject's common name—which in each case is unique—and replaced it with mostly ambiguous names. "Pope John V" is unique; "John V" is a name shared with eight other articles. The same for "Pope John VI", "Pope John VII", "Pope John VIII", etc. All are unique names, but by removing "Pope" from their names, you've created unnecessary ambiguity in the first sentence a reader is likely to encounter in the article. This is one reason why the MOS states "the page title should be the subject of the first sentence" (WP:LEADSENTENCE).

I noticed you tried to do the same thing in 2011, removing the word "Pope", which resulted in some lead sentences omitting the word "pope" completely, relaced by "Bishop of Rome". You were corrected at that time in this Pope edits discussion, and you self-reverted. Now you are attempting to do the same thing. This time, your initial deletions of "Pope" from the subject's name in the lead sentence were done with no edit summary, and presented as minor edits. After I restored the common name of the subjects consistent with the article titles, WP:NCCL, and WP:COMMONNAME, you again removed the word "Pope" from the subject's name in 80 articles, this time citing "consistency" with the previous articles—that you edited four days ago.

Consensus upholds twelve years on this site of using the pope's common name per WP:COMMONNAME, which is "Pope [Name]". Related specifically to the presentation of the subject's name in the lead sentence, I am relying on the following MOS guidelines:

• WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence."
• MOS:BOLDTITLE: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence."

This guidance is clear to me. I will be restoring the original "consistent" language that presents the pope's name consistent with the article titles, WP:NCCL, and WP:COMMONNAME. Bede735 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you checked the papal bio articles from Pope Francis backwards? What I don't understand, is that you didn't add/re-add Pope to the intros of all 266 articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing that while improving the articles with inline citations and general copyedit. The more recent articles should follow the same guidance for the same reasons. It looks like you and another editor removed "Pope" from the subject's name in the lead sentence for most of these articles within the past few weeks. I would ask that you restore the common names to the lead sentences. Bede735 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Though Pope X, was pope.... looks silly. If you want to add Pope back infront of the names in the intro for all the papal bio articles? then I won't revert. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

But Pope X was supreme pontiff... looks fine. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. GoodDay (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting conversation. My watchlist is lighting up with all these changes. I hope you will achieve an agreement on this and then go back and edit the articles again. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

An agreement has been reached. Bede735 is currently implimenting it. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? Has it been discussed outside of these user talk pages? What about WT:CATHOLIC? It is worth noting that his latest edit was inconsistent with other articles which use the "honorific-prefix=Pope" field of the template rather than placing it in "English name=". Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I had brought up my concerns about the inconsistancy of the papal intros at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), but no one was interested & so after a few days, I erased my posts. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency. Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Its not the UK, but your contributions here are exactly the sort of thing that other editors have been complaining about. Statements as if you were an authority rather than an editor under restrictions, inflaming discussion if anything etc. etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I freely admit, my honesty can be 'annoying' & it might lead to my downfall, someday. But, I 'will' always discourage inaccuracy on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

PS - I recommend you direct Hedgefall to the discussion-in-question. We don't need him edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Honesty is not in question, the behaviour is simply stating an opinion as an absolute with no reference to the previous discussion. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification, this isn't about the discussion at Labour Party (UK)? -- GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave you the link above and no its not ----Snowded ^TALK 14:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I was making an interpretation of Giano's post (which he hasn't corrected me on) & not claiming anything. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"If it's proven, then his past must be unhidden & he must have his new socks blocked" Sorry, until you get this you are going to have problems ----Snowded ^TALK 14:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wowsers, talk about contradicting statements by me. There, I'm pointing out if & latter, I'm pointing out it's all basically irrelevant, no matter what's found or not. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've scratched out both posts. Thanks for pointing them out to me. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you believe, somebody called me a Fascist one time. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been called worse ...----Snowded ^TALK 16:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I know that you are involved in your eternal personal Crusade against all names "un-English" and that you enjoy to pop up every six months trying to somehow make "Peter I" and "Peter II" more visible. It might be fun to you, but it isn't for anyone else. And removing the ages from the photos are uncalled for. Remember: they are FAs for a good reason. Talk first before making those kind of "improvements" that don't improve at all. --Lecen (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Talk first.."? You mean get Lecen's permission, first. It's become obvious to me, that nothing will get added to or removed from Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil, without your say-so. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't oppose improvements. What I do is oppose users like yourself who fight fiercely to push their own POV (in your case, "remove anything un-American").

