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.

I noticed that there's a bit of a disagreement over the simple capitalization of the word president. I like you, so please don't get yourself into a position that you can't get out of again. Personally, I don't know who is right just yet, but let the discussion run it's course. Good luck. JOJ ^Hutton 01:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm putting those articles back the way they were. I don't understand why John Adams was/is being made different from the others, bu I'm walking away from it. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good for you. It's not worth it in the end.JOJ ^Hutton 01:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a tip: have a look at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Delaying or preventing archiving of particular threads to see how to keep a particular thread from being archived. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Isaacl. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Brian Gionta and the Habs. Unless it is blatant vandalism, it is sometimes not a bad idea to let a minor edit like that stand for a while, let the dust settle, then go back and make corrections in a few hours if necessary. Getting into edit wars and stressing yourself out seems to be somewhat counterproductive. Resolute 17:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's rather moot, now. He's just signed with the Sabres :) GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is premature to be listing the alternate captains for the upcoming NHL season. There is no guarantee that the "A" will be retained by the player who wore it last season, and most teams will not announce their alternate captains until the start of the regular season. Dolovis (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Seen them listed on the other 2014-15 NHL team season articles, so figured it wouldn't be harmful for all of them. TBH, neither the captaincies or alternate captaincies of any teams are certain for next season. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the alternates from those teams which currently have no captain, as any of the previous alternates 'might' be named a captain in 2014-15. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that you reference MOS:IMAGES when resizing pictures to 300px. From my reading of that page and this one that applies only to Lead images. The picture at Yeshivah_Gedolah_of_Johannesburg does not meet the definition of a lead image in my opinion. Michael Sandler (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought it did qualify as a top-image. Anyways, I'll revert my change. PS- I believe I will slow down my pace of resizing top-images to 300px. Vast changes across articles, are generally discouraged on this project. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be more beneficial to have a list of incumbents article in the 'see also' section of these pages, as opposed to listing them all in the 2014 in the United States or 2015 in the United States article. The federal makes sense (Who's President, Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, ect...), but each state's Governor or Lt. Governor becomes a bit tedious and a distraction from what the article was intended to be, which is what occurred during the year. The United States is just too big to be that meticulous, don't you think? As for elections, the major elections can be mentioned, but if a user wanted all information, then they could just go to that specific article to learn more. I'm very much anti-clutter when it comes to these sort of pages, it's just the way I edit. I want them to be easy to read. (Tigerghost (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC))

They're listed in every Year in the United States article, beginnning with 1787. If you want to propose deletion, I'll support it. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - seems the following blockquote may be relevant =>

Copied from "Talk:2014 in the United States#This is just getting silly":
August 18, 2014

 Done - *entirely* agree - removed several listings [from the "2014 in the United States" article] - per talk discussion - seems better - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - seems the notion of including lists of "Incumbents" (including "Governors" and [a bit later] "Lieutenant Governors") began with the "1787 in the United States" article (but apparently not for the years before this date) - one alternative to removing the listings outright may be to "hide/show" (with appropriate coding) the listings instead - one example of such coding is here =>

Governors and Lieutenant Governors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Example - "Governors" Listing Name - A Name - B Name - C Example - "Lieutenant Governors" Listing Name - A Name - B Name - C

Governors and Lieutenant Governors
Example - "Governors" Listing Name - A Name - B Name - C Example - "Lieutenant Governors" Listing Name - A Name - B Name - C

Comments (and/or other ideas) welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It is very amazing that people are still picking at old sores! Keep taking the high road, my friend!! Raul17 (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do, bud :) GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, thanks for the support. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No prob :) GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

An infobox is not a reliable source. If the information in the infobox is also poorly sourced, it should be deleted, not duplicated. Pburka (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I checked the source in the infobox & believed it to be reliable. If you wish to remove the source & dates from both the intro & infobox, I won't protest. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Inserting a C comment in an AB conversation, if the information in the infobox is poorly sourced, why was it placed there? Did not know you were a tennis fan! Cheers! Raul17 (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not a tennis fan :) GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you look at this ngram? Any detailed discussion of the party drops the anachronisms and calls it "Republicans" or "Republican Party," at least after the first reference. See DAH, a standard reference work on American history. La crème de la crème (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In its day, the party was often call the Republican Party. It's known as the Democratic-Republican Party retroactively, so that it's not confused with the current Republican Party. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I calculate that on gscholar since 2000 the party is referred to as D-R only once in every seven mentions. (Compare here and here.) So there seems to be a psychological block going on. When readers see "Jeffersonian Republicans," they think, "That's just a description." When they see "Republicans", they think, "That's just an abbreviated form." But when they see "D-R," they think, "Bingo! That's the real name!" So no matter how many times the party is referred to by other names, they still remember D-R. La crème de la crème (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to request moving the article to Republican Party (United States, 1791-1825). GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was saying that I respectfully disagreed with you that those were the only grounds (vandalism, sockpuppetry, threats) for site-bans. However, as you will notice, I didn't support the site-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No prob. I've withdrew from that ANI discussion anyways :) GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this question that was posed to you—just a suggestion: I think it would be best if you would avoid getting into a long discussion on this topic. Not because of how anyone else would react (I think you may be overestimating what potential effect this may have, if any), but because you seem to be overly focusing on various negative interactions you experienced. In actuality, you had (and I believe continue to have) a number of supporters of your points of view; the problem was that you engaged in edit warring. The editing community, for better or worse, is unable to agree upon standards for amicable behaviour, but edit warring has a direct impact on readers and the ability to hold any discussions at all about a proposed change, and so a clear consensus on reacting to edit warring has arisen. I think you've already made your opinion clear regarding the influence of an editor's supporters, so I suggest that there isn't any further need to express this point within the current discussion threads. isaacl (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never breached 3RR. Anyways, there's nothing further for me to add to the discussion-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As you are aware, edit warring can occur without breaching the three-revert rule; in particular, slow edit wars can take place spaced out over months. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

