User talk:GoodDay

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This editor is a WikiGnome.

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

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 5 months and 29 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'.

"The suggestion that those who want to write English Wikipedia in English are discourteous is wrong" - Jimbo Wales

Mentors

Danbarnesdavies, Steven Zhang & Snowded (British/Irish).

Awards

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

Rough waters

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay, 4-20 December 2011
Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incident/GoodDay 17-21 February 2012

Conditionally repealed 17 November-24 December 2012

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, 29 May-14 June 2012

You need to back off on the Leo Komarov article

Getting yourself blocked for edit warring won't do anything good. Let the debate play out on the talk page. Request a WP:3O if need be. Resolute 19:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I know. I just get heated with agenda editors. I wish he'd expand his argument to a Community-wide forum, instead being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Both sides of this debate have a POV/agenda. I may disagree with them, but I'm not going to vilify them for disagreeing with me. The debate will resolve in its own time. How the article looks in the interim sort of misses the bigger picture! Resolute 19:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If he would just take his argument to a Community-wide forum. BTW, what happened to Jaan? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The article-in-question has just been protected. PS: Oh no, he's now moved onto NHL team roster templates. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bill Heindl, Jr.

Good day, GoodDay. I've come across your name many times when editing hockey articles, so I thought you might be someone to check in with. I've done a fairly straightforward expansion on the Bill Heindl, Jr. article, but am hesitant to add some more info, which I think is notable and could very well push it to a DYK nom. In short, the issue is this: numerous posts on forums have suggested that:

• Heindl grew despondent after his career ended, marriage failed and his father died, and he attempted to kill himself, survived but became a paraplegic. I haven't had much luck in accessing legit citable sources for this.
• he may eventually have become a competitive wheelchair athlete, as there is an award from the BC Wheelchair Tennis Ass'n that uses his name, but nothing that confirms it is named after him or why
• he may also have competed in wheelchair racquetball, as I cam across his name (without the Jr) as having placed at a tourney
• he eventually died in 1992, and one blog at least suggests it may have been a suicide, but I can't find a proper obit
• and this is what would make an awesome hook for a DYK: on April 25, 1980, numerous posts suggest that Bobby Orr, who was on the Oshawa Generals in 1965-66 when the Gens played in the Memorial Cup, as was Heindl, apparently arranged a benefit game for Heindl in Winnipeg, and said game is apparently the only time ever that Gretzky and Orr played in the same game. I am suspicious since I can't even find unusable photos of this, and you'd think there'd be one somewhere. There's listings on eBay for game programs that have Orr on the cover. There's apparently a transcript of a Peter Gzowski interview with someone about this in the Trent University archives. There's this post which references a book I don't have and can't access online. There's this other trivia book which you can read online but not sure how much stock to put in either of these sources. I guess I'm looking for guidance / input here for 2 reasons:
• because suicide is a sensitive subject, I don't want to indicate that aspect without being damn sure and
• for something that would be a huge thing in hockey circles, I'm surprised there's not more about the Gretzky/Orr angle out there. Let me know what you think, and if you have any resources that could shed some light on this. I started the article expansion yesterday, so there's still a couple of days to be eligible for a DYK nom.Echoedmyron (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is quite beyond my gnoming duties & knowledge. WP:HOCKEY would be your best place for help. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Have posted at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Article_Improvement#Bill_Heindl.2C_Jr. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Estoniania

Seems the canvassing brought in another WP:Estonia editor, one who had a topic ban on all European articles fairly recently...I hope this doesn't get uglier...good grief--Львівське (говорити) 08:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

My 7+ years (on this project) tells me it's gonna get uglier. GoodDay (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DIGWUREN meets WP:HOCKEY. My worlds are colliding. I hate hockey now.--Львівське (говорити) 15:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Lvivske, your are wrong nobody has been canvassed, but you are right that this could turn ugly. Given your own block log and GoodDay being on ArbCom's radar, if this continues then site bans for all could be a real possibility. You state that your project has your own quirks (regarding flag use, or how you use abbreviations for US/CAN players birthplaces but long form for European, etc.) [1], so why can't you accept that WP:ESTONIA has also established its way and come to a comprise with regard to Baltic bios? It's not about winning but working together. --Nug (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple 24-72hr timeouts from 2 years ago < topic and interaction bans...just saying...--Львівське (говорити) 19:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Very difficult to work with editors, who try to re-write history. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, people did come try to come to a compromise. See the current City, Estonia, USSR compromise compared to City, Estonia SSR, USSR as was originally desired. Or the City, USSR (now Estonia) variants that were offered. It seems to me that one side has no desire to compromise or work together and will only accept City, Estonia. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Exacty, like Djsasso points out. Your Narva, Estonia and nothing else-stance, doesn't appear like "working together" to us. You (Nug) are the one with his heels dug in. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not true at all. I made this edit[2] in support of Alaney2k's edit[3], but the lot was undone by GoodDay [4]. Shrug, the record shows I tried. --Nug (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) was offered by me & was turned down by you. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Narva, Soviet Union could refer to Narva, Primorsky Krai or Narva, Krasnoyarsk Krai, We don't want to confuse readers into thinking that a part of the Russian Far East is now Estonia. --Nug (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The (now Estonia) part, solves that potential problem. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Your recent editing history at Papal resignation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I overdid it, even though it was to maintain accuracy. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I would have escalated this to the Administrators' Noticeboard so thanks for the reply. Also, please understand WP:SHOUT/WP:CAPSLOCK for next time! In the meantime, the actual wording of the article could be discussed further on Talk:Papal_resignation. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Noted. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Premiers

