Jump to content

User talk:GoodDay: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
thanks
reply
Line 77: Line 77:
:::You may handle those articles, as you wish. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay#top|talk]]) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
:::You may handle those articles, as you wish. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay#top|talk]]) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


:::: oh dear, thanks for your edits in that case... There is something very ''not wikipedia'' about events that are ongoing and current, the talk pages are usually infested with people who do not know how wikipedia works, but seeing your length of time in the zoo/circus, your edits are appreciated on the action alone... thanks - and trust that canada doesnt ever get anything like what our eastern seaboard is enduring at the moment ...[[User:JarrahTree|JarrahTree]] 02:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
:::: oh dear, thanks for your edits in that case... There is something very ''not wikipedia'' about events that are ongoing and current, the talk pages are usually infested with people who do not know how wikipedia works, but seeing your length of time in the zoo/circus, your edits are appreciated on the action alone... thanks - and trust that canada doesnt ever get anything like what our eastern seaboard is enduring at the moment ...[[User:JarrahTree|JarrahTree]] 02:45, 24 January 2020

== Hey ==
Hi,

In answer to your question, yes, I am the one they have been referring to as TTH, though I prefer TT.

I noticed you used the word "spam". Note that that was BHG's characterization of the mass-created single-page portals. A more accurate name for them would be stubs. Smearing them as "spam" was just one of BHG's deletion campaign tactics. Don't fall for it.

To understand the collaborative atmosphere and rapid development on portal design that was occurring before BHG came along and disrupted the project, see:

: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design/Archive 1|Archive 1]] &nbsp; [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design/Archive 2|Archive 2]] &nbsp; [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design/Archive 3|Archive 3]] &nbsp; [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design/Archive 4|Archive 4]]<br>
The newsletter archive also portrays this, and can be found at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Newsletter archive]].<br>

I hope those pages answer any further questions you may have. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; ''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The&nbsp;Transhumanist]]''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 18:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:59, 26 January 2020

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

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 9 months and 6 days.

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

Awards

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

Edit count & Pie chart

Edit records

My Arbcom Case

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay

Disruptive. Again.

I've asked you countless times to stop interfering with the improvement of individual articles, and I am not the only one to have done so. You promised to stop that yet you are at it again. You seem to be driven by the idea that consistency trumps everything, from grammar to factual accuracy. By going out of your way to prevent any change, whether good or bad, for the sake of maintaining consistency, I fear that you are doing more harm than good to this project. Arbcom now seems to be the only way out of this. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: You should open up an Rfc at the 2020 United States presidential election article & seek a consensus for the changes you're proposing there. If a consensus is reached for such changes? I will happily adopt them for that article & the rest of the other US presidential articles. In this situation, be it the status quo or your proposal, consistency isn't a dirty word. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you see me make an edit to an article, ask yourself whether the edit improved that article. If it did, leave it be. If it did not, explain why. The very next time you revert an edit of mine just because I did not make the same edit to 50 other articles, I will request an arbitration process. Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I realise now, that collaborating isn't your strong suit. You prefer to do it your way. Also, taking someone to Arbcom over a content dispute, is a non-starter. It's disappointing that you approach content disputes in such a manner. Due keep in mind, not every editor is as patient as I. Your bold attitude will eventually annoy the wrong individual out there & then it will be you, who'll be taken to Arbcom. PS - When that time comes? you can count on me not helping you out of the hole you've gotten yourself into. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You create content disputes not because you object to the content but because the content does not parallel the content of some other articles. You would rather see all fifty articles have it wrong than see one improved. That is unacceptable. You have been told the same at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Applying MOS. I have been exceedingly patient; after all, you are one of the first editors I can recall interacting with after joining Wikipedia 11 years ago. I do sincerely hope that it will not have to take a board of administrators to convince you that this is wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get a consensus for whatever changes you propose? I'll happily apply that consensus to the rest of the articles in that group. A gnome's life has so very little rewards. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving towards an RfC on WP:JOBTITLES

Thanks for your contributions to that discussion - I feel that it's time we started thinking about initiating an RfC to whack the thing once and for all, but it's been years and years since I've done one of these and I'm also not sure what specifically one might put to change it. Any thoughts? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern has been that some articles have capitalisation, while others don't. This includes articles within the same group (example: heads of state & heads of government). I'm not certain as to what the Rfc question should be. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you could have a look at the infobox here. Don't deal with them often, the edits there seem like total nonsense, but I don't feel like pursuing it when I do not know what is normal for these type of infoboxes.18abruce (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed most titles is gold medals. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Devils alternate captains