My probation expires May 21, 2015. I'd rather not discuss this topic any further, alright? :) GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to your question on WT:AN, assuming you're referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#GoodDay_topic-banned_from_diacritics the answer would be WP:ARCA (amendment request). If I may offer advice in addition to answering your question -- I advise against it at this point. Let your other restriction (the probation) expire before pursuing lifting the diacritic ban -- I sincerely believe you'll need a drama free year before folks will be willing to lift the ban, and a premature request tends to reset the clock. By that I mean asking unsuccessfully asking now will make it less likely a request will be successful next spring. NE Ent 16:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hope you are keeping well. A pity we no longer banter the way we used to. Wikipedia's got very dull.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Howdy. I fear my bantering days are over. I suspect I'm on alot of editors watchlists, these days. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You were mentioned here regarding the hasty block on Ihardlythinkso. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend (for IHTS's sake) that you don't challenge his block. I know from personal expierence, that it's best to let it run its course. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The MoS you cited say for lead image

Size

• "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than "upright=1.8" (defaults to 400 pixels) wide; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. e.g.

[[File:Example.png|thumb|upright=1.2|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

• Alternatively, a fixed size can be specified in the form |XXXpx, where XXX is replaced by a number of pixels, although this should be avoided where possible, since it overrides the user's default. For example:

  [[File:Example.png|thumb|120px|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

  • As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding.
  • Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px").

This means 300px is quite OK. Actually most lead images are 300px. Regards. Hafspajen (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

These image rules are a pain. GoodDay (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's equally a pain when someone tries to enforce "250px" on an image already formatted with "upright=1.2", especially when the guideline referred to states that fixing the pixel width "should be avoided where possible, since it overrides the user's default." Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen and SamBlob, I reverted GoodDay here, citing 220px as the general rule. I don't see that most lead images are 300px. 220px is the general rule for a valid reason. And it seems because of this discussion, GoodDay is now going around changing lead images to be above 220px. This should not be done without valid reason. GoodDay, why do you feel that you need to go from article to article deciding on the size of the lead image? Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, this talk page is currently on my WP:Watchlist, so there is currently no need to ping me back to it via WP:Echo. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of this images matter, I saw Ryulong here, here and here minutes ago stating, "per MOS:IMAGES should not force image size and let template take care of it." And looking at his recent contributions, he's been tweaking other articles in this regard as well. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a user evading his block and reinforcing deprecated formats so I'm following him around and restoring the pages to what they were before he edited them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Ryulong. Very quick response. If it's not clear from above, I was simply citing you as an example of those of us who stick to the general rule on this matter. I don't mind forgoing it at times, though. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes set a size on their own so it just seems pointless to make sure that it stretches to the full width, or stretches the template beyond its default.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've decided to leave top-image sizes alone, as there's simply too much confusion/hassle over it. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Progressive Conservative Party of Prince Edward Island leadership election, 2015 for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Crazy131 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

For continuing attention to the Rauner page, to ensure that exuberant supporters do not jump the gun with declarations, or give short shrift to WP policies regarding BLP sourcing. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No prob. In future, we should consider seeking a 'blanket' semi-protection of these articles on election days :) GoodDay (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please let me finish reversion to earlier text before returning your edits, thank you. PLease also feet free to initiate the needed protection. I feel a war is brewing here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No prob. There's so many misguided (but well meaning) IPs, during these events :) GoodDay (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give you a hard time or anything, but Orrin Hatch was named as President pro tempore-designate, which automatically goes to the senior member of the (soon to be in this case) controlling party, which the reference from the Salt Lake Tribune confirms. Once the new senate is sworn in, he will take the "designate" part off of the title.

John Boehner is already Speaker of the House, and since his party retained and even increased control of the House, that won't change (the vote is a formality).

So there's no "TBD" in either case...Hatch has been publicly named pro-temp (to be), and Boehner is retaining a title he already has.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Neither individual has been elected (re-elected) to these positions, yet. Though it's highly likely that they will be, it's still crystal-balling to claim they've already been. Anyways, it's not something I'm willing to get into a possible long-drawn out dispute over. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree about WP:Crystalball. Hatch was already named as pro temp-designate, as he is the senior member of the (soon to be) controlling party. There's no "election" for that...senior member of the majority automatically gets it. No crystal balling there...it's on record with a source to back it up. Boehner is already Speaker, so unless he gets hit by a bus, nothing will change. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

According to the US Constitution, the full Senate votes for the president pro tempore & the full House votes for the Speaker. In January, there'll be 2 candidates for each post, most likely Leahy vs Hatch & Pelosi vs Boehner. These are just formality votes with foregone conclusions, but never the less, they occur. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I know about those kind of elections. I thought you were referring to broader elections. My point is this...when there's a million and one sources out there saying Boehner will return as Speaker, and Hatch is pro temp-designate (I never said he was currently pro-temp, only that he will be when the new congress is sworn in), i just feel that it insults people's intelligence to put TBA in the slot when as you say they're forgone conclusions. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To show that I'll respect the fact that since the actual vote hasn't happened yet (even though it's merely a formality) I labeled as "presumptive" both Hatch and Boehner. I feel this is a better compromise, as "TBD" makes it sound like there's some doubt (when there is none according to all reports), but also respecting the (very) long shot chance something may go awry (as someone who recently went through a million-to-one scenario here on Wikipedia - don't ask - I do have to acknowledge the tiny shred of doubt, but not to the point where it sounds like a real toss-up). Vjmlhds (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the best approach :) Remember the House speaker that never was (Bob Livingston)? -- GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