GoodDay, out of curiosity: did you have ever wrote an article here? Expanded or improved one? You know, made all necessary research, wrote it, then reviewed it, then asked other people to look at it and give their suggestions, etc.. Did you? I was looking at your history log and I couldn't find anything like that. Petty discussions on talk pages, move requests where you oppose anything you see as "un-English", small edits in articles (like "ndash" stuff), etc... Is that all you do here? Really? I'm really serious about it. I'm amazed to realize that. --Lecen (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

How many medals you have on your wall, is irrelevant. PS: Don't step on a gnome. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• You could always cite Britannica . LittleBen (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If only it were that easy, at those 2 articles. Given my situation, I have to be extra cautious on (strangely enough) English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You were already banned from all articles or discussions with diacritics. It didn't improve matters your aggressive tone. You said pretty harsh things to other people, including me. I still haven't forgot your xenophobic remarks to me, to others and to my country. The Arbitrators ignored your personal quest against everything you regard "un-English", a characteristic of yours closely linked to your quest against diacritics. If you persist doing that and if you persist attacking me (which includes accusing me of ownership) I will have no other choice but to seek the appropriate measures against you. --Lecen (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as you're involved in an Arbcom case concerning Argentine history, I'll stay away from the 2 articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the second time in less than a month that I come here to ask you to stop with your actions. I don't know what do you mean by "double-standard" by you cannot place "Ferdinand" all over an article when the title of the article is "Fernando". I noticed that you have an unhealthy obsession with names, diacritics and ndashes. Stop that. --Lecen (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You like pipelinking [english name|portuguese name], but you're against [portuguese name|english name]. Once again, you're pushing your ownership on these articles. Why don't you take a wiki-break. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't write "Joao" instead of "John" on John VI of Portugal. Yet again you accuse me of ownership. It seems you won't stop. --Lecen (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it quite difficult to make any improvements on those articles, without your (and CT's) approval. A situation that's quite frustrating, which discourages one. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For BLEEP sakes, why bother making any changes to the Portuguese monarchial articles. All you get is reverted by Lecen & Cristiano Tomas. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your feelings about DJS. I'll have to appeal. I'd better put together a few more facts about unjustified mass moves, canvassing, and repeated move warring by his buddy, and submit an appeal. LittleBen (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

;) GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you mis-spelled "statement", you'd better fix your typo. (Oops, I mis-spelled "mis-spelled"). LittleBen (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the amendment request you submitted has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. You can view the archived request here, or the original request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Message received. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Resolute 00:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This project is getting nuttier by the month. Great examples of this are arguments at United Kingdom & Home Nations. Some changes made & reverted at Soviet Union, History of Latvia, History of Estonia, Estonia etc, etc. Discussions at Soviet Union. Refusals to allow Peter being used at Pedro I of Brazil & Pedro II of Brazil. The situation at Leo Komarov, is just another -nutty- example. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed the comments on Snowded's talk page, your recent contributions and one ANI discussion, I worry that the issues that the topic ban had solved have reoccured since the topic ban has been lifted. In this ANI thread, I was given the ability to lift and reapply this topic ban as required, and in my judgment I feel that this is the best solution given the current circumstances.

Therefore, I am reinstating the topic ban as previously written - from pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed. This topic ban is for one year - for it to be lifted early you would need to show that you have been able to productively edit in other areas without these sorts of issues. You may ask for the topic ban to be lifted after 60 days if you can demonstrate this, but I would recommend that you consider focusing on other areas of editing. I've seen you do good work, but this is really dragging you down and it might be better for you to focus on other things.

I've posted a link to this on Snowded and DBD's talk page, and filed it under Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. If you have any questions about this please let me know.

Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement accepted, per the continuing animosity between myself & Daicaregos. I'm sure Dai will be quite content, now;) I thank Snowded for his mentoring efforts, as he has helped me. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The idea that this is some sort of personal battle between individuals epitomises the unresolved issue. It is your behaviour that is the problem that needs rectifying, GoodDay, not anyone else's. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no intentions of challenging Daicaregos. I was stupid enough to alter his edit & so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This is controversal?, I thought I was helping, by clarifying to readers 'what kind of' countries England & Wales were? -- GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No you really are missing the point. Its not an issue with Dai, it is a general issue on the way you edit. Happy to talk to you on or off line about this. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. I am sorry this has happened. I agree with "the points" that you were trying to raise. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is riddled with revisionists. Do "the time", and a year later ... let them post as much rubbish as they want. Take care, and best wishes, The Un-named One. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.38.118 (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I never should've crossed Dai. I'm paying for my stupidity now. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's best I stay away for a year, Snowy. During that time, maybe somebody will have a talk with Daicaregos, concerning his attitude. PS: I appreciate your efforts & hope you'll be my mentor again, if/when the probation is given another chance. Right now, I'm just tired of Daicaregos. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I know Dai off wiki (thanks to wikipedia) and I have talked with him. I think he would give you a chance if your behaviour changed and I have done my best to persuade him of that. But until you stop blaming other people like him and reflect on how you edit nothing is going to change. Your mistake was not to tackle an article on which he was a editor, your mistake(s) was the style of the edits you made, The loose comments on ANI, the deleting comments rather than thinking about how you coud have made better ones etc.etc. I'll happily help out in the future, but you have to change not other editors. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the (alleged) controversal edit. Dai prefers that article linked to Country, instead of Countries of the United Kingdom, because he wants to try & have Wales placed on the same level with Australia, Italy, Canada, India, etc etc (i.e sovereign states) as much as possible. I'm concerned about the reader, where's he's concerned about his own agenda. PS: Remember, I've known who Dai is since February 2012. GoodDay (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You are still personalising this, rather than addressing your own editing behaviour, and you are still imputing motives to other editors contrary to WP:AGF. Please stop it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing controversal about my edit at England–Wales border. A simple revert of it, with nothing said & that would've been it. GoodDay (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If another editor disagrees with it, then by definition it is controversial. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

On this particular matter, I disagree. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Very well, Snowy. With your help, I'll continue to try & curb my temper. I'll leave the decision with you, as to if/when the probation can be attempted again. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrospective: I should've checked with you before making my alteration at the England-Wales border article. GoodDay (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No... you should learn to behave yourself, rather than relying on others to keep you under control. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If Steve, DBD & Snowy choose to give me another chance, I'll practice more restraint. GoodDay (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Steven, we've got WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF etc, etc. Perhaps the project can create WP:TEMPER, with myself as a model. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

Question; who's the biggest tosser here, GoodDay (obviously aching for a site ban) or any one of the amateur psycologists who've waded in to this shit pit? A bunch of pricks, the lot of you. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The biggest loosers in all of this, is the readers themselves. The Devolutionist PoV continues to prevail on those articles & as a result, there'll always be disputes breaking out. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. Those nationalists are really dragging it down, epsecially the Irish ones. You should negotiate out of your ban then have nothing more to do with these so called "mentors" and other assorted dicks. They want banning themselves. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The current dispute at United Kingdom (concerning a section-heading), is the latest example of Devolutionist PoV pushing. It's both laughable & pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay I really don't know why you are allowing this IP to pull you into a response, but the way you are handling it makes any chance of the topic ban being revoked remote. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want it revoked, until a certain editor retires or backs away from Wales-related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: I deliberately brought about my topic-ban's reinstatement, because I grew tired of the certain editor's harrassment of my edits. He was the reason, I was timid about engaging on British article talkpages. Better to be topic-banned, then risk a 6-month block or worst. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that comments like the ones you're making in this thread are not helping your case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is how I prefer it. I don't want my British & Irish topic ban revoked. If you recall, I quickly agreed to having it imposed on me in the spring of 2012 - even thought the community was split over it. Furthermore, some editors supported it, merely because I agreed with it. In otherwords a 'majority' was opposed to it, then. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I just flipped over to that article. Its typical of the anti British sentiment found all over the place. Why on earth would you WANT to be topic banned? It plays into the hands of these control freaks found here and about. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Steven Zhang's choice, as to wether or not I remain topic-banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what, matey! Every time you slip up with some trivial edit on a British article, which any sensible person (note "sensible") wouldn't object to despite the topic ban, I'll undo your revert and put it right. I just did one for you now. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: If Constituent country were used at United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland & England; even as a linking article (example: ...a [Constituent country|constituent] country of the United Kingdom), many arguments would end. If I recall, the editors from Northern Ireland were content with 'constituent' being added. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I just looked. It IS like that at England Scotland and Wales. I was going to put it in for you at Northern Ireland and UK, but being an untrusted IP (unlike you anonymous users who skulk behind a login ID), I couldn't do it. Shame. Ne'er mind. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's currently, the wrong way at United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell me how you want it, I'll create an account, then go and do it. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia, as you would be seen as making proxy edits for me, on articles I'm banned from. Also, the devolutionist wouldn't let England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales' intros be changed to ...constituent country... part of the United Kingdom.... I've tried getting through that stonewall before & thus my current situation. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'll do it on my own violition. Off to create an account. Will get back later. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's gotten even worst at the intros of Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales as they've been linked to Country. Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ok buddy, I'm back, complete with anonymous account. Now, I just went over there but still couldn't edit those articles. Anyways, it seems ok to me at Country because the definition fits England, Northern Ireland Wales and Scotland. Tell me again what the problem is. SixtyNineSixtySix (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Country, has multiple meanings & is generally associated with sovereign states. Constituent country is more accurate, as it's defined as country within a country/sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Gotya! And I just looked it up at Constituent Country as well. I'll see what I can do. SixtyNineSixtySix (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, you are breaking your restriction, stop it ----Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edit any British and/or Irish articles. Any mistaken edits, were quickly reverted. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My memory may be faulty but I think you are topic banned. I think that includes your own talk page when you proactively take a position ----Snowded ^TALK 20:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was only for Arbitration restrictions. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Gday, GoodDay. Why don't you go tell 'em to boil their heads? SixtyNineSixtySix (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That comment illustrates why you shouldn't rise to the bait GoodDay. Especially if our new editor turns out to be disruptive. I don;t own the sanction, but I would check if I were you. I'd also suggest that giving 6966 encouragement is not going to help your case. S/he is a pretty obvious sock as well ----Snowded ^TALK 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant to mention it when I saw this earlier. Egging on another user about Quebecor → Québecor is exactly the sort of edit you agreed not to make. Please cease. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand you're upset with the discussion at WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, as it's not going your way. But that's no reason for you to start something else. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "upset" at all, please remember that other editors may not be as emotional about such trivial issues as you have been. 3 editors think one thing, 2 think another, it's a free world. I was going to mention the "Giggle" at Quebecor → Québecor when I noticed it but forgot. Please cease. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, IIO & concentrate on the MOS discussion. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, there are two possibilities with the above reply, either you are genuinely unable to understand that other editors, do not get "upset" etc. Or it's a little game to deflect attention. You have repeatedly broken your various topic bans - and you're doing it in the link above, and I'm saying to you please don't. At this point you should be saying, okay, I won't. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear from the link he is baiting anyone to do anything. LittleBenW has never edited there, and GD has only edited there twice: once to remove a space and once to add a comma. Neither has contributed anything at the article's talk page. The reality is that it seems you are trying to bait GD, and he is trying not to engage. Why don't you respect that? -Rrius (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent dialog @ Soviet Union article talk appears both petty and uninformed. If you're actually interested in some background on the issue of Baltic states continuity I'm happy to chat. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 06:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A few of you guys are going to end up with a topic-ban from those articles, if you continue pushing your revisonist PoV. Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were 3 of 15 Soviet republics from 1940 to 1991 & there's nothing any of you can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: Bashing me at the Soviet Union discussion, isn't going to change the Baltics past. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Your (looks like) spiteful stalking of Baltic topics and provocative crap editing needs to stop. I'm not in the habit of warning other editors, so have a spot of calming tea. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