Looks like the IP user 108.35.125.216 has put Hischier back as an alternate captain in the infobox at 2019–20 New Jersey Devils season. I didn't revert because I am not completely sure what the situation is. Yowashi (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Hischier again. If the IP restores him, I may just leave it. His edit-summary seems quite convincing. Also, the Devils official website hasn't updated the alternate captains, since Hall was traded. I haven't found any sources, saying Hischier has been named an alternate captain. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article that does state that Hischier and Palmieri are splitting alternate captain duties for the rest of the season. However, I haven't seen anything from the Devils announcing this move. Yowashi (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds legit, as the NHL official websites are quite lazy when it comes to updating the 'letters' during the season. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yowashi:, the Kyle Palmieri situation confuses me, though. Palmieri was no longer an alternate captain, from October to December of this season? I wasn't aware of that. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because Hall and Zajac were the A's from October to December. A third alternate would have to split with another guy between home and away. Perhaps the team didn't want to do that. I don't know. I'm not quite up to speed with every teams' alternate captains. Yowashi (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems correct, though it's odd that Palmieri got his 'A' back before (by 3 days) Hall was traded. But yeah, the alternate captaincies are treated quite loosely by teams. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy in Canada

I read your comment from today in Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#Canada's_Royal_Family. Besides appearing on the Monarchy of Canada page, the Act should probably appear briefly also in the page on the Debate on the monarchy in Canada and in the History of monarchy in Canada, which currently only reference related earlier acts. If you are interested! Mebden (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mebden:, I've no objections to the Act being added to those proposed articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay and Mebden, while I supporting keep-ing Megxit, I don't think these articles should be updated to include references to Harry and Meghan. These articles relate to The Queen, as Sovereign and as our Head of State. Short of an unfortunate King Ralph-like moment, Harry will never be King. Therefore, there's really no need to mention his place of principal or substantive residence. If that's not what you were looking to add, then can you clarify, Mebden, what you intend to add? (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this is about the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, Oh, yes, include that possibly under "The new millennium"? Doug Mehus T·C 17:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However you both wish to include it, that's fine with me. On a personal note, it's sad that the courts have ruled that the UK effectively chooses Canada's monarch/head of state. PS: Betcha John Aimers is really peeved about the rulings. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I was surprised to see you voted not to "keep" Megxit as you seemed like you like our constitutional monarchy system, given the good edits you do of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada. I was even more surprised to see you would like Canada to become a republic...to me, that's a non-starter because it's likely constitutionally impossible to get all the Canadian provinces to agree to it without major concessions. But, I also see problems with the potential for having nothing to get done in having an elected Head of State that refuses to sign bills passed by the elected legislative branch and supported by the executive branch. So, I'm a monarchist, albeit a monarchist that disapproves of the recent behaviour of Harry and Meghan. Doug Mehus T·C 19:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a republican, but it's always good to have knowledge about things that you oppose :) GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Mehus: I don't plan on adding a reference to the Act to those two articles myself. Mebden (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hard to follow

whats happening with Australian fire lead sentences - is there something I am missing, or is there something about the leads that offends your sense of what a lead does? JarrahTree 02:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: Read the discussions on the lead at 2019–20 Australian bushfire season article. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
my standard practice - never go near articles like that for at least 5 months after, once the flies and ants have retreated... JarrahTree 02:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may handle those articles, as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oh dear, thanks for your edits in that case... There is something very not wikipedia about events that are ongoing and current, the talk pages are usually infested with people who do not know how wikipedia works, but seeing your length of time in the zoo/circus, your edits are appreciated on the action alone... thanks - and trust that canada doesnt ever get anything like what our eastern seaboard is enduring at the moment ...JarrahTree 02:45, 24 January 2020

Hey

Hi,

In answer to your question, yes, I am the one they have been referring to as TTH, though I prefer TT.

I noticed you used the word "spam". Note that that was BHG's characterization of the mass-created single-page portals. A more accurate name for them would be stubs. Smearing them as "spam" was just one of BHG's deletion campaign tactics. Don't fall for it.

To understand the collaborative atmosphere and rapid development on portal design that was occurring before BHG came along and disrupted the project, see:

Archive 1   Archive 2   Archive 3   Archive 4

The newsletter archive also portrays this, and can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Newsletter archive.

I hope those pages answer any further questions you may have.    — The Transhumanist   18:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]