Jump to content

User talk:GoodDay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Endrick Shellycoat (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 19 February 2012 (→‎ANI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This editor is a WikiGnome.

Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. Be assured I'll be as courteous as possible & hope to provide worthy answers to your questions (about wiki edits), I'm looking forward to meeting you. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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 talk-page's 'history'.

I've a secondary userpage called User:GoodDay/My stuff, which is where 'my stuff' has been transfered from my Userpage.

My Mentors

Danbarnesdavies & Steven Zhang. These gentlemen, will help me tweak my behaviour/conduct on Wikipedia; particularly in the areas of British & Irish politics.


Hail the Dark Lord Satan block

I did not make this block because of the username, it is not a username block. This is a disruption block block because nearly every edit this user made was confrontational. When combined with the fact that over 90% of his contributions were to noticeboards, user talk pages, his userpage, and other non-article pages this suggests intentional disruption. Prodego talk 21:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(For the benefit of others reading along) Other than that he likely chose the username to cause controversy, I agree with you that it would be an acceptable name. Prodego talk 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers as words or numerals

Hi

I find it a little misleading that you are changing from text to numerals on the pretext of "numerals, when above 'tenth'" - this is clearly not the case in MOSNUM:

  • "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words"

More importantly GA and FA article review/candidates are often told to put numbers in the same expression, here your edits were not following that simple guideline, as mentioned also in MOSNUM:

  • "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs"

Your edit:

  • "is the fifth serial of the fourteenth season" -> "is the fifth serial of the 14th season"

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I learned from the F&W Encylopedia that 1st to 10th, should be changed to first to tenth. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Prime Minister of Canada - Ministerial Infoboxes

Hi, Would you like to voice your opinion about this topic? I see you are an experienced editor, so if you want to, please contribute to the discussion. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Skills Competition

Hm.. Saw that. I think I remember seeing somewhere that youtube videos can't be provided as references and I can't find anything else supporting my statement. I'll probably just leave it.. not something I wanna get in an editing conflict over.. I appreciate you letting me know though! Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANADA - A New Discussion About The Infobox

Hey GoodDay. It's me again. I just wanted to let you know that a discussion has been started at WP:CANADA and if you want to (please don't feel as if I am forcing you to) read my response and give your opinion, please do. I hope you read my whole response; I know it's long, but I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, 174.7.90.110 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dash fixes

Just noticed you are supposedly "fixing" a lot of hyphens into n-dashes. However, all of the ones I have looked at already were n-dashes. It is totally unnecessary and time-consuming for you to continue changing those. I think it would actually add more to the system to have the longer n-dash markup text in there than just the symbol. Please note that just because it shows a simple dash in the edit screen doesn't mean it is just a hyphen on the displayed article. The hyphen is much smaller compared to the n-dash and you should be able to easily recognize the difference. If you truly were meaning to make them longer, they should have been changed to m-dashes, not n-dashes. However, that said, m-dashes really weren't needed there anyway. See WP:DASH for some info. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll just change the 'short hyphens' to &ndash. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what JS says, it is better to have the actual dash than the &ndash. In fact, many of us go around changing the html code to an actual character as a matter of course. The actual advice is to first be sure that hyphens you are changing to dashes should be dashes; then second, using "Show preview", be sure what you are changing to dashes aren't already dashes. -Rrius (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clearer, but that is exactly what I meant. Originally GoodDay was changing the actual en-dash character into html code. I was saying that that wasn't necessary, that it is better to use the actual symbol, not the html code. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec - I may need a visual example. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and date ranges should not be spaced unless one of the elements has a space, so it is "1992–1994" and "Jan–Feb 2001", but "January 3 – March 10" and "2002 – July 2003". -Rrius (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to remember. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do dashes as I go along. I suggest you, like me, learn to type the dash symbols. In Windows they are: Alt+0150 – n-dash (common); Alt+0151 — m-dash (rare). After a few years of doing it, it's become second nature to me... :) ✝DBD 23:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's confusing. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I usually just copy a known en dash or em dash over, instead of having to figure out how to type it. You will see when editing below that I have used the actual symbol, not the &ndash or &mdash codes.
  • hyphen: - (just made by typing the hyphen button on the keyboard)
  • en dash: – (copied from a known en dash character)
  • em dash: — (copied from a known em dash character)
Note: putting in a hyphen and an en dash really looks the same in the edit field. But they will appear different sizes in the actual page. The em-dash looks slightly longer in both the edit field and the actual page. Like Rrius states above, use the "Show preview" button to check to make sure you put in the right character. You could always copy these into Word or something. Or you could simply leave this page up and copy the needed character from here. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might leave the dashs alone, as it's a tad of a hassle ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikichecker - User:GoodDay