When considering that other linguistic & political PoVs are be allowed across Wikipedia, I shouldn't be surprised that Baltic nationalists are being allowed to push their revisionist PoV on Soviet, Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I betcha you (Vecrumba) could put an AfD on Soviet Union, on the claim that it never really existed & the Afd would pass. Thus the fate I have in the community as a whole. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

<<SIGH>> Of course the USSR existed. You just don't know how to not be petty and prickish when you disagree with someone (my perception on the receiving end). That's not a good way to be either here on WP or in general. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What was the point of this, other than to try and re-inflame that argument? Your viewpoint is very well documented on that article already. Trolling the page is not helpful. Resolute 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm frustrated, peeved, angered, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously. But I am not sure how taking actions that lead nowhere but toward an indef block is an effective way to vent. Resolute 22:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the Baltics stuff. But, you're right. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There's something crazy going on here. Coren's 1-month block of me on August 3, 2012 has been reimposed. Can anyone out there, repair this Wiki-glitch? PS: Check my contributions, to further understand what I'm pointing to. GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've posted at AN/I. Hopefully it will get sorted out soon. Have you tried logging out and back in? or closing your browser and re-opening it? -Rrius (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've logged-out & back in, no change. What's a browser? GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Internet Explorer or Firefox or Chrome or whatever you happen to use to access the World Wide Web. -Rrius (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you mean, did I close MSN & re-open it? then yep. No change. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• See ANI#Zombie block for post by Rrius and response. LittleBen (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you need to add ((unblock-auto)) to get attention. -Rrius (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a problem though. I don't know who blocked me. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just copy that template and paste below here somewhere. You only need to know the blocker if you are trying to email them. -Rrius (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather reluctant to reveal my IP address. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What message do you get when you try to edit an article? Resolute 13:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In big 'red' letters, it says You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. BTW, the blocking editor is DerHexer, the blocking reason - meta:No open proxies. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On roughly 4 or 5 occassions (in the last 3yrs), whenever I went to the Wikipedia page? There'd be a 'gold bar/message' show up before I logged in. The message sent, was always on my IP address. Is that connected with this weird block? GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That would mean you are editing from an open proxy that has been blocked. We block them on sight as they tend to be used primarily for abuse. You need to either edit directly from your own IP, or use a proxy that is not open to anyone to use anonymously. As I don't know the IP, I can't research it further to confirm his findings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If I reveal the IP address, witch DerHexler blocked in April 20, 2008? Will I get a new IP address? GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. IPs are assigned by your ISP, not us. Let me leave a msg to DerHexer, pointing him here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask a question that might help things along: GoodDay, do you know what an open proxy is? -Rrius (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Notified. That doesn't mean he isn't using one on someone else's computer, or maybe it was a faulty block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Which leads to a new question: GoodDay, whose computer are you using? If your own, have you installed anything since your last successful login? -Rrius (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's my own computer & I haven't installed anything since my last successful login. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This block is weird. The IP address-in-question was indef-blocked by DerHexer, at 20:54 on April 20, 2008. Now, after nearly 5yrs, it kicked in? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No clear cache in five years Basket _Feudalist 14:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It always kicks in if any user uses it. But I lifted the blocks. Are you able to edit now? If not, please send me a wikimail with the IP you're using and I'll unblock it. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm unblocked, thanks. BTW, can you fix it so that I'm the only user on that IP address? GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Could it be that this was a proxy IP 5 years ago, but is now a regular IP currently owned by GoodDay's ISP, and that GoodDay got this IP assigned to him just now? This is exactly why we normally don't block ip's indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone here & at ANI, for helping me out :) GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

An Arbitration amendment request in which you were named as a party has been closed and a motion passed, you can view the final amendment request and motion here. The Abirtration Committee has resolved to ban User:GoodDay from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

In remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, GoodDay (talk · contribs) was warned that "in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee". It is apparent from the submissions in this amendment request that GoodDay has engaged in further violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies. Accordingly, GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Why am I still able to edit? GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc isn't an admin so can't do the block themselves. I have taken care of that for them, good luck GoodDay. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify. My 2 post-ban edits, weren't a breach, but rather a test to see if I was blocked. I had suspected a Wiki-glitch & wanted to point it out. I had assumed that such bans were accompanied by automatic blocks. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. Please be advised I have filed an amendment request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_GoodDay that requires your attention. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That hurts, big time :( GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I reached out to the admin who delegated me the ability to lift and apply your B&I topic ban to see if there was any flexibility for me to make changes to it, but they advised the only course of action would be to go to RFAR, so that's what I've done. If you're topic banned in one area the solution is not to continue similar behaviour somewhere else. I've thought about it for a while but I think it'd be wise for ArbCom to look over this and decide on what the best course of action is. The worst case scenario is you will be banned. It's a horrible thing to happen - I've been there. I was banned back in 2008 for six months, and it was an awful experience, but I came back and my perspective of things changed, and eventually I turned into what I am now. The evidence is pretty strong, so I would suggest you make a statement at RFAR and see what they say. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm too tired to argue 'here' or 'there', Steven. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I just fixed another one for you. Quite right to self revert that highly controversial, pov-riden, white space removal. Nevermind, it's okie dokie now. SixtyNineSixtySix (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

;) GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Sunset

I don't know what's going to happen to me on Wikipedia. Will Arbcom site-ban me? Will Arbcom hand my case over to the Wiki-community? Whatever they choose, I won't protest.

As for me, I'm going to continue to do here, what I love best, --gnome edits-- like 'reducing white space', 'adjusting image sizes', 'fixing spelling mistakes' etc etc. Things that rarely get noticed. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

All you have to do is consider WP as a learning experience. Contrary to what my detractors maintain, I've changed a lot of my views since starting to seriously edit on WP and taking the time to properly research topics, that is, read real books by authors acknowledged to be experts in their fields, not just to look for spot quotes to support my predisposed or simplistic notions. Whether you choose to bury the hatchet properly or to hang on to it to assault your editorial opposition is your choice, no one else's. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As to my own advice, GoodDay, if this is going to be your sum response to what is happening, then the end result will be a one-year site ban. If you want to continue gnoming, then you need to be willing to step up and accept the arguments made about how your behaviour in these debates is counterproductive, and you need to simply step away from the drama realms entirely. My advice, if you do this and elude a ban now, is to take any page that has drama off your watchlist. AN, ANI, Jimbo's talk page, Komarov, etc. You just get yourself worked up when you go into these areas, and you just get yourself into trouble. There's a lot of gnoming to be done, and for someone like you, it can be a relaxing and useful activity. But not if you keep going into these controversial areas. Resolute 02:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but "I just want to continue on with my gnoming & nothing more" wont be enough this time. The arbs are going to be looking for a statement where you acknowledge why your behaviour in these areas is problematic, and probably how you will avoid it in the future. That's your only path to an opportunity to continue gnoming and nothing more. Resolute 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think you have about a day to write something which shows you understand and accept the various issues. Its not longer enough just to say you won't do it again under threat of a block. If you want help then I'm happy to try - phone call if you want, email me or here. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A request to Arbcom