On 11 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Florence Nagle, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Florence Nagle and Norah Wilmot were among the first women licensed as racehorse trainers in Britain, after Nagle won a Court of Appeal ruling in 1966? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Nagle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to all the editors who worked on this article :) GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? I know you did this last month, but it wasn't a formal consensus discussion, but now it is. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User/ NamParks Project. Since you had some involvement with the User/ NamParks Project redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. See here. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

For being such a sensible individual!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Carol :) GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement was previously filed regarding Eric, resulting in his restriction in participating in the RfA process, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics topic banned Carolmooredc from the subject under scrutiny in that case. isaacl (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh no. That's not good :( GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Just some advice: I suggest you don't need to repeat yourself on the proposed decision talk page. You've stated your views several times now; rest assured you've been heard. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In agreement. I can only hope that the Arbs will heed my advice. Even now, the divisions are hardening at that talkpage & no decision has been made yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If it had been up to me? all involved parties would've been given each a 3-month topic ban, from GGTF. But, it's not up to me :( GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, a friendly pointer. Your latest comment on Mooretwins Arb review is *exactly* the type of comment you were asked not to do. It adds nothing to the discussion, doesn't refer to anything that has happened in the discussion, or point out anything useful, and is explicitly your opinion. Comments like these are likely to push the discussion off-topic, which is why they are frowned upon. Just my 2c. You really have to stop treating Talk pages like personal commentary spaces. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch there, HighKing. I've removed the comment-in-question. PS: Thanks for looking out for me ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable! What sanctions you under GoodDay? How comes you have to watch your every word and are basically muted from expressing any sort of opinion on anything at all. Everyone else though, they can say what they like about anything. The comment immediately above yours is shit of the bull. Ignore. PeterPunch (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Howdy PeterPunch. It has to be this way :) GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. You have as much right to say your stuff as these wiki-nannies like Highking have. Get on over to his page and give him a bit of "friendly" advice. See how he likes that. 20:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)PeterPunch (talk)

I shall continue to abide by Arbcom's ruling & be thankful for their giving me a second chance. I'm reformed. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicely does it. PeterPunch (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well answered GoodDay. And no probs watching for you either. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness to you and all your loved ones from ```Buster Seven Talk 08:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks & a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you, Buster 7 :) GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike Cammalleri is listed as an Alternate Captain replacing Travis Zajac who's on IR: Devils at Pittsburgh & Devils at Toronto. He also was wearing the A the Isles, but Zajac was scratched: Devils at Islanders

I know the rule is not to list replacements for short-term injuries, but to be placed on Injured Reserve means that player has a long-term injury. I think it's better to list only replacements if the captains are out for the year. Thanks! Raul17 (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What does the NHL team's website show? If a replacement is listed there, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Islanders' website is not reliable. Several years ago, Doug Weight, Mike Sillinger, and Richard Park were sharing an Alternate when Bill Guerin was Captain & Brendan Witt was the full time Alternate. The Captains that year were Guerin and Witt with Park & Sillinger alternating between home & road games repectively. Sillinger was injured. I assumed that Park & Witt were the Alternates until I attended a game NCVMC and saw Weight wearing an A!! The website did not list Weight as an Alternate. When Sillinger returned to the line-up, either he, Park or Weight would be an Alternate home or away. Even after Guerin was traded, Weight was never listed on the roster as an Alternate nor was there any story that he was part of the rotation. That was when I discovered that the Game Day roster posted scratches (which also indicates if player was on Injured Reserve) and shown the captains each game. But like I said before, I do not know what WP considers a long term injury. Happy Holidays! Raul17 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You can do as you wish, of course. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've suggested a poll on the Maxwell talk page. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That's up to you folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Purely on a side issue, wouldn't you wonder why the British government bothered to ask the national identity question on the 2011 census? You'd think that they were inviting opposition to the British identity. No state, other than a state that is trying to commit suicide, deliberately places a question mark over its own identity. Asking a question like that, to British people within a British census, virtually invites them to give their regional identity. I am however aware that there does exist a school of thought within England that wants to be English as opposed to British. I met one once. I doubt however that there is any groundswell opinion amongst the population as a whole to reject the British identity, and at any rate, until such times if ever that this does happen, British people remain British whether they like it or not, and wikipeda is obliged to stick with the facts and not to act as a vehicle for the likes of editor FF-UK to promote his own conclusions about the census data in order to promote his cause of burying British nationality. Editor FF-UK needs to be picked up on original research and political cause pushing. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll need a consensus to make the changes that you want. Past experiences tells me that consensus will be near impossible to achieve. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm more fascinated now with the fact that a consensus is actually required at all in order to prevent people from pushing political causes. I'm very disappointed in the response and it doesn't give a very good impression of the system. I stumbled across this dispute a few days ago and I decided to put the facts on the table, thinking that perhaps there had been a misunderstanding. I see now that there is an editor FF-UK who is breaking the rules on both original research and cause pushing, and getting away with it. Even the whole idea of an RFC is bizarre in the context. It's like having an RFC to decide whether France is in Europe or on the Moon. But if they do have one, it will be interesting to see what happens, although I fear the worst. It will almost certainly attract a certain type who will want to over rule the status quo and bury British nationality. That consensus will then be upheld to decree that British nationality no longer exists. Will the BBC then feel obliged to follow suit? Will British passports disappear and Scottish embassies start appearing in foreign cities all because a consensus of editors on wikipedia assure us that British nationality does not exist? It takes a special kind of person to crusade to bury British nationality, but it seems that they do exist. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand your growing frustration. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's see how they deal with the riddle of the missionary James Laidlaw Maxwell. English or Scottish? Or British? 109.152.249.9 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