Ok thanks. I'm reformed for sure. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - when your fully reformed you can help me reform - best regards to you GoodDay - Youreallycan 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giggle giggle, thanks ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your favorite pie

Users have been working baking feverishly to make your pie available to you.....

note - if you create this page (with any content at all) you will get additional details shown such as top ten articles edited and suchlike.

Enjoy - Youreallycan 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy, my 6+ year old pie. Thank you, sir. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Hi, GoodDay, and thanks for your recent edits on disambiguation pages. I just wanted to let you know you can save some time, each line only has one blue link on a disambiguation page, and that would be the link to the article if there is one. WP:DDD is a great, concise explanation of the guidelines, which are quite different to articles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted your Shea Salinas change where you linked to the country. WP:OVERLINK states "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." We don't even need to link to association football, but I wouldn't take it that far. Just explaining why I reverted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted most of your country changes back to 2012-02-10T05:56:49. Do you mind taking care of the rest? Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wowsers, I didn't think gnoming was gonna be this difficult. Anways, I won't be reverting my edits, but I won't reverse the reverts of any them either. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you go against an established guideline without knowing about it and then you won't fix your additions against policy afterwards. Why not just not edit then? It will save those of us who actually care about Wikipedia a lot of time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It anybody comes across a bio article that they feel is overlinked, they may undo mine or anybody elses links, to correct that percieved problem. I rarely go back & revert myself, choosing instead to look forward. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
read as: I'll make edits to fix something that I think is broken, but I won't actually fix what I've broken. What a child. Just stop editing if you're going to do it without taking any responsibility for what you're breaking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I won't making anymore links. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just stop editing until you know what you're doing. If you're going to make wholesale changes like this, find out if you're doing the right thing beforehand if you're not willing to clean the fecal matter that you introduce. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take your concerns to my mentors. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have your mentors contact me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I contacted them and pointed them here. Please stop editing until you've been mentored. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just concentrate on spelling corrections, until they arrive. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Oh, you have read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, yes? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know a misspelled word, when I see one. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get some diffs here, so I can get an understanding of what's going on? Cheers. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at his edit history and search for the word "country" and look at those but since I'm here:
and the issue is WP:OVERLINK. That's what he did, but the problem is that he refused to undo the more than 100 changes he made to the policy after he was asked to undo the mess he made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And all the edits over linking (GoodDay those indeed are over linking) use the "link to country" edit summary? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've stopped linking to countries & constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not sure what you're asking, but all of his overlinking include the word "country". Some use "constituent country". However, the issue is not what his edit summary stated, it was his refusal to correct his "fixes".
He may not know not to change between English variants as per his response here. He may know a "misspelled" word, but would he correct a "misspelt" word to become a "misspelled" word in violation of MOS:ENGVAR? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where they changed a word between US and British English? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He may not know not to change between English variants as per his response. I'm not is monitor so I'm not going to watch for ENGVAR issues, I just want you to be aware of this. Now back to his refusal to correct the intentional WP:OVERLINK violations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"intentional WP:OVERLINK violations"? GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I would appreciate if you could show me where he changed spelling from one variant to another, so I can indeed see the problem for myself, and explain it to him. The over link issues I have noted they were indeed over linking, but I don't think they were intentional. GoodDay, if a user comes to you with what they feel is an issue, and you do not feel you were doing the wrong thing, please ask either me or DBD so we can point you in the right direction. Walter was indeed correct here. You should also try and resolve issues yourself where possible. We are here to guide you, but at the same time we are not your babysitters. In short, discuss concerns that users raise with you, when in doubt ask us. Cheers. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 01:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steven Zhang, I think you addressed the correct issue in part.
The ENGVAR issue that I raised was based on a statement, not a specific action, so I don't know if he has made any edits against ENGVAR. I won't be patrolling his edits as that's parochial and unnecessary at best and wikihounding in the worst case.
The OVERLINK issue was also not the problem either. It was an honest mistake.