Please allow the Canadian flag to remain on my Userpage, whenever you place the 'banning template' there. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, is this for real??? Pull yourself together GoodDay!! I told you the best course of action but you deleted it. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't breach WP:CIVIL. I wish Steven would've taken his request to the Wiki-community, but he didn't. The Arbitrators can only rule by what they're given. I've peeved too many editors, too often. In otherwords, it's all my fault. I did this to me. I f--ked up. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well there are some real drongos who impose their pov on Wikipedia in the B&I area to such an extent that the articles they attack are now useless. This means that Wikipedia can't be trusted to provide accurate, unbiased information. And I guess it's the same in loads of other areas. These drongos get away with it, and are even thanked for their efforts (you know who I'm talking about. I've got two really difficult cases that immediately come to mind and several other jackasses who are not much better), and on they go, riddling the place with disgusting pov and innacuracies. Do they get a site ban? No. The hyenas over at that arbom page (what sort of moron hangs around there?) leave them be. They pick on you, with 100k plus edits to the good. That's why you should fuck 'em off, right now. Walk away this very minute, and reincarnate yourself - clean start, what! - in a few months. One thing that will really piss off these bottom feeders is if they suddenly get no further response from you. You owe it to yourself. Don't listen to those other stupid fuckers and follow my advice, cos you're going to get site banned, or I'll show my arse on national tv. Do it now! Good luck. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I will not evade (via sock-puppetry) any ban that comes my way. I'm an honest editor. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You are being a bit hasty and letting your immediate emotional reaction get the better of you. My advice would be to request a month's delay during which time you will adopt a self-imposed ban. After the month, you can come back and if you still feel the way you do now, so be it. Otherwise, you can open a dialogue with the Committee to see if there is another way to address the issues short of year+ ban. From my reading of the discussion there, they seem ready to have that discussion, but your current attitude (again, the result of your current emotional state) leaves them little choice. Self-imposed exile might do you a world of good. And the worst they can say to this proposal is no. -Rrius (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've presented your Self-imposed exile idea to the arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Per my other comments I think you need to add something to that to indicate how you will behave at the end of the month. You might offer to have anything that might be considered controversial checked first by mediators (you can probably get 2/3 people to agree to do this, myself Jeanne etc). The real problem is that you are not evidencing any learning from what has happened. You need to directly address the specific question asked by NewYorkBrad and avoid the one off comments (like the one you just posted) ----Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I need yours & many others help, if I'm given a chance by Arbcom to continue on Wikipedia. I neeed more help & patiences from all of you, now more then ever. I need all your support, to succeed at this. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you will need to reflect everytime you make an edit, even gnome-like ones. Stop and think whether it would be controversial or disruptive. Reading respective article's talk pages before editing would be wise just to see if you might be going against consensus. I would be willing to help you. Deep down GoodDay, I feel you need to be on the creative end of the project. I have offered in the past to help you create articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Creating articles is a huge challenge for me. But, I do come across 'red-links' & so I can start from there. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps above all, you would need to stop making comments - on anything - that are based on your personal opinion, whether it's about UK / Ireland matters, diacritics, hockey, Baltic states, or anything else. That is what drags you into responding, and into trouble. Even when you think something is obviously right, or uncontentious, it often isn't, and you need to recognise that. If you are content to be a gnome, removing whitespace, etc., where it is uncontentious, you will need to limit yourself to that - and not get drawn into discussion that spirals out of control. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In agreement.. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching the Amendments page, and I read about your situation there some days ago. I came here to say I bear you no ill will for all our disagreements over diacritics. I was sorry and a bit surprised, but a quick read of the comments above is enough for me to understand why you are so deep in the brown stuff. Seeing your difficulties here, I suspect that you may be experiencing similar issues in real life. My suggestion to you, if you seriously wish to improve yourself in real life and some day return to WP and edit productively, is that you would benefit greatly by learning first and foremost to listen. That doesn't mean you bow down to everyone who you come across, but that you carefully evaluate what they say and why they are saying that. The world doesn't change to suit us, and we all need to find ways and niches to fit into life. Perhaps trough listening (to others as well as yourself) you will find your niche. Challenge yourself into realising which part of your world view needs to change. You will find what makes you truly happy; you will become a better and happier person. You will be more productive when you return to Wikipedia. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 14:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I peak in for roughly an hour per day. It's not nice to be wiki-exiled, but I'll survive. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it hurts. Hopefully you will come out of this experience a better individual and better editor. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was sorry to learn that you have been banned. I don't really know anything about what led to this happening and also don't want to know. I hope you will be able to make a drama-free return to editing when you are allowed to ask for reinstatement. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 17:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully accept Arbcom's decision & have already resolved to reform my behaviour/conduct. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clamping down on all us veteran editos. All my photos are being nominated for deletion. This place is turning into Stasi. Fuck them all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Best thing for ya to do, is remain calm & cooperate. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry that this has happened. You are a very good person, honest, forthright, and kind. I wish you the best. The Un-Named One. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.94.55.98 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, I'm still able to sign-in & enjoy reading articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes a break is a good thing. Best of luck in your year in the woods. Resolute 14:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Only the Wiki-community can persuade Arbcom to reduce the ban to six-months or repeal entirely. Oh well, at least I can still peak in, on the goings on. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you will find other interesting pastimes, whether away from the computer or possibly in other online venues. You might enjoy participating in various Internet bulletin boards, for example, or perhaps you'd like to start your own personal blog, or set up an account on a social networking site. Good luck in your future efforts! isaacl (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect inner tranquility and contentment will take quite a while, don't be discouraged. And you may realize some things are more, not less, complicated than you would like to believe. Best of luck. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discouraged for myself. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions are invaluable and I am sorry that it has all come down to this. Good luck in your future endeavours! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I still peak in on a daily basis. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Good Luck to you. As user Jeanne Boleyn said above... it's a different wiki today and the new blood, with their different ways of thinking, have little tolerance for the old ways. If I'm still around, I'll keep my eyes open for you in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of our English-only readers, I wish you good luck in your fight for accuracy on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Until atleast April 2014, just call me Mitchell Chaplin :) -- GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You were a good adversary, I'm sorry to see you go. 117Avenue (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's always sad to see a long term editor getting blocked for so long. 92.41.251.244 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