One of many UK bio articles which oddily enough, exclude British/United Kingdom usage. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

They seem to be more interested in writing his name in Chinese, as if he were anything but British. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently so :) GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

James Laidlaw Maxwell always interested me, because while the Presbyterian Church is strongly associated with Scotland, Maxwell being a Scotsman himself actually brought the English Presbyterian church to Taiwan. When he got there, he clashed with a Canadian (of Scottish parentage) who was trying to bring the Scottish Presbyterian church to Taiwan. Maxwell persuaded George Leslie Mackay to keep his Scottish Presbyterian church to the north of Taiwan, while Maxwell would promote the English Presbyterian church in the South of Taiwan. I'm sure though that the local Taiwanese at the time saw both of these men as British, and indeed under the law at the time, even the Canadian one was indeed a British subject only. Canadian citizenship didn't come into existence until 1947. These men were all British nationals, but its never mentioned in the articles. They were British missionaries to China. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

n fact, in Mackay's case they have not only hidden his Britishness. They have also hidden his Scottishness. They have done a 'Canadian first' on him, even though Canadian citizenship didn't exist until 1947. That Canadian Presbyterian church that they talk about, to the best of my knowledge, was a Church of Scotland that was started up in Nova Scotia. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's how it's done. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Accepting consensus or lack thereof

I hope you & Martin Hogbin, will be able to accept the results at WP:Village Pump & the Nationality Essay page. It's highly likely that there'll be no consensus for what you both want & thus the status quo will continue. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a lesson on mob rule. Is that what you meant by the crash course? 109.152.249.9 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

By 'crash course', I was pointing out that you need to learn how to indent your posts, properly. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I doubt I'll be around on these pages much longer. It was a very interesting lesson. The system is open to domination by nationalists and anti-British elements, once they join forces with the eclectics. I stumbled on this by accident when looking up James Laidlaw Maxwell and I thought I could give a helping hand. I wonder would the ones who argue that a historical identity trumps a modern state identity argue in favour of listing George Leslie Mackay's nationality as British? Or would we suddenly see a case of double standards? Would it all be trumped by an over riding philosophy of 'anything but British'? At least I now feel more confident about warning people as regards the reliability of wikipedia articles. Consensus overrules truth? Not the basis for a reliable encyclopaedia.109.152.249.9 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. We already know that verifiability matters more than truth - so says Jimbo - a very strange philosophy, and as you say, often it's a case that consensus overrules it as well. Wikipedia is fantastic, it's massive, and it can be useful, but in the final analysis you just can't trust it. Pity. PeterPunch (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No one ever said Wikipedia was fair or commonsense. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See my friendly advice given at the Village Pump discussion, concerning voting & how it was counter-manded? That's just the way it is & one should just not bother. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The interesting thing was the manner in which so many editors came forth and baulked at the whole concept of nationality, and at British nationality in particular. They cited examples such as Kurds and Armenians who may not want to consider themselves Turkish, as if that same reasoning automatically applies to historical British subjects like James Laidlaw Maxwell. They simply presumed without question that historical British figures would reject their British identity on the same basis that an ethnic Pole would reject a Russian identity. It was a massive display of ducking and obfuscation, all in the name of burying British nationality. British nationality is a reality, and examples were given of its widespread use on yesterday's BBC news, but that was completely ignored. The conclusion is that these editors are a mixture of separatists, anti-British elements, and eclectics, and that while British nationality as a concept is very much alive in the media, it is forbidden on wikipedia. The final result is that we have a guideline which promotes the use of nationality in the info box of a biography, while at the same time there is strenuous resistance to any attempts to define what the term means. I would say that if they refuse to allow the term to be defined, then it must be removed from info boxes, especially where it is being abused by separatists. Listing 'Scottish' as a nationality in an info box is exactly such an abuse. It is an example of separatists usurping the sovereign nationality. I wonder would all those who baulked at the concept of nationality back Martin up if he were to remove the nationality field in the info box altogether. I think though that they wouldn't back him, because their opposition to the whole concept of nationality would make them delight in its abuse. They would delight in the idea of a sovereign nationality being usurped by a subordinate regional nationality. Martin would be opposed by a confederacy of the nationalists and the twisted, citing selected sources while ignoring other sources. 86.180.32.141 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Maxwell lived during the time after the 1707 Act of Union, therefore he's British. Indeed, British/United Kingdom should be added to his article, but it won't be. I've been on this project for years & I've learned that if enough editors oppose something, that something won't be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well of course you are right. Consensus, often based on dubious motives, over rides truth, and that is the bad side of the project. I was planning on describing George Leslie Mackay as a British missionary to China, born in 19th century Canada to Scottish parents, and who introduced the Scottish Presbyterian church to Formosa. But it's such a minefield. There would likely be attacks from the anti-British element as well as getting caught up in the crossfire between the "Taiwan is a part of China" faction and the "Taiwan is an independent nation" faction. So as it stands, we have Mackay described as a "westerner" and his name spelled in Chinese, who brought the Canadian Presbyterian church to Formosa (Qing era Taiwan). Anything to cloud the basic message up with modern revisionism. 86.180.32.141 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I can only wish you 'good luck' at the Mackay article. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Go for it, Buddy! Who's watching that obscure article anyway. And when you've done it, don't report back here that you have. I'm guessing there's more than a few watching this page! :)))) PeterPunch (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at the latest proposed compromise on the talk page of James Clerk Maxwell. It notes the distinction between nationality and national identity. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Past experiences tells me that your proposal won't pass, because it suggests inclusion of British. GoodDay (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right. One editor mirrored back to me exactly what I had said, but presumed to be in a state of disagreement. Whether it was a genuine case of him having misread what I said, or whether it was the sight of the word 'British' that put him into opposition mode, I have no idea. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You'd face the same oppositon at articles like Tom Jones, Anthony Hopkins, Sean Connery and other British bios. Even if you did get a consensus at the Village Pump, it would be impossible to mainetain across the hundreds of articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, I'd like to know how you archive your User Talk page. Once I get enough talk stuff on my talk page, I would like to archive them. Thank-you. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

