User talk:GoodDay

Welcome!

Hello, GoodDay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

---

Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. Be assured I'll be as curtious as possible & hope to provide worthy answers to your questions (about wiki edits), I'm looking forward to meeting you. User:GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC). PS- Usually from 10:00 pm EST, until about 2:00 pm EST (the next day), I'm signed out. Please be patient, as I'll eventually get to your questions. GoodDay 02:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Don't wait for a lack of references to be pointed out before adding references. Get into the good habit of providing references all of the time. Uncle G 12:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledged, thanks for the advice. GoodDay 15:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois forming a minority

Can you please tell me how the BQ can form a minority government? There are 233 seats in the House of Commons outside Quebec, so if those 233 seats are equally divided among the 3 other parties represented in the HC, then the party with the most seats would get 77 seats, which is still greater than the number of ridings in Quebec.

So unless there's another political party represented in the HC (possibly the Green Party), I don't see how the BQ can form any kind of government. Bourquie 8:41 utc, 17 Jan 2006

I see your point. But I think you should make a note in the article that there are only 4 parties represented in the House of Commons. The reason is that unless there's another party that is successful in winning a seat in the House on 23 Jan, the BQ will still not be able to form a government. Bourquie 22:51 utc, 17 Jan 2006

Check out the first skid 1. Bourquie 4:11 UTC 8 Feb 2006.

sports wiki

Hi!

I noticed you were active on many sports pages on Wikipedia. My friends and are I starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles, as well as regular encyclopedic entries. If you're interested, contact me and I'll give you the URL. --DNL 22:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators

Thanks for fixing my mistake, I was trying to edit out the players salaries in the 'current roster' section & I accidently erased the Senators lower half of the page (everything below Ray Emery). So again ,I offer my appreciation and heartfelt thanks. GoodDay 18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Although it startled me at first because I thought half the Senators team was traded on the deadline or something... ;) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 18:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin nom

Hey, GoodDay, how goes it? Just wanted to let you know that Croat Canuck was kind enough to nominate me for adminship, and I'd be grateful for a kind word from you in support! Regards, RGTraynor 15:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Check Flyers website

Forsberg is the only Flyer listed on the Injury Report. (http://www.philadelphiaflyers.com/pressbox/injuryReport/injuryReport.asp) --S. Parkhurst 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

changes

Your changes to Diana Spencer's name were wrong. In historiography deceased former royal consorts are always referred to by maiden name. That is because

• Consorts do not have ordinals (numbers) like reigning monarchs and so become tangled up and confusing if consort names are used.
• Consorts undergo numerous title changes during their lifetime, confusing readers.
• Using maiden name or maiden title allows readers to understand the origins of the person, while avoiding consort confusion.

That is why biographies refer to Catherine of Aragon, Elizabeth of York, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Blanche of Castile, Marie-José of Belgium, not Queen Catherine, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Blanche and Queen Marie-José. Diana is referred to on WP as Diana Spencer because that is the standard biographical reference used internationally.

You are also wrong about King Constantine II of Greece. Greece is a republic. Under international historical referencing, deposed monarchs continue to be referred to by their former constitutional title as a courtesy title for their lifetime, as do deposed crown princesses, etc. That title then dies with them. That is standard usage worldwide and WP follows it under its own MoS and NC rules. The rules have been carefully worked out on WP and are followed in articles. I've reverted back to the standard usage on Wikipedia. Please be careful to follow the Manual of Style and Naming Conventions rules on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Captain correction

Guh, thanks for picking up on that Yashin/Sundin mix-up, since I probably would've never noticed. I've been going at this since the early afternoon, and even after a break it's like all the boxes and names are melding in to one giant ... something or other.--Resident Lune 23:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Edward III's sons

I agree that technically William of Hatfield was Edward's second son. However, there seems to be a tradition of ignoring children who died young when allocating succession numbers. All the references I can find to the Plantagenet claim to the throne have Lionel as the second son, John of Gaunt as the third and Edmund of Langley as the fourth. Although you're right, would it be better to stick to the traditional numbering? That way, anyone moving on from Wikipedia to other sources won't be confused about who was who.

Thewiltog 08:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification (Garth Snow)

When I used "American", I was referring to his nationality and not which league he played in (or preference between AHL and NHL). I was going by the example set in Wayne Gretzky, where it makes note of his nationality in the opening comments. Just wanted to clear that up--Resident Lune 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland

Please stop perpetuating error in Wikipedia. Presidential terms ended the 4th of March before the 20th amendment. It is true that not much tends to happen the morning of Inauguration Day; but a crisis arose on 4th March, 1933, and it was Hoover, not FDR, who dealt with it. (True, he dealt with it by denying the necessity of Federal action, but that was a policy difference.) Septentrionalis 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jessup's position, which nobody else supports, and which is there contradicted by evidence, is a perfect example of original research. He decided what ought to be true, based on his private reading of the Constitution and the law, instead of consulting secondary sources on what was true. Let's put it back. Septentrionalis 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Did Cleveland; I intend to do them one at a time, going backward; Coolidge, Wilson, and so forth, until I get back to Washington. If you leap ahead, I will support your edit in time (I will take time to find a source for each hereafter.) 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Presidential term ending days