So long, and thanks for all the fish

GoodDay Au revoir, You have my sympathy and best wishes. You'll be missed. As will your contributions. "Thanks for the fish" (video). Retrieved April 27, 2013.. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Piotrus In this particular case, the answer is fairly self evident. See the top of this page. N^oformation ^Talk 22:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Since one year has elapsed since GoodDay was banned, I have reenabled his ability to edit his talkpage, so he can post any request for the lifting or modification of his ban. No comment on the merits of any such request, or whether it should be decided by the ArbCom or the community. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to me that since this is an ArbCom ban, it's the Committee that will review the appeal request. We are aware of the appeal (see below). Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Arbcom.

• I solemly promise to 'never again' create or engage in drama.
• I shall not accuse any editors of having any ulterior motives.
• All editors are here to help & improve Wikipedia, therefore I shall AGF always.
• I hereby will 'never again' engage in 'edit wars' or 'edit spats'.
• When in any discussion on an article, I shall provide 'sources', instead of merely giving my personal opinion.
• There will be no more skirting around my 'Diacritics restriction' or my 'British/Irish topic ban'.
• When consensus is against me, I will accept the result & move on.
• I will control my 'temper', adopting the practice of 'stepping back'.
• I will not blame others, for my own troubles.
• I shall not follow editors around.
• Everyday, I shall strive to improve Wikipedia, in full cooperation with the community.
• We are a community & providing a welcoming, friendly working enviroment, is benefical to all.

I thank you (Arbcom) in advance, for reviewing my application. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: I can't go through WP:BASC, as I don't have email. I don't know how to set one up :( GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've sent an email to arbcom-l flagging this for their attention. Courcelles 16:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. Do you know if Arbcom has reviewed my application? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been missed. Good luck and godspeed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. Shouldn't you be using the unblock template? Maybe you've emailed ArbCom, but if not, you may be waiting a long time before they read your appeal. And anyway, after 12 months you shouldn't have to agree to anything out of the ordinary in terms of restrictions. You've been off for a year now. You should be back on with the same terms as a new editor, IMHO. Good luck. 82.31.27.208 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock templates aren't for banned editors. Also, I don't have email & so I'm not able to contact Arbcom in that manner. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've alerted ArbCom to your appeal here. Fair warning, they do tend to operate rather slowly. Resolute 16:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Going on 3 weeks, now. TBH, I'm getting a tad discouraged :( GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. - I happened to mention courage in a different context today, and please feel included on top of that page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well GD, they either aren't listening, they can't read, or they just haven't got your message. There are three things you could do.