Please note that while you're correct that we need to wait until Kathleen Wynne is officially sworn in, (a) that's happening in less than half an hour now, so people jumping the gun is more forgivable than it was two weeks ago, and (b) the correct procedure, once a handover in power is known to be occurring, is that both the outgoing and incoming premiers get listed in the infobox until the changeover happens — thus, it is not correct to simply remove Wynne from the infobox entirely; rather, they are both to be listed, McGuinty as the incumbent and Wynne as the designate, until such time as Wynne is officially premier. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it's one premier at a time. The infobox is for the office-holder only. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's precedent is quite clear that in the days following an election or other change of leadership, an infobox is permitted to list both the outgoing incumbent and the incoming designate until such time as the designate becomes the incumbent. Whether you personally agree with that or not is irrelevant; the practice is established by consensus, not by you personally. And, for the record, she's now being sworn in less than five minutes, meaning that there's absolutely no valid reason besides pure tendentiousness to take this any further. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Having both in the infobox simultaneously, is incorrect. However, with less then 5 minutes to go, I'm not gonna fight over it. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Official correctness or incorrectness aside, as you know the problem is that the transition period invariably gives rise to a constant Wikipedia edit war over which name actually gets listed in the infobox during those two weeks. Our practices are not determined by officialism for the sake of officialism; if a problem arises on here that we can solve by allowing incumbents and designates to both be listed during a transition period, then we do that regardless of the officialities. What's correct or incorrect in the official sense does not matter; Wikipedia's actual practice and precedent says it's permissible in our articles in order to avoid unproductive editwarring, and Wikipedia policy takes precedence over your personal preferences. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I happen to disagree. During those transiton periods, the article-in-question should be protected or semi-protected until new official takes office. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, by all means you're entitled to propose that for a broad discussion around adopting it as the new policy if you wish. But until a consensus of Wikipedians has actually agreed to take that approach instead of the existing one, then the existing procedure stands whether you agree with it or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does one place such a proposal? GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the outgoing first minister resign before the incoming takes the oath? So to be technically correct the infobox would be blank for five minutes. 117Avenue (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's true. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:DATE

Hi. I noticed this edit but can't find the relevant text in WP:DATE. Please can you help? --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It prefers just the dates. If places are already in infobox? then there not required in the intro. WP:DATE, is striving for simplicity. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you point to where the text at WP:DATE says that? --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:DATE, doesn't mention using 'birthplaces' or 'deathplaces'. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's guidance on the opening paragraph for biographies. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahah, that's where I had read it. I should've been using WP:OPENPARAGRAPH for such changes. Thanks, Isaacl. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Note WP:OPENPARAGRAPH says that the birth place should not be placed within the opening brackets (I assume it means parentheses), and so this edit is counter to Wikipedia's style guide for biographies. isaacl (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Careful

This is border line a casual comment not really engaging with the content issue----Snowded ^TALK 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seemed harmless enough :( GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your topic ban was lifted under the following conditions:

• No changes in nationality for any person on any article

• No removal of non-English names on any article

• No changes or participation in talk pages on known areas of controversy such as Derry/Londonderry and the various British Isles issues

• No comments on talk page that express opinion without supporting references or argument

While your comment here (and here and here and here and here) is only a borderline breach of #2 (by commenting on the 'removal of non-English names on any article') and of #3 (by participating in a discussion of an obviously controversial topic), it is an actual breach of #4 i.e. (by providing 'comments on talk page that express opinion without supporting references or argument'). That you believe "There's nothing further for me to add at that discussion" or that it "Seemed harmless enough :(" shows you do not intend to abide by the conditions laid down for lifting your topic ban, or you do not understand them. Which is it? Daicaregos (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't need a source to prove that I don't understand the Welsh language. Therefore #4 hasn't been breached. PS- If you're still not satisfied? contact my mentor Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Due to feeling intimidated by you, I've 'scratched out' my comments at WP:WALES. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of birth place

While the manual of style suggests that birth place is omitted from the lede, can you please ensure that when you remove it from the lede you don't remove it from the article entirely, i.e. move it into the main body of the article as the MOS suggests. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I leave them in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please insert them elsewhere in the article as well as leaving them in the infobox. There's nothing that says they should only be in the infobox. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:GoldRingChip#Problem with User:ANTONI20

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:GoldRingChip#Problem with User:ANTONI20. —GoldRingChip 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

ANI, is your best route. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

GoldChipRing

I have seen that this nonsensible user has complained regarding edits I have done. The edits I have done were to add additional information, edits which GoldChipRing did not appreciate. His argument with me does not have to do with content, rather it has to do with format. I have sought to compromise with him, yet he believes he is the dedicated editor for congressional districts and that only he can make edits and dictate format. With GoldChipRing, it's like having the Chinese censors removing any useful information and replacing it with outdated information, along with broken hyperlinks. My final offer of compromise to him was that we would list election results in descending order, starting with 2012, a very common practice. However, I also agreed to list past election results from 1990-2004 in ascending order, as he requested. Instead, he rejected my offer and switched the pages back to his broken link edits. He references Wikipedia rules constantly as justification for his edits, yet there is no rule in regards to listing electoral results, other than that which was created by GoldChipRing. If he is unwilling to accept and listen to the opinion and recommendation of other Wikipedia user's, then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You both may consider WP:DRN from this point onward. PS: I wish you'd learn/remember to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

History re-written

"Very difficult to work with editors, who try to re-write history. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)".
Hmmmm, yeah, so why did you make the change at James Johnston (Secretary of State)?
Looking forward to yr explanation! Eddaido (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)