The problem, the one where he asked me to "take [my] concerns to [his] mentors", is that GoodDay refused to revert his OVERLINK changes after he was informed that they were against guidelines. I call them intentional because GoodDay intentionally refused to fix a problem that GoodDay created. That's intent and malicious. If GoodDay had written something like, "I didn't know it was a problem at that time. Now that I know, I'll go fix the ones you haven't" it would have been fine. However GoodDay wrote, "I rarely go back & revert myself, choosing instead to look forward." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know all the rules (despite having been on the project for over 6 yrs), it's darn near impossible to memorize all of them. Anyways, I'll continue to avoid linking bios to countries & constituent countries. We must be careful not to over-program a bloke. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to memorize rules, I'm asking you to take responsibility for your actions. If you make a change and someone tells you it's wrong, you offer to go and undo them. When someone tells you that you should undo them you don't say, "I rarely go back & revert myself, choosing instead to look forward." I honestly don't think you understand what sort of an person not reverting your mistakes makes you out to be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're neither vandalism or desruptive, so I'm not going to go through them. I can though, go through bio articles that already had links 'country' & 'constituent country' & deletes those. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, they're unconstructive and I would argue that they are actually disruptive. You violated a guideline. You didn't do it knowingly, but you did violate it. As I was fixing your disruptive editing, I saw a handful of articles that were watched where your edits were reverted shortly after you made them. You disrupted those pages for those editors not me. And as for logic, I don't think anyone has a problem with editors who unknowingly making edits against policy, but when they're informed, and refuse to fix the edits against guidelines, they're not being constructive. You made more than 100, and you outright refused to undo them. That simply makes you an unconstructive editor. See template:uw-vandalism1. Wow! Editing in a way that is not constructive is vandalism. And since you can't even spell "disruptive" I suggest that you stay away from fixing the spelling on Wikipedia too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, if you make edits that are against a policy or guideline, you indeed are obligated to fix your mistake. If you have not yet done so, then please do. Walter, you said there were over 100 edits made that overlinked but I could only see a few edits. Mind pointing them out? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but I don't think all of them are overlinked situations. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokers, which ones am I suppose to revert? I check through & Gorlitz's has reverted everyone I've checked. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:GoodDay/Overlinks. 161. There were a few others that may have been hidden along with other edits made around the same time, so I rounded down to 100. I have reverted every last one that other editors didn't get to first. I said so several times. Just goes to show you that I wasted my time writing too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I have a list of the articles you 'haven't' reverted? GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think WG is overreacting. Leaving the overlinks in place is not a huge stain on the project, and asking GD to make reverting them a priority is a bit rude, and getting angry when he refuses is worse. It would be different if we were talking about a huge error or something at just a few pages, but getting upset that GD won't do something that could more easily be fixed by using AWB or asking the person who uses the script that eliminates overlinks to take care of it. -Rrius (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rrius. I've tried, but couldn't find the articles-in-question that WG's concerned about. He's basically reverted many of my edits. GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm overreacting? I didn't ask him to make it a priority, I just asked him to do it. When he didn't, I took care of it. And I didn't get angry or upset I simply stated unequivocally that it was wrong to shirk his responsibilities. So now that I've dealt with your hyperbole I'll add that there are no scripts, to my knowledge, that deal with overlinking.
As for the list of articles that have not been reverted (remember I didn't do all of them) I don't have one nor will I make one, but I believe I looked at all of the possibilities.
And no, I didn't revert all of your edits, I reverted the overlinks that were not already done. The rest of your edits I left untouched. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones though, assuming you've reverted all the edits that created over-links? GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole? You said, "What a child. Just stop editing if you're going to do it without taking any responsibility for what you're breaking." And you have managed to turn this into quite a long conversation just because GD wouldn't do something that wasn't important for anyone to do. You reject "angry" and "upset" as "hyperbole", but you clearly care a great deal and in a way tinged with negative feelings. If that isn't upset, then insert your own adjective. As for scripts, if that's correct then I wonder what those edit summaries with WP:OVERLINK and the word "script" in them are all about. -Rrius (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay I've written it several times but so just so you can stop wondering: you do not have any reverts to do. Some other editors reverted some of the overlinks, and I reverted the remaining. I did not revert all of your overlinks though, there are other editors who find following Wikipedia guidelines important and they did it before I got there. Some were done shortly after you applied the edits.
FWIW, the reason I had been linking bio articles to 'countries' & 'constituent countries', was because it was already done on many other bio articles. I just went by those. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I understand. And as I have written, that's not the problem. I do know that you won't be overlinking any further which is comforting. Thanks for the clarification. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Rrius Yes, hyperbole. If someone being called a child is angry, you should see what I see on Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance‎. Maybe I've become desensitized. Sorry if you thought that I was lashing out. I wasn't. I was being firm. And as for your nonsense about not being important, sorry you don't think Wikipedia guidelines are important. Perhaps you should find something important to do. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this discussion is still a productive one. Might I suggest that GoodDay takes note to respond to concerns in a timely manner, and correct his mistakes if they are raised to him, and leave it at that? I think GoodDay has gotten "the point". Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 07:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed provided WG looks up the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary (hint: regardless of whether he rejects the word "angry", it wasn't meant as exaggeration) and learns not to get nasty with people when they don't want to go back and correct minor, yes minor, violations of guidelines (he wasn't adding OR or NPOV material after all), then we can leave it there. -Rrius (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth

Hi. Could you indicate exactly where Wikipedia:MOSBD says that dates of births should be removed if the date of death is unknown? I can't see this. In the meantime could you please revert your change and discuss on the Robert Burns talk page, as you have already been requested. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOSBD says to use (b.YEAR) for people still living & those 2 women-in-question aren't living. Also, one of my mentors already suggested it would likely be better to delete if we had no clues about the death date or estimate death date. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I did. There was very little info about them two women in the article, not enough to ascertain their last known period of activity, so removing the date of birth seems the correct course of action to take here. GoodDay is 100% correct here, putting only the DOB is incorrect, per WP:MOSDB. Put "death date unknown" if you really have to, but really, it seems to me to be common sense to just remove it. If you can find in some reliable sources the years they were last active, put that in (DOB - after year of last activity), but otherwise, just remove itl. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverted (again) by Mais oui!. I'll just leave those errors in the article-in-question, since it's causing so much hassle. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC
Link me. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to do that. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see where Wikipedia:MOSBD says that dates of births should not be used if the dates of death are unknown. I see the style specified for those that are living, but nowhere does it say that this style should not be used for those where the date of death is unknown. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense? While unlikely, the prescience of the date of birth only is confusing, it leads one to believe they may be alive. Go with (year - date of death unknown) if you must. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense would suggest that someone born in 1762 is not alive, so I doubt it is likely to confuse. Adding "date of death unknown" seems pointless clutter unless this is particularly significant. Wikipedia doesn't generally point out what isn't known, unless that it is notable that it isn't known. In these cases, I doubt their date of deaths matter much, which isn't the case for their births. But of course, this would all be better discussed on the talk page.... --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it'll help settle things, sure. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 20:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note