lowercase sigmabot III archives my talkpage for me. Its creator would be the fellow who can set you up. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No prob :) GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the most ridiculous thing that I have heard yet was the argument that Andy Murray's country is Great Britain as opposed to the UK, because he played for Great Britain in the Davis cup. A person's country is fact and not decided by what sports team he plays for. It gets worse all the time. All references to British and the UK are to be eliminated by consensus, under the guise of any pathetic argument that suits the particular circumstances. 86.129.126.155 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The 'pedia's not a perfect place, but it's the best we've got. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that you are converting some hyphens and dashes to HTML en-dash entities. However, some of them are already UTF-8 en-dash characters, not hyphens, so a lot of what you are doing is unnecessary, and even going backwards (UTF-8 is the new thing). Please be careful. If you understand this message, you will stop. If you don't understand this message, please stop anyway. (En-dash characters are available by clicking in the "Insert" bar beneath the editing text box.)--BillFlis (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought it was a short dash. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

good question — Ched :  ?  05:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

dude they are listed under some rare occurances, which you would figure out if you just bothered to look--98.167.190.29 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It's time to report you for editing warring. Also, you've been ignoring WP:BRD. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

are you one of those people that just get something into his head and wont let go - the entry falls under a rare circumstance - you are either lazy or just crazy not to be willing to look back over the history of the edits to the xxxx in the US articles to understand that SOMETIMES death locations do get written--98.167.190.29 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please respect BRD. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could take a look at the article Karolina Olsson that I have created. Much appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems alright to me. PS: It's amazing how Olsson survived '32yrs' of continous sleep, without food, water or bathroom trips ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If facts can be so blatantly violated by opinion formers masquerading as editors, then the project is worthless. I would have thought that there might have been some kind of standards. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've given my final two cents at the village pump under the heading "Nationality Tutorials". They can take it or leave it. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

They're going to leave it. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they're going to leave it. Looking at recent edits it is obvious that the vast majority of the editors are in favour of promoting the false concept of Scottish ethnicity as well as promoting the aspiring concept of Scottish nationality. When I looked at the Andy Murray article, I noticed that they had stated his country as Great Britain, which is not correct. I corrected it to United Kingdom but it was immediately reverted to Great Britain again, on the grounds that Murray played in the Davis cup for Great Britain. That sums it all up. A country's name can be determined on wikipedia by the subject of the article, based on what sports team he plays for. Once again, an excuse to remove the word United Kingdom. Yes, you are right. The project is swarming with anti-British elements who want to break the UK up. They'd rather keep trashing Martin Hogbin's attempt to define nationality, rather than engaging in rational debate about how to treat contentious subjects. After trashing Martin Hogbin's suggestion to define nationality, they will then conclude that Scottish people have Scottish nationality as opposed to British nationality. There will always be the assumption that Scotland is a poor oppressed colony of people who are ethnically diverse from the English. Not true at all, but the game is obviously to promote that lie. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I won't speculate on the reasons behind the opposition. PS: You'll also face the same frustration at Wales-related bios articles, aswell as Northern Ireland & England-related bios articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll not be going there. The project is obviously a joke. Might the motive be related to a campaign to break up the UK so that Brussels can control the individual fragments more easily? Or might it simply be that there are a lot of editors who enjoy sneaking distorted information into the articles while masquerading as serious editors, and that they recognize each other and gang up together? Might there be editors lurking, waiting for people to correct mistakes, and then swooping in to undo and start a row, knowing that they will be supported by an established network of anarchists?109.152.248.204 (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

All I know is this. If you can't get a consensus for your proposals? you're dead in the water. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've gathered that. But what is more interesting is the fact that they don't want to discuss ways forward on places like the village pump. They would rather trash Martin Hogbin's suggestions than suggest an alternative. All they needed to do was say that Martin's proposal should be taken as a guideline for non-controversial cases, but that a work shop should be set up for training on dealing with controversial subjects. But you never see positive input. It's always sniping, and baulking at anything that might hint at law and order. They don't like to commit themselves on any principles that would help to make sure that the truth prevails. They'd rather leave it all vague so that they can push their opinions and aspirations under cover of consensus. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Frustrating, I know. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, you were quite right, there is now a move at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Martin_Hogbin. You do not need to become heavily involved but could you just point out that I am not a lone crazy editor but one of a group who disgree with the current content and that I have now proposed a compromise solution. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Left a comment there. Hope it helps. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Was this: "If the straw poll is hogwash, why dispute its being held?" directed at me? FDCWint (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

