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 22 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

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Deb (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Jan 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Jan 2024(2)

{{subst:ANEW-notice}}--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from commenting there, as it's usually best to allow outsiders to give input. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The long & winding road

@GiantSnowman:, I've seen/acknowledged your EW 'reminder'. Anyways, I should point out, one of the reasons I opened the RfC concerning Levesque? Was to avoid another editors' getting reported for edit-warring. TBH, looking back to late November 2023. Had the individual 'allowed' the change from "Qebecois politician" to "Canadian politician" in the opening sentence? The content dispute would likely not have begun, at all. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Quite possibly, yes. GiantSnowman 22:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:TPG vio

In this edit, you altered the significance of my comments by collapsing sections, and then you created a new subsection that singlehandedly set aside the question I had asked in my section. That is a pretty clear WP:TPG vio and a behavioral issue - please don't do that again. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I merely combined the two discussions, because they were about the same topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I had already explained (here) why I regard the topics as different and that they should not be combined. I don't understand why you thought it was permissible to combine them anyway. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I already explained. In my view, both discussions appeared to be about the same topic, so I combined them. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Levesque

@Newimpartial: you don't have to respond here. But, I'm concerned that you're at borderline territory (if you haven't breached that line), concerning WP:BLUDGEON, at Levesque's talkpage. For your sake, if you're willing to walk away from the discussion, I'll do the same. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're saying; while I can't promise to "walk away" completely, I certainly intend to hold back until I am no longer the top contributor in recent discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, you should 'walk away' from it & I'm not suggesting this, just because you're opposing me there. At this moment, I've been attempting to help another editor out, in another topic area of the project, where myself & the other editor are on opposite sides of a content dispute. I'm seeking to get the other editor's 'edit war' block either lifted or reduced. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I dont think comments like this one on your part will move the discussion forward. You hold the view that the consensus resulting from the RfC is different from the one that the closer found. I understand that, but your view on this isn't really relevant to editing the page, and repeating it isn't likely to convince other editors any more than my repeating, "but the sources!", one more time is likely to convince other editors

Also, off-topic for Lesvesque but in response to your comment: my view is that the UK nations and the Spanish nationalities reflect correct, source based implementation of ETHNICITY as currently written, and that a similar, source-based approach should be followed to settle similar questions elsewhere. ETHNICITY simply does not endorse a cookie-cutter, Westphalian approach to "nationality" as written, and I believe it is written correctly (but often interpreted incorrectly). Just so we understand each other.

Also, to be clear, I recognize and respect your intention to promote collaboration around the project. However, at times it is necessary to understand the underlying values and animating concerns of other editors before meaningful consensus can be reached; antinomies like participating/not participating or support/oppose/compromise do not always speed this process, IME. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I find your overall (since November 2023) refusal to accept "Canadian politician", via being the lone 'reverter', to be obstructing & repetitive posts at the talkpage, also unhelpful. But anyways - To clarify, you support using "Basque, Catalan" over "Spanish" & "English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish/Irish" over "British"? GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

When sources support doing so, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

And, you want to push that beyond Spain & the United Kingdom, into all sovereign states? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

When sources support doing so, yes. (And lest this be quoted later out of context, I am talking strictly about "national" terms here, and not about social identities that are not considered "nationalities" by HQRS.) I actually think this would be an improvement in standardizing our approach to recent versus earlier historical figures - right now, editors who want "passport citizenship" as the basis for the first sentence in all cases often ask questions about historical figures that RS are poorly equipped to answer, and that ought not to be major influences in writing an encyclopaedia.

Also, concerning your earlier comment, you seem to be interpreting me as the only editor favoring the inclusion of "Québécois" in the first sentence, through article edits or Talk contributions. Although I am the only recent "reverter", the more general characterization you are drawing from that is false. (And reverting to the version resulting from a recent RfC close is seldom regarded as bad behaviour, though I expect you disagree with me on that, too). Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We disagree quite a bit, concerning Levesque & apparently WP:ETHNICITY, too. But then this project would be boring, if everybody agreed on everything. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

NCROY

Can you elaborate on this?:

An RFC at WP:NCROY was held (late 2023) with the result basically being that it's desirable to drop "of country" from monarch bio pages, where possible. So far, it's mostly being implement via RMs on monarch bio pages & some via Bold moves. Overall the end result has left monarch page bios in more inconsistencies now, then ever before. So.. if part of the lower-case push, is to bring consistency to sports page titles? It's quite likely, the result will be more inconsistencies. ... In the example I've given. There's zero chance of consistency being restored, particularly as inconsistency is preferred.

What's the nature of the issue from your perspective? I'm not really sure what concern you're raising.

I've gone over the original RfC, and the followup RfC that was aborted for some reason despite significant input. It looks to me like the original RfC's conclusion was reached on the basis of WP:CRITERIA policy, and maybe really couldn't have come out any other way. It basically weights the criteria in priority order (they really are in such an order, though a lot of editors don't realize this; consistency is the lowest-ranked criterion). It's probably inevitable that nobility that do not need to be disambiguated by country or other additional detail will not be, since that's how we do all disambiguation. The consistency principle has never meant to "pre-disambiguate" things that aren't ambiguous just to make their total titles consistent with things that require disambiguation. (This has come up before, in multiple other topics, with the same concision result, thought there may be some additional holdouts due, as in this case, to wikiprojects back in the 2000s making up their own "rules" and no one caring to normalize the material toward policy yet, probably because of hostility from people devoted to the topic and habituated to their walled garden). WP:ROYALTY and WP:PEERAGE have other "make up our own rules against site-wide norms" issues that are going to eventually come to a head (especially abuse of infobox parameters to defy MOS:HONORIFICS) and there will probably be wailing and hair-pulling and tooth-gnashing and fist-shaking. There always is any time some wikiproject has been doing something weird and they get challeged on it.