Hi GoodDay - I saw it getting a little heated here - and I have asked user Mais oui to rather contact your mentors with his problem. diff - Youreallycan 17:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not his mentors' behaviour I have a problem with. It is GoodDay's.--Mais oui! (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Mais, you're the problem. You're deliberately trying to antagonize & bait me into a fight, with the hope of getting me topic-banned or indef blocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell him immediately to stay off your talk page GoodDay. Youreallycan 17:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per agreement at my Rfc/U, I shouldn't ban anybody from here. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the face of it, I am inclined to agree. I can see no real purpose behind your recent postings here, Mais oui!. They certainly added nothing to the discussion that had already been taking place. I find even less purpose trying to re-link to what GoodDay removed. You made your point, now move on. Resolute 18:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These last 2 days, isn't the first incident of him harassing me. If I recall, he annoyed some 'bout 2-3 months ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree here. Mais oui is not acting in a productive way, and isn't even reading policy, just blindly calling GoodDay's edits bad. I'd suggest they raise any legitimate concerns with us, and do so without the sarcasm and cheek. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment left at British, English, United Kingdom, England

Your comment "Oh boy, did you ever step into a hornet's nest. " is not helpful and does nothing other than to make the editor (and others) suspect (wrongly) that they may be flamed for having raised a question in the first place. Please refrain from cluttering talk pages with such. Thank you. Endrick Shellycoat 10:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was quite accurate, concerning the devolutionist PoV tilt to all those articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nationalist POV tilt is your nonsense GoodDay, you have never been able to back it up. continuing to sling it around without evidence is yet another failure to assume good faith. Adding comments such as those mentioned is disruptive behaviour. it's one of the things you promised to change but you are lapsing back into bad habits----Snowded TALK 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention nationlist or devolutionist PoV, in my post. Best you take your paranoia elswhere. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, that last sentence is beyond the pale. I suggest you strike it-immediately.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you rather? Have the newbie get into endless argument that he can't win (and thus get himself into alot of drama) or would you rather have the newbie 'walk away' from it entirely. I rather the newbie 'walk away'. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. My request was merely that you refrain from making 'drive-by' one-liners of a witty/snide, depending on one's PoV, nature, on article talk pages. Instead, and only if you really can't help yourself, might I suggest you confine such hit'n'runs to the talk pages of individual editors, as you did here. I'm sure that editors will be happy to advise if such are regarded as welcome additions, or otherwise, to their talk pages. If you should feel the need to warn-off an editor from a particular article/subject on the basis of your own past experiences, please do so on their talk page; although your experience re. matters concerning the Northwest European Archipeligo are as much the product of your own opinions/behaviour, as they are of those whose opinions run to the contrary. Thank you.Endrick Shellycoat 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. Your advise is welcomed here. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling: advice. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:United Kingdom

Please withdraw this comment, which is highly provocative. If not, I would ask your mentors to take appropriate action. I assume they watch this page; otherwise I would contact them direct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw, but only at your request. PS: I'm appalled at the censurship though. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Graçias. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this forced censurship of my post, only strengthens my view on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with censorship; you are being provocative to other editors, and unhelpful to a new editor in particular. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The post is scratched, let's move on. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How was it provocative? — JonCॐ 15:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best to walk away from it, Jonchapple. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read it as you being honest, and telling the lad that he's outnumbered so may as well nip it in the bud. Useful advice to save him the hassle you put yourself through. — JonCॐ 15:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's how I meant it. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DownBoy!

