User talk:GoodDay

This editor is a WikiGnome.

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Ice Hockey.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

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

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 5 months and 27 days.

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

Awards

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

Edit count & Pie chart

Edit records

My Arbcom Case

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

Nomination of Christine Fang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Fang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

User talk:DeaconShotFire

You thought it not worthy of losing talk page access after they wrote, "Enjoy your fake power, degenerate?" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra:, What? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bishonen: not sure what your problem is. But, if that's your attitude? Don't post here, either. Get the HINT? GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, you're a cool cat. But, perhaps in future, it's best not to contact me about anything to do with Bishonen. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

List of longest-reigning monarchs

Just wanted you to know that the Queen of Jamaica has been unranked by some user. Peter Ormond 💬 10:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: got it. I suspect the fellow (Elfast) who boldly made the change, is going to be troublesome. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You were right. Peter Ormond 💬 14:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: You're gonna have to revert him as well, unless you're agreeing with him. It can't be entirely my responsibility. Anyways, I'm kinda getting fed up with the 'lack of support' over at Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II. It truly annoys me, when any editor or editors try to pretend that the UK isn't 'special' among the other Commonwealth countries, via ignoring WP:WEIGHT. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I reverted another edit today before reading your comment. Also, I think you were waiting for THAT MOVE at Talk:Queen of Ghana for sometime. Peter Ormond 💬 08:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to read my edit. I haven't ever removed the entry for Jamaica, I'm just editing the number 14th for - (for unranked). Please report if you think it's necessary, but reading the history of the article, I'm not the only one who have done this edit and have been reverted by you, and other people notice the inconsistency in the discussion page. You don't think to consider the point (maybe you think I'm removing Jamaica) and I don't see any answer about this specific point (the number ! not the independant entry). (You seem very stubborn and you don't seem to consider the point. If you report other people will be able to read it). Elfast (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, as I'm really not sure you've understood what I'm editing : I'm not removing the independant Jamaican entry, but just the number (which is a compromise). You can't be second and 14th at the same time as a person. Elfast (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Elfast: if you want to make such a big change? go the RFC route. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Accusation of bludgeoning

In order to avoid taking the discussion at Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs off track, I'm responding to your accusation that I'm "bludgeoning the discussion" here.

"To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided."

"Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view.". You and I have responded to each other equally. I'm not going around responding to every different commenter, I responded to just yours, and then responded to your replies to me. You weren't required to continue responding to me, but chose to.

From the section on dealing with accusations of bludgeoning, it refers to four points:

1. Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker. Continuing to argue the same point doesn't reinforce it and can be annoying to others.

You'll note I responded to you with different arguments or avenues, while you responded with the same point.

2. When you dominate a conversation by replying many times, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of tendentious editing.

In no way have I been replying any more than you.

3. It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own.

I've not gone to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. I've approached you with different tactics, and only you, and only where you have indicated an interest in dicussion, by responding to me in discussion.

4. You have the right to give your opinion in any open discussion, so long as you aren't doing it in a way that limits others from doing the same.

I've expressed my opinions, as is my right, and not prevented anyone, or reasonably intimidated anyone.

You turned a simple discussion into an accusation, and in doing so, did not act with civility. Please refrain from such accusations, but I look forward to constructive discussions in the future. I admire your commitment to articles such as this one.

I would appreciate it if you'd retract your accusation, but I won't push or argue for that. You are free to make such accusations. El Dubs (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Supertrinko:I've made my comment as per required at the RFC & will remove the bludgeon accusation, if you stop pestering me at the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Already responded there stating I'm happy to end the discussion. Again, I'll reject the statement that I pestered you. I'm not going around seeking out all your comments responding to you. If you'd attempted not to respond, I would not have attempted to respond repeatedly. You respond to me as much as I respond to you. There's no pestering happening, only discussion, something you invited by repeatedly replying. El Dubs (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I made a comment at a Request for comment, not a Request for discussion. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I was extending the "oldest current head of state" boxes that already existed for Cuthbert Sebastian and earlier leaders. Don't know who created the first one. Goustien (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Goustien:, best to delete all of them. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, feel free, but I don't know another way to easily find this information. Lists of state leaders by age has some clues but is not the same. Goustien (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

I suggest you revert your reversion of my edit; you are now in violation of the discretionary sanctions on that article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: I suggest you observe WP:BRD & not try to force changes, without a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)