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

"I prefer an honest demon over a lying angel" - GoodDay

Hall of Honour

Alaney2k
Collect
Danbarnesdavies
Dolovis
Fyunck(click)
Giano
GoodDay
HighKing
Isaacl
Jeanne boleyn
Jon C.
Kauffner
Leaky caldron
LittleBenW
Lvivske
Mabuska
MakeSense64

Malleus Fatuorum
Masterhatch
Matt Lewis
MickMacNee*
Miesianiacal
Mooretwin
Raul17
Risker
Rrius
Snowded
Steven Zhang
TharkunColl
Van Speijk
Vintagekits*
Wolbo
Youreallycan*

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Conditionally repealed 17 November-24 December 2012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

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)

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)

Honestly, the Baltic states are considered to have been occupied territory for the duration of the Soviet+Nazi+Soviet presence. If you need a different example, no one claims someone born in Israeli-controlled Palestine is born in Israel except perhaps for the imported Israeli settlement residents. No other parallels implied, of course. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Latvia, Estonia & Lithuania were 3 of 15 Soviet republics. Communism was a perversion of history, however Wikipedia isn't here to 'right' any 'wrongs' done to people. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Observing factually that no one considers the Baltics to have been legally part of the USSR is not righting any wrongs, it's simply sticking to encyclopedic facts. Get off your high horse. If you don't want to, there are blogs for that. WP is not a blog. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

They were a part of the USSR & no revisionism can alter that fact. Leo Komarov was born 1987 in the USSR. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I love the "No one considers them to be LEGAL" when "no one" really means "no country I like"--Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher's tears

I noticed your removal of this from last month. It is easily verifiable from the Marr source it is referenced to in the article. I think it was also discussed at the GA and subsequently in article talk and the consensus has always been that it fulfils NPOV as it's an important part of the story. So I put it back in. --John (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Seen a tag, so I deleted the sentence. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'd request as I did to the tagger that you look a little more carefully the next time, especially on a GA. It took me less than 30 seconds to recheck the source. --John (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Replies to your own comments

I noticed a number of edits where you changed the indent level of some editors' comments so it would not appear that they were replying to themselves. Where there is no ambiguity in the discussion thread, I suggest it would be better to leave it alone. Sometimes, an editor does want to make a followup comment that he/she perceives as an add-on to the original comment, and so would like it indented. But in any case, if there is no confusion, it doesn't do any harm to leave the indentation as originally entered.

Regarding your recent comment on my talk page, I appreciate your input, but since the editor is understandably upset, I'd as soon let matters rest. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How have you been?

Good, I take it? I've had no threads about you on my talk page. Haha. I've been taking a much needed wikibreak but I am back to resume my work doing the various odds-and-ends that I do around this place. Keep in touch, hope you're well. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been well. Glad to see that you've returned :) GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to be back. Got lots to catch up on I am sure. Please do ping me if you need anything. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

New U.S. legislative data project

Hi there, GoodDay! I'm working with a group of Wikipedians on a Legislative Data Workshop to explore ways of using legislative data to enhance Wikipedia, and since it's a subject area you've been active with, I figured you might like to know of it. We've set up a provisional WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data (WP:LEGDATA) where we're developing new ideas, so if you'd like to offer your views or help out, we'd love to have you join! Cheers, WWB (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-practice?

Please help me to understand the history which informs the term "wiki-practice" here. I am unfamiliar with this consensus decision. Is it a policy or convention?

My guess is that information (+ cite support) which you removed needs to be restored. --Ansei (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I followed the practice that we don't number the former popes. We don't have 264th at Pope John Paul II, 263rd at Pope John Paul I etc etc. So why would we have 265th at Pope Benedict XVI? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning is clear, but it is not a consensus policy. The cite you removed explicitly mentions that the numbering has been considered significant for centuries. As it happens, your point of view is mirrored at Vactican.va. However, this is not sufficient to exclude information from cited reliable sources.

Since this thread was begun, I see that you have also removed the ordinal number from the first paragraph of Leo XI. This deletion needs to be restored -- not only for the reasons mentioned above, but also because this subject remains an active issue in the contemporary press. In this small matter, your personal perspective is not justified by published sources nor by consensus-derived wiki-policy.

I hope you will understand that it will be better for you to make these changes than for someone else to do it. --Ansei (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing the numbering from 2 or 3 former pope articles, is easier then adding them to over 200 such articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your reasoning, but "easier" is not the same as consensus policy. Please revert what you have done in the article about Pope Leo XI. I would also ask you to restore any other ordinal numbers you may have removed in articles about popes before Pius X -- see Frederick Martin et al. (1912). The Statesman's Year-book, p. 1142.

Please try to consider the consequences of a refusal to restore what you have removed. For example, are you giving any thought to the ways in which your plan is problematic in Pope Stephen II (III)? A process of simplification is often good, but not in this context. I hope it won't be necessary to add this small issue at Wikipedia:Third Opinion? --Ansei (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You have my permission to revert my deletions. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Baltic headaches

You were doing so well. Until otherwise, the proper name of the country(ies) is one the name used at the time in question. Russia was not Russia in 1970, but the Soviet Union then the Soviet Union should be used. Or I will have to use the Dominion of Canada in all the (ice) hockey articles!! Raul17 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I only made the edits in compliance with the Baltics Rfc. When we make edits we don't agree with, it's a sign of accepting not getting our way. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

But it appears that you are deliberately doing this; playing with fire and skating on thin ice! It does not take much for the mass to come after you again!! On a sidenote, why do you use honour instead of the English honor?Raul17 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

1) I won't be trying to apply the Baltic Rfc consensus anymore. 2) Thought it was spelt eitherway :) GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

--> 2)Yes it can be, but I was trying to make fun of you since honour French-Canadian(?)and British and definitely not American. Raul17 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha... GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Honour" is the English Canadian spelling. The French word is spelt (or spelled) "l'honneur". Bielle (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Again, I am poking fun at GoodDay. I even messed up French-Canadien (as in the Montreal Hockey Club). Everyone knows that he is an undercover Canadiens fan!! Raul17 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)