See my edit-summary, it's a response to John :) GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did you reverse the order of dob & pob for professor Brednich? I think the original order is perfectly okeh, if not better, in English. Kdammers (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to be more pacific. Which article, exactly? GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Rolf Wilhelm Brednich. Kdammers (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes made per this manual of style. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to be more pacific. Which section, exactly?Kdammers (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember. AFAIK, most intros are done with the dates first, then places. GoodDay (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear GoodDay,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Ahhhhh shucks, thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not pointing this out to be an ass or anything, but I would steer very clear of that topic area. Its one of the biggest edit war areas on the wiki. And with your history, it could go very bad for you. This is friendly advice. Take it for what you will. But changing large batches of articles in that topic is very likely to reignite old edit wars which have thankfully died down. I would leave them as you find them. -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I had no intentions of diving into any quagmires. From this time onward, if my changes are reverted by the pro-Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia crowd, I won't challenge. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've completed my corrections, based on an apparent agreement that the pro-Latvia, Lithuanina, Estonia editors, will allow such changes to ice hockey bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Good day, just a small misunderstanding on your recent edit - Erno Csupity was his name at birth, not the name of a place. I've reverted: Noyster (talk), 09:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not my intention to start an "editing war," particularly on something as inconsequential as whether Dick Cheney was the President of the Senate during the few hours in which he served as Acting President of the United States pursuant to the 25th Amendment. I undid your revision for the reasons that I set forth in the brief space given to explain changes, and, after seeing that you had explained your position on the Talk Page for the "President of the United States Senate" page, I fleshed out my reasons there as well. It seems to me that while the subject is being debated (and other people can give their opinions) the original language should stay on the page (if only because it is more convenient for persons considering the issue). If there is a more elegant way to add the information back on the page, pending discussion, then I'm afraid I don't know what it is. I agree, though, that the debate on whether to include the President Pro Tempore as the President of the Senate during periods in which the Vice President is Acting President is something that should be debated in the Talk Page, not through edits and reversions. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice to 'walk away' from the 'nationality' dispute turned out to me quite right. Arbcom do not even seem to have understood the question, so now I will do as you say and walk away, while I still can.

It was probably inivitable that WP would end up this way; it was an interesting experiment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Walking away is best. Otherwise, you'll only end up topic-banned. As I've said before, if a majority of editors say that 'red' is 'blue', then we all have to accept that 'red' is 'blue'. It's frustrating, when you go up against a wall. But it's more frustrating, if you get kicked out of the room. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been through quite alot of drama since that time. It's best I stay away from the latest debate. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Pope Benedict XVI, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please read MOS:BLP#Tense. We use "is a former" for people who are still alive. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

We should be using pope emeritus in the intro, to avoid further dispute. In the meantime, I've changed the intro to ...served as pope.... GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw you were wondering about the date of death on Abdullah's page. Basically, any person (whether they have an article on Wikipedia or not) is listed as having a death date that goes with their local time zone. Since Abdullah died at about 1 AM (Saudi time) on the 23rd, per WP:TIMEZONE, we go with the 23rd, since that is the time zone in which the event (in this case, Abdullah's death) took place. Think about it... for example, seeing as how we're both Canadian, if one of us were to die late at night on January 30 (Canadian time), our death certificates wouldn't say January 31 just for the fact that it was January 31 according to British Time, UTC, etc... Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 08:33, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for you to remove your comment at ANI at "06:50, 28 January 2015". It's not a big deal, but please don't say something like that next time. Getting thowaway IPs to edit Wikipedia is pathetically easy and we should not encourage socking by making out that some great achievement has occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, GoodDay. I undid what I saw as a mistaken revision by you, but perhaps you actually only wished to remove your own comment? In any event, I'm sure you didn't wish to revert the manual archiving, but I'm not sure how the edit conflict played out. Apologies in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I need help in deleting my post from the Errors Featured lists section. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually started to work on a nom for you...seriously. And you deserve it. We have had editors with over 100K but only rarely. Your percentage of article work is way beyond normal and is commendable...anything over 50% is unusual. Just a brief look told me what a prolific and focused editor you are. Your award cabinet shows 10 items but for a 9 year veteran that's barely over one a year. What shows thru for me is your good will and your spirit. I like your levity. I think we editors need a smile to break the grip of combat and strife and the like. Plus, and probably most important, you're Canadian. Anyway, we both joked about it at the WER page, but you deserve it. Having joked about it, I'm not sure how it would go over if I went ahead and nominated you. But you deserve it. One of your userboxes says you are one of the top 400. Its closer to the top 100. You are among the elite. You don't need an Eddy to attest to your value to the WP community. Buster Seven Talk 07:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, you've got me blushing. GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You may want to get a checkup though... I have a concern that you may have Type B editsummarisis. In all seriousness though, why don't you leave edit summaries? For those of us who do recent changes patrol, we need to check every one of those bright red "no summary" listings. Just a friendly prod... Thanks! Tgeairn (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. Being a gnome, most of my edits rarely require summaries :) GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand completely! Enjoy the gardening :) --Tgeairn (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I thought you were an administrator? :P

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

--L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 21:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yummy, yum, yum. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of denying recognition to non-collaborative editors, I suggest refraining from naming them when it isn't necessary. Also note the editor in question is already under an indefinite block; there isn't much practical difference that would be attained by imposing a ban. isaacl (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't certain if the IPs were SNIyer12. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, personally I feel there was no need to mention the editor's name in this discussion, and it didn't really matter in the other discussion: whether or not it was the editor you are thinking of, shifting IP addresses can't be banned. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Those IPs can't be banned? a pity, for us. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Only specific editors can be banned; since an IP address is not a specific editor, it cannot be banned. It can be blocked, but the blocks are usually for a fixed period of time since the IP address could be allocated to someone else. It's not very effective, though, since typically it isn't hard for someone to force a new IP address to be allocated from their ISP for their connection. isaacl (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, we're going to need more 'eyes' on the effected articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed a revert you did for BC leg...and would love you to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#2 IP's that keep editwaring -- Moxy (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit here. Is that just because it looks better or is that a WP:MOS standard?—GoldRingChip 17:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's cosmetic, but if there's a MoS that backs it up? that's cool. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I know you've previously expressed the opinion that the leadership of a political party should not be listed in a politician's main infobox — but firstly, the consensus went against you on it, so no such rule exists anywhere outside of your own personal beliefs. And secondly, in the particular case of George Key, since he failed to win election to the provincial legislature and Summerside is not large enough a city to get a person over WP:NPOL just for being its mayor, his leadership of the Progressive Conservatives is the crux of why he gets to have a Wikipedia article at all — so it does need to be present in the infobox, since it is the core notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to add them, then it would be best to add them to all the PEI party leaders bio articles. Personally, I don't see them as necessary, now that we've got the navboxes in place. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem with relying exclusively on the navboxes to cover a party leadership position is that the navboxes just indicate the names of the leaders, but not the dates of their terms in the leadership. Which is why the navboxes complement, but can't entirely supplant, inclusion of leadership information in the infobox. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You've the dates in the content. Again, if you're going to add such info to an infobox, you should be doing it for all those bio articles. Consistency is the idea. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of the cabinet members from this template. I like to see at a glance who is in cabinet and who isn't. This template provides that. Cabinet members are still members of the the Legislature. I don't need or want a separate template for that. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The majority of these Templates didn't highlight cabinet members. Consistency is prefered here. As for the Ontario cabinet? that's handled at Executive Council of Ontario. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