1) Email arbcom. You must have some email access somewhere. Here's the address: arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org

2) Put this template on your user page: ((adminhelp)).

3) Try the unblock ticket request system, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System

Okay, users banned by Arbcom can't just put up an unblock request, but you can ask for assistance using the 3 routes shown here. Wowsers! PeterPunch (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost a month

Getting more discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

But what are you doing about it? Don't rely on dysfunctional Arbcom watching this page.PeterPunch (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay I understand you get impatient, but I think it's fairly standard that the committee works slooowly (Resolute warned about this above), so I don't think you should interprete it as a bad sign. Don't lose heart, yet. Since you last edited here, Wikipedia has got a new notification system; you might try to ping Courcelles or some other ArbCom member (just don't overdo it). You can read about notifications here. (And please don't get into the frustated-with-the-Arbcom-mood that Peter encourages, cause that will definititely not help you). Best wishes, Iselilja (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not being critical of Arbcom. I realize they're often busy. It's just that I feel so helpless, particulary when there's alot of articles falling behind, due to lack of updates. Some of those articles haven't been updated in over 50 weeks. Knowing I can help out & not being able to, isn't easy for me. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

C'mon Iselilja, I'm not suggesting he gets into any mood. Arbcom are hardly busy, so if they can't deal with this straightforward case in such an amount of time, well, that's dysfunctional in my book. And I don't think GD is helping himself to be heard. PeterPunch (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I didn't mean to be negative to you Peter; I apologize if my words came out wrongly. I mentioned the new notification system as a possible way to get a little contact with some arbcom members. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No offense taken :) PeterPunch (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I really hope you get back so you can update those pages, GoodDay. You might have mentioned that in your appeal, but hopefully they know that you normally do such editing. Iselilja (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Iselilja ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back partner.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, JoJ. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'm totally surprised you came back at all. I would think that after a whole year you would have resolved to find more useful things to with your time. It's too late for me because I'm addicted. I can't help myself. Lol. As much as it's worth, I wasn't in favor of your ban. Unfortunately everything happened before I had a chance to speak my mind, not that I would have made a difference anyway. I think a bit of drama is good for Wikipedia every once in a while. It keeps everyone honest. You know how boring these articles would be to read if we didn't butt heads with each other every now and then? As the soup nazi says, NO MORE DRAMA FOR YOU THOUGH. Take care. JOJ ^Hutton 21:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't be nearly as prolific & I'll be staying away from any drama. During my time away, I've learned (strangely enough) that my concerns tend to get adopted, when I'm not the messenger. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Canadian gnome
Thank you, veteran editor who overcame your "initial shyness ..., eager to learn", for gnomishly updating Hockey seasons and improving biographies, for being a "staunch opponent of 'Edit Warring'" and the promise "... I shall AGF always", for providing a nightmare on request and for your kind of poems, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah shucks. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, and welcome back! I saw your comments at the Canadian Wikipedian's Notice Board, and while I agree completely, I wanted to suggest something. If content like that has been around for a long time (as I believe this has), then you'd have to build consensus to remove it. Starting a discussion off by ordering removal stands a good chance of putting off potential commenters - or even causing them to oppose with the potential of becoming embroiled in an argument. In a cases like these, it would be more beneficial to start a topic with "I think we should remove/add/change x, and here are my reasons", then ask for further comment. Just a thought. Cheers! Resolute 13:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged, conditions understood. Thanks Arbcom, for this second chance. GoodDay (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So, welcome back. See you around. PeterPunch (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter Punch. GoodDay (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A good day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I am very happy that you can edit again. You are a great person, this place needs you ... Best wishes. The Un-Named One — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.38.118 (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt & the Un-named one :) GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Good wishes, GoodDay! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In celebration of your return and my retirement from WP. Sorry it has taken awhile to welcome you back! Strength & Honor, old friend! Raul17 (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're retiring due to frustration with Wikipedia? I suggest you don't. Look at me, I'm still here :) GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to keep biting my tongue! The past year has been trying. Raul17 (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The best solution for Wiki-stress, is cutting down on Wiki-time. In my case, I was too prolific. GoodDay (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a good ideal. Since European football, hockey and basketball are about over, I could cut back on my quality time here! I guess I do have a bad case of WP-burnout! Raul17 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)