Please stop changing the date to March 4. You are incorrect in stating that the terms ended at noon. See the biographical entry for James Buchanan or James Monroe for just two examples, which clearly state the terms end on March 3. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure; you'll have to ask someone who knows more about presidential term beginnings/endings than I do. However, the terms did end at midnight on March 3. That is the source of the term Midnight Judges, for example. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, see in the bioguide that it specifically states that John Adams' terms ended March 3, both as VP and POTUS. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The bioguide is produced by the U.S. Government. If they say the terms ended March 3, I suppose that's the truth. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits in this area. If you haven't already seen it, there is now extensive evidence compiled at Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States establishing that the March 4 term-expiration date is correct, which should be useful in addressing this ever-present controversy in the future. User Tomf is right about the bioguide, but I believe that is a function of a limitation on their database (not being able to have two different people in the same office on the same date) as opposed to a substantive governmental comment on the legal expiration time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike Ricci

I must say I was quite surprised to see a question about an edit I made six weeks ago, but I'm glad there are always editors making sure Wikipedia is the best it can be. Here's why I removed the captaincy box: I had seen boxes like this for awards and such, but never for captaincy, on other player pages. So when I saw this one, I assumed it was an attempt by an over-zealous Ricci fan to make his achievements seem great. Since then, I've seen quite a few of the captaincy boxes, and I now accept them as appropriate. I totally forgot that I had removed this one from the Ricci page, or I would have added it back myself. I hope this answers your question. --Muéro 21:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

---

		The Minor Barnstar
		As of today, 1858 minor edits . . . all of them great! Thanks especially for your commitment to fixing the little things in hockey-related articles. Muéro(talk/c) 04:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to 2006

re: No need to double wiki-link dates ([1])

I reverted that change. All dates on those pages are intentionally wikilinked to allow for localized date formats. A date can be entered on the page as January 19, but it will display according to the reader's local preference. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes to dig up where I saw that discussed; it's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/August 2005 survey results#Question_5 (Fourth option.) (And I just noticed that a lot of dates on 2006 aren't wikilinked, but should be). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nothing to apologize for. There's really no way to tell what the standard is from looking at the page; it's not consistent right now. I'll go back add the missing wikilinks later when the article isn't being edited much. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden

Good day, GoodDay! Just to check, you've change Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden's coronation date to Sept 19, but put in your edit summary that the coronation date was Sept 15. Was the edit summary just a typo, or was "Sept 19" a typo? Thanks, Mr WR 07:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize - it wasn't a criticism, I was just checking! Mr WR 10:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Redden

Redden may have missed his third straight game but he's back on the ice. However, he is still considered as injured I THINK but before the game, Ottawa Senators declared he was going to play. --Deenoe 15:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, althought I'm not the one who puts the A next to Fisher, and we shouldnt change it, even if for a game Fisher is Alternate, simply because Redden stays Alternate even if he's not playing (not sure if you get what im trying to say..) --Deenoe 16:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand your idea...? --Deenoe 17:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I get it, and agree! --Deenoe 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

El Jigue

Hi GoodDay

I've seen your attempts to highlight EJ's talk page banter. All I can say is, EJ is a unique character, and his writing is usually worth a read even though it is often outside the boundaries of policy - thus users tend to give him some leeway. I understand your attempts to get him to buckle down, many have tried over the years including me. All have failed!--Zleitzen 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, this is the first time we've come across each other so please understand that I'm coming at the subject from my own narrow view of things, and I'm not trying to express an opinion about articles or situations about which I don't have any direct experience. My own experiences with EJ have been entirely refreshing and educational. I originally became engaged at the CG page in an attempt to balance what I viewed as some POV use of language and content within a couple of trouble-spots at a featured article. As a complete novice in Cuban history (yet with a deep interest in Latin America history and culture in general), I was both enthused and energized by the reception I received there by such stalwart gatekeepers as Polaris and Zleitzen. Spending a good part of my time at Wikipedia navigating the swamplands of articles and debates involving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and other related issues, I have found the climate at the CG article to be almost all clear skies and fresh breezes. What El Jigue has done for me personally with his unique personal observations and detailed knowledge is to spark a desire to dig much deeper into Cuban history, and to that end I have solicited and received his recommendations on some source material which I have ordered and will be receiving within days (you can check out his IP talk page if you're at all interested in this exchange between him and me). To what extent I follow-through is now up to me, but I am grateful for the help and inspiration I've already received, and I find myself looking forward to the insight and color he provides to the discussions here. I much appreciate that your experiences with him have left an entirely different impression, and having glanced through some of the discussions to which I was not a participant I can see quite clearly why that could be, but I do want to note that he doesn't impose his views into the articles (as far as I can tell, perhaps I'm wrong though) and that the talk page policy, while paying homage to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V also says that there is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation. It doesn't take much WP:AGF at all for me to find that allowance for EJ in every encounter I've had with him to date, and I will be sorely disappointed if he chooses to desist from his participation here. Thanks much, GoodDay, for having taken the time to post to me and to read this response. Dasondas 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)