We have done nothing wrong. I just had a premonition that, one day, he might visit here, see our conversation....and blow a gasket. Ive dealt with him a bit. He doesn't trust the world...even the one he himself creates. TRA!. Buster Seven Talk 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to an article containing biographical information on a living person in the article: (Anthony Rizzo (filmmaker)), unfortunately you didn't support your changes with a or reference citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning adding information on living people how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, which is entirely possible, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you need help editing, please feel free to visit the WP:Teahouse. This is a question and answer forum designed to encourage you in your editing. Your questions will be handled in a friendly, helpful manner.Thank you!

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The place names were already in the intro. I merely replaced the commas, which is what's done for most biography articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the commas, the problem is that the article has no references on the person...at all. I should have tagged the article instead of simply reverting your changes.

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Note though, I didn't add the place names :) GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking over archives of my talk page when I stumbled upon the following:
Thanks for the compliment, Buster7. You're cool under fire, as well. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
It was about something that happened at the Sarah Palin talk page back then. I have no idea what it was that I complimented you on but it was the beginning of our Mutual Admiration Society which, sad to say, still has only two members after almost 7 years. . Buster Seven Talk 18:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wowser. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am very concerned by this edit - for several reasons. Firstly, that your edit summary ("per WP:MOSNUM") does not accurately describe the edit; secondly, in WP:MOSNUM, which you claim your edit is conforming to, the section entitled Strong national ties to a topic says, “Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation.” Ireland uses Date, Month, Year i.e. his date of birth should be shown as 28 March 1895, not March 28, 1895; thirdly, (and far more importantly), that you have changed his place of birth from Limerick, Ireland, to Limerick, Ireland. i.e. pipe-linking Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, directly contravening the Ireland MOS. The Ireland MOS Place of birth, death etc. section says “For people anywhere else in Ireland at any time, "Ireland" should be used.” It is inconceivable that you would be unaware of the contentious nature of this edit. Please now self-revert. Furthermore, please also self-revert any other similar edits you may have made to Ireland related biographies. Daicaregos (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Most bios go with MDY Place. As for the links to the correct countries? You can revert whatever you wish. PS: FWIW, I don't make provocative edits. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

History tells us otherwise. Thank you for self-reverting on William Roche (rugby union). Please confirm you have made no similar edits to other Ireland related biographies. Are you still under probation on Britain and Ireland articles? Daicaregos (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember if I have. But, I'll avoid making those 'country' corrections in future. MY British/Irish topic-ban expired in April 2014. PS: Note that the dates were already MDY, before I moved them ahead of the birth & death places. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I was aware they were already MDY. However, as your edit summary suggested the edit was made in order to conform with WP:MOSNUM, that is really what it should do ... and it doesn't. I remain concerned that your edit summary did not reflect the edit. And, especially, that you should have contravened WP:IMOS, particularly after having been involved in a discussion where it was highlighted so often. Were you somehow unaware it would be contentious? Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it would be contentious. Of course, it's been years since I been involved in such discussions. Again, I avoid making such country corrections in future. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not years since you have been involved. It is three weeks. Such a contentious edit (changing a place of birth from Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) contravenes your site-ban suspension. Would you consider a voluntary Britain and Ireland topic ban? Daicaregos (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That discussion was about Derry/Londonderry. If you had reverted my changes, I wouldn't have protested. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, you're over-reacting. However, I'll try to stay away from British & Irish articles, 'til May 21. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion links to WP:IMOS four times - all before your final comment. You may not read discussions you involve yourself in, but you would have been aware that changing a place of birth from Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland would be contentious. Had you not tried to hide your edit with a misleading edit summary, I would have just reverted, but here we are. I was thinking more along the lines of a permanent Britain and Ireland topic ban. It isn't as if this is your first disruptive edit since your site-ban suspension. Here, for example. Daicaregos (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I will try to avoid British & Irish articles until May 21, 2015. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, GD. This guy Daicaregos. It's best not to enter into conversation with him (don't feed the trolls). I suggest you delete anything he posts on your Talk page. PeterPunch (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's likely best that I don't delete. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, I'll avoid linking pre-1922 Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Although, I don't understand what's wrong with linking to Republic of Ireland for that area post-1949. Meanwhile making 'DASH' edits isn't disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering your edit of Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan‎, I wonder whether you're aware of WP:NOTBROKEN, regarding linking to redirects versus exact article titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Since there's very little chance that the article President of the United States will be moved to United States President, I figured there'd be no harm. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

hi you said what i should do but how do i get a consensus at the article-in-question? 81.235.159.105 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