Mate, please don't poke the bears! ;) ✝DBD 15:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright Dan. They've won their little battle. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Fyi, [1] Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 10:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So noted. PS: I'll accept a topic-ban, for your & Dan's sake. It's my worry, that had such a topic-ban not been advised by both of you? attacks would've came both your ways. I don't want you guys to face the incivility, that I've faced. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GD, hope you don't mind some genuine well-meaning observations for you. First, it's great you acknowledge that there is a problem. But. I don't think you actually understand what the problem really is. Not once have you admitted that anything you have done was wrong and/or stupid. Instead, most of the time you're trying to pass it off as other people's problems and nothing really to do with any of your own behaviour. Even your (martyr-like) comments above that you'll accept the topic-ban to save your mentors from grief is simply a demonstration of the inability on your part to acknowledge where your own behaviour causes the problem. Sometimes editors don't want to change their ways. It would be great to see a statement from you somewhere acknowledging what you believe the problem to be, and why you have been unable to work within the site policies to date, and what changes you believe are necessary within your own behaviour. That would go a long way to resolving these problems. Good luck. --HighKing (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Righty/wrongly, there's an un-friendly atmosphere around those artcles, not to mention other concerns (which I won't elaborate on). That un-friendly atmosphere was there before I arrived & will be there after my topic ban takes effect. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, those articles happen to be controversial ones and as such the debates can get rather intense over there. But I wouldn't say the atmosphere was "unfriendly". There are other areas where there is far more hostility manifested, such as this page (as you must have observed yourself): Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. If one dares to disagree with the party line of Oswald-acted-alone-the-Warren-Report-says-so, that person swiftly is dressed in a blue boiler suit and hooded!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Ownership/Civility breaches are common. IMHO, some of the editors hanging around the British & Irish articles, are just too emotionally involved. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That comment shows the continuing depth of your misunderstanding. The bottom line is that WP - specifically, the writing of WP articles - is not a forum or chatroom in which being "friendly" is important. (Being "civil" is quite important, however.) It's an opportunity to build an encyclopedia based, not on "opinions", but on reliable sources. If you, or any editor, were to bring reliable sources to an article talk page, with an open mind and without any personal opinions evident, they will be welcomed with open arms by serious editors, as contributors towards making a better encyclopedia. People who only bring their opinions to the talk pages - repeatedly, over and over and over again - are simply not welcome, because they have nothing to contribute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, that meet the approval of the owners. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Any Reliable Source. Can you mention just one single occasion where you brought a reliable source to a Talk page but it didn't meet the "approval" of other editors? --HighKing (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was one situation, but I can't remember which article or discussion (per it being quite some time ago). I do remember Daicaregos immediately rejecting it. But, that's my super-memory for you. Oh well, like I said, I've been basically topice banned from those articles for years. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've been checking the User-pages of the editors who are eagerly supporting my topic-ban. Let's just call my findings 'coincidences'. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you can only remember one use of a source (or rather can't remember it) out of the thousands of posting of opinions it kinda says it all doesn't it? If you don't learn from this then the issue will come up again and I sense the leniency of the community it not infinite. ----Snowded TALK 12:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The community hasn't given my topic-ban a ringing endorsement, possible out of indifference. I don't vandalize articles, nor tamper with others posts, nor engage in continous edit-wars, nor do I have sock-puppets or engage in meat-puppetry. There are a few editors around the British & Irish articles (who are from those areas), that are too emotionally involved with those articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GoodDay. Hope you enjoyed my user-page. Unlike some, I make no secret of my politics; they're there for all to see. However, if you were to place words on your user-page to the effect that you were a fully paid-up member of the SNP, (as I am - shock-horror, moi, a nationalist, whatever next!), I'd still support your remaining clear of Brirish articles. It is your contributions to these articles which is at issue - not the fact that you're a republican Canuk; which is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. If you placed on the Scotland article information suggesting that the entire country's inhabitants toasted the Union Flag with a large G&T at 8pm every evening to the skirl of the pipes, then that'd be fine by me; just so long as you placed a WP:RS along with it. This is the means by which all contributions are judged; nothing more, nothing less. Endrick Shellycoat 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking countries and constituent countries

