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

"Trying to make Wikipedia accurate while being surrounded by PoV pushers, is like trying to fly like an eagle while be surrounded by a bunch of turkeys" - GoodDay

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Conditionally repealed 17 November-24 December 2012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

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)

Assuming you're talking about an edit I made early today a 0:50? it's called an editorial mistake, which you could've easily corrected for me. GoodDay (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But then I'd no idea at all just what was in your editorial mind, did I?
I've now had a good laugh since I've realised you must have wanted to add (have now added a totally superfluous) Zero ;-) Eddaido (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No harm, no problem. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Well done on the third entry, the first and second might have been problematic ----Snowded ^TALK 17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's taking awhile, but I'm gradually smoothing my rough edges. Thanks, for giving me the oportunity to improve :) GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Since when were YOU allowed back on British/Irish articles???217.43.208.103 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Back in December. See Snowded for more information. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Option B

Per AN unblock request. Obviously I have no choice other than to choose option B for the moment, but I hope that when this comes up again you will be available to support the removal of that restriction. If you imagine a pie chart with three slices, I can work on one third of wikipedia and not another third – not because of any topic ban but because of privacy concerns. Normally I split my edits between those two slices of the pie, so it effectively cuts my edit subject matter in half. The third piece of the pie I could edit if I wanted, but would not under either situation. Apteva (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You will never get a different result unless you can explain the nature of your "privacy concern". Nothing in any of what you said made clear why you can't edit in different areas with one username. The word "privacy" is not magic; you have to give an actual explanation of why you need what you are requesting. If you can't do that, it is your problem. -Rrius (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Then try Option C. Request that both your accounts are 'deleted', then create a new account & inform the community of it. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Baltic states edit warring

The Ozoliņš article is now up for full protection by another editor. Fair warning, if the edit warring simply moves to another article, I will be taking this to ANI and requesting wholesale blocks. I would request that you keep further debate to the talk pages. Resolute 14:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, the ANI route is best. It's gauling that these Baltic nationalists haven't been topic-banned, yet. There comes a point where editors have got to protect this Project against stupidity. Honestly, claiming that Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia were never a part of the USSR? Anyways, message received & understood. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope so, because dude, if I take this to ANI now, you're getting a block, and probably not a short one. You, Jaan and the one IP are doing most of the reverting. Resolute 14:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood, considering my past. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

Will do, thanks for expressing your concern. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)