At that article's talkpage, you have to convince others that your version is the correct one. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

as per exprience users dont change their opinion what reslults is a long long discussion beetween olny two users that does not lead anywhere 81.235.159.105 (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can't convince the others, then your change won't be accepted. If you continue to edit-war with them, you'll end up blocked. They've got you out-numbered. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

why are you telling me that i can be blocked? in the first place user edit war alot over many articles just see how much reverts he made. He does not have the consensus of the whole wikipedia community exept some estonian nationalists. And you also said understood my frustration?! cant you help fix it then 81.235.159.105 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I used to get overly involved with those Baltic disputes, but it ended up being a part of why I was banned from Wikipedia, from April 2013 to May 2014. I've been burnt before & I'm not anxious to get burnt again. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Prentice resigned effective immediately last night. In theory, that'd probably make the Premiership vacant? Connormah (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

He resigned as PC leader, but not Premier. Prentice will stay on as premier, until Notley is appointed and sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

He resigned his seat in the legislature too. Can he still be premier w/o a seat? Connormah (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he can still be premier. Being an MLA isn't required for the job. On PEI this year, its premier (Wade MacLauchlan) wasn't an MLA from February to May. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no iban between myself and Lightbreahter. I'll assume this message was sent to me, so that I won't complain about any i-banned editors participating at that Arbcom case :) GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

On a related note about the LB case: the Editor Retention project has been mentioned here and there related to various interactions between LB and EC. With the many editors involved I don't think it's necessary for me to comment although I think her questioning the # of women was intended to agitate. Can you give me a heads up if The ER Project needs defending? Thanks. . Buster Seven Talk 19:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It may be best that you watchlist LB's case, on account that I've a bad memory. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

:~)...That makes two of us...LOL..... Buster Seven Talk 22:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to my comments [[1]], I have, with incredulity read the Manual of Style Biographies talk page regarding describing British nationality. How is it, that something so straightforward can be allowed to be hijacked by nationalists and get away with it? Who on earth wrote the WP:UKNATIONALS guidelines and how did they become policy?? The article states However, there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom. Well, Wiki policy states editors don't need to be restricted by 'consensus' on factual information as long as it the content is credibly sourced, so why was the 'consensus' argument allowed to be introduced as what looks like sophistry to prevent standardisation? Best wishes Twobells^t@lk 14:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

My past experiences have made me approach these things on a practical basis. If a number of editors oppose the usage of British or United Kingdom? then those terminologies won't be used. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You'll find your proposals will likely be resisted mostly on Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland related bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay - Unconstructive and (some might say) provocative edits like this seem to me to exhibit the same behaviour patterns, on the same topics, that got you into trouble before. Is that really wise? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you or John would revert FF-UK's unilateral additons to the Essay, perhaps the tempature would lower. I did warn you, that it would upset a discussion that was civil. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Let it be known, my post-siteban probation has expired & I've past the test :) GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Congrats!!! . Buster Seven Talk 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Bonzer! So hopefully this will stop the pompous comments like that one above from GHMyrtle. PeterPunch (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Buster7 & PeterPunch :) GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Requests for the Arbitration Committee to clarify or amend previous decisions may only be made by clicking the links to file requests shown in the big red box at the top of WP:ARCA. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. GoodDay (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You miss support? Be precise, - only don't ask me to say one more word to arbcom than absolutely necessary. (We share the ARCA page as you probably saw, - so I would be of little help. You could join the cabal of the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah shucks :) GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought of you because it is a good day, + we don't share said page any more ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your recent appeal: for two reasons, I suggest you are better off leaving the editing restriction in place. The first one is my personal opinion, so you can discount it as you wish: I think you can more easily avoid situations likely to trigger your combative reactions by keeping the ongoing restriction. You have started again with your previous pattern of making numerous edits to suit your views on consistency for a given issue, and letting others revert them. It would be better if you would let others determine if any new consensus has been formed, rather than trying to test the matter through article edits.

Second, as a practical matter, I think Ravenswing is the only regular editor in the hockey project who would still support the compromise on spelling in North American-related hockey articles. Without a consensus of support behind it, it's no longer a tenable approach, and so I don't see much use in your restriction in this area being lifted.

I hope you will continue to help out with the many sorely-needed cleanup edits while keeping away from any hot-button areas that lead you to un-cooperative actions. Happy editing! isaacl (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Having seen your latest addition to your request, I realize now that you cannot discuss my second point in this venue. I apologize if this has caused any distress to you. I did not mean to open a one-way discussion; I just wanted to speak to you away from the full scrutiny of the requests page. If there is any aspect of my second point that you would like to address on the request page, please feel free to do so and should any response seem appropriate, I will add a comment there. Thanks. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear "GoodDay"

You revised the Wikipedia page for David Park McAllester in July of 2014 to change his date of birth from 1916 to 1913.

I knew him personally since I was an undergraduate at Wesleyan in 1958 until he passed away. We visited him almost every year, and I had understood from him personally that he was born in 1916, the year after my own father was born.

So, I have to confess, I am mystified by this edit. Can you cite an actual source for this change of birthdate, which conflicts with all I know?

BTW I am in contact with his daughter, whom I have also known personally since I was an undergraduate, and I have asked her about this anomaly. She surely can clear this up, but I do want to know why you think the correct date is 1913 and not 1916.

Thanks,

Bill Jefferys Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to 1913, to match the 1913 in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I found the problem. See here Talk:David_P._McAllester. The person who put in the original infobox did it incompetently. Not Your Fault. Thanks for the quick response. Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For your comfort, his daughter has emailed me to confirm that David's birthdate is 1916. Thanks for your concern for the accuracy of Wikipedia! Bill Jefferys (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)