You are leaving edit summaries that say "We're not suppos to link to geography. Thus deleting link to country". Where, in WP:MOSLINK, does it say that? Major countries like United States or England, yes, but not minor ones like Wales or Uruguay. Unless you're just trying to be provocative, please try to avoid getting into more trouble on another issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Gorlentz said we can't linke to geography in bio intros. Example: this is wrong [Wales|Welsh] is wrong; but this [Welsh people|Welsh] is right. [Canada|Canadian] is wrong; [Canadians|Canadian] is right. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who? Where? In that case, you need to change the pipelinks, not delete them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna do that latter (as I like doing such gnome edits), but I'm not certain if I'll be allowed to on the British & Irish bios, if I'm topic banned (thus my request for clarification at ANI). Anways, Walter Gorlintz brought up his concerns about WP:OVERLINK. He growled me for linking to countries & constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." So Ghmyrtle defines major locations as United States and England but not Wales or Uruguay. Care to elaborate so there's a bright line. At what point is a geographic area major and when is it minor. I take that to be linking to cities, provinces or states is acceptable while countries are major and not to be linked-to. So for me, all of those locations are fairly major. Also, I tend to remove links to countries if a city or province is already linked. So Montevideo, Uruguay is the way I would list a subject's birth place or the location of an event.
I wouldn't link to a people group either (Welsh People or Canadians), but I don't know if that's advisable for others. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off from linking/delinking the countries/people & constituent countries people, until you both can decide on how I should proceed. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to link to groups of people rather than the countries themselves, that's no problem for me. But that's not what you were doing. You were removing all the pipelinks, wholesale, apparently on the basis of another editor's interpretation of guidelines, and without any proper explanation. That's not advisable, particularly when you know that your editing behaviour is under very close scrutiny. If you want to start a discussion on trying to get consistency over this, why not raise it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking? If it's important, it's a matter for community discussion, not some bilateral or trilateral discussion between editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I'll seek clarification there. GoodDay (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • GoodDay, the general practice is not to link country-names or denonyms that English-speakers are generally expected to recognise—unless there's some particular reason to do so. In almost every case, a section-link or a link to a (more specific) article is superior in terms of reader utility; however, that raises the problem of deceptive pipes. To fit the grammar of a sentence, one might consider "is an [[American_immigration#Demographics|American]] actor", but no one will click on it, sadly. That's why we ration links, applying our editorial experience and knowledge of the topic-networks to display only what we believe is probably the most useful set of links. There's also the "See also" section at the bottom, which doesn't need to pipe, of course. Thanks for your good work! Tony (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then de-linking is best, from both country/constituent country & people articles? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Different editors will continue to disagree over how the guidelines should be interpreted. It seems to me that any changes made without a very clear and specific justification in each case may well become contentious, and are best avoided. Without such a clear and specific justification, leaving well alone would be best, in current circumstances. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I'll wait until & if there's an agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a clutch of editors who will never agree with the guidelines; don't be concerned about this, since there's wide community support for not linking, for example, "United States", "American", "UK", "British", "English", "Australia", "Australian", and the well-known countries of Europe. Included in the list are probably India, China, Russia et al. and their denonyms. Now, these links might be retained in highly related articles: "List of X in the United States", "History of race relations in the UK", etc. But in normal circumstances, no. Many editors have been unlinking these unhelpful links for some years and will continue to do so. Any 10 year old child anywhere in the world who is on the internet knows what "American" means, and linking for the sake of linking weakens the linking system; please do not be intimidated by arguments to the contrary—others take no notice. As I said above, specific section and daughter-article links are acceptable where relevant. Links to continents (Europe, Asia, etc) are generally not useful. Please note the first PILLAR of WP, which says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Last time I looked, "United States", "Canada", and "Australia, for example, are prominently dealt with at wiktionary. [2]. End of issue. I'm sorry you've been exposed to this matter in such a way. Please keep up your good work. You might also be interested to look briefly at the gnoming of User:Colonies Chris, who is one of our most skilled, meticulous gnomes. Contribs page. Kind regards. Tony (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to decide which course to take. Ghmyrtle figures I should completely drop the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, since you gnome (the essence of wikis, I believe), could I pass by you the possibility of installing Greg U's superb dash script? It fixes a number of issues, including the troublesome use of hyphens to indicate ranged numbers (1981–84, not 1980-84). Many articles benefit from the quick click as you gnome, especially as Windows keyboards don't have easy access to the en dash (although it's a button underneath the edit-box on WP). The script is one of our most successful and is uncontroversial. Very occasional false positives have been fixed by the script's author over the years. Cheers, Tony (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the button on my keyboard, for the extended hyphen. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&oldid=477776774"