An issue that does seem likely to arise after the concision RfC above is that a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC will be, in this subject, extremely likely to be biased toward the British and secondarily the other Western European nobility. E.g., Foobar II of Elbonia might be decided to be the primary topic for "Foobar II", but Foobar II of Serendip is almost always going to be who readers from Serendip and thereabouts are going to be thinking of, not the guy from Elbonia who is considered the primary topic and who is undisambiguated just because more stuff in English was written about Elbonia. Normally we wouldn't care much, but what if the one from Serendip was a figure of great regional importance for half a century, but the one from Elbonia was someone who ruled for less than a year and had no real historical impact, just shows up again and again briefly in English-language RS materials? There's a systemic bias across our articles generally toward American, British, and other Western topics of interest, in that order, but it will be more acute in this topic than in most (other than minus American for its lack of a nobile class, though American fascination with that of the UK will ratchet up the "primaryness" of the British ones anyway).

At any rate, I don't see how this is supposed to relate to the NFL [D|d]raft matter (other than it being another conflict of a subset of topic-devoted editors with the encyclopedia-wide P&G, as usual). "Bring[ing] consistency to sports page titles" doesn't appear to be one of the central concerns in the ongoing RfC, certainly not from the "follow the P&G and use lowercase" quarter. All the related NFL articles will ultimately be at the same name format and all the the running text mentions will eventually migrate in that direction, though there's no big hurry. We already know for a proven fact that "NFL draft" is not consistently treated as a capitalized proper name by independent reliable sources, even American-football-specific ones, so there's really only one way this can ultimately resolve, despite all the venting. If (extremely unlikely) it turned out that "AFL Draft" [1] or "NHL Draft" [2] really was consistently capitalized as a proper name in the vast majority of indy sources (probably due to an actually applicable trademark), that would be fine, since they'd be a different class of thing that happened to have a similar name and a word in common and conceptually related (e.g. terrier is a common-noun general type of dog consisting of several breeds; Skye Terrier is a specific standardized breed). Any long disambiguation page has various entries that are capitalized things and various that are not, and this not any kind of problem, even if two or more of them are things in the same catetory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The lesson to learn from NCROY, is that many editors were thinking along the lines of whether or not 'they could'. But should've stop to consider whether or not 'they should'. Consistency ought to be primary for any group of articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Consistency is but one of five co-equal WP:CRITERIA to consider in naming articles. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: & @Dicklyon: There must be more monarchists on Wikipedia, then I thought. The RMs opened at 'monarch name' pages, are getting way more attention then RMs opened at 'sports name' pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay, I have no idea if your conjecture is right. Let me give you a grammar tip: learn the difference between "then" and "than", and omit most of your commas, and you'll be easier to understand. E.g. "There must be more monarchists on Wikipedia than I thought. The RMs opened at 'monarch name' pages are getting way more attention than RMs opened at 'sports name' pages." Cheers. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Grammar was never a strength of mine. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should volunteer to tutor you on proper nouns and capital letters. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Capital letters"? Now cut that out ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I would think it's because they're historical biographical subjects, which is always an area with a lot of watchlisters. Not sure it's really royalists; they seem more obsessed with the modern-day British royalty and peerage, and to a much lesser extent other European present-day nobility. Anyway, I saw moves open for Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia and Amadeo I of Spain, but expected more, especially after recent-ish changes to WP:NCROY via RfC on this question. I guess most of the compliance moves are being done manually and without drama, but I've not looked into it. When it comes to WP:ROYALTY and WP:PEERAGE, I've been much more concerned with their abuses of infobox parameters to evade MOS:HONORIFIC and related guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the NCROY update has sprouted (and is still sprouting) multiple RMs, for sure. As for the royalty infoboxes? I couldn't agree more. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

re: MLB Draft Move

Just an FYI - your current move proposal reads: It has been proposed in this section that Major League Baseball draft be renamed and moved to American Football League draft. I don't think this was your intention. - Skipple ☎ 16:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Good catch (no pun intended) & also fixed up my RM at the AFL page, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It kind of blows my mind that you came to my talk page to convince me to convince someone else to not move any more pages relating to the ongoing RfC (making ANI noises about it while you were at it), then you turn right around and try to move two of them yourself while the same RfC continues, and despite your proposed moves being supportable by neither the pertinent guidelines nor the sourcing, and being contraindicated by at least two policies. I have to wonder what the point is and why you would do this. It comes off as WP:POINTy and self-contradictory, as well as pouring fuel on an already burning fire. PS: To quote your own statement above, this seems like the action of someone "thinking along the lines of whether or not 'they could'. But should've stop[ed] to consider whether or not 'they should'."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I haven't moved any pages in relation to the RFC-in-question. I've opened RMs for two pages to be moved, as they were unilaterally moved to their 'current' titles, including one contrary to its previous RM result. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That comes off as wikilawyering to justify multiple WP:TALKFORKs that interfere with the ability of the community to come to a broader consensus at the RfC. It really doesn't matter whether the moves are done mid-RfC though a manual move, RM/TR, or regular RM, it's still trying to move the pages mid-RfC after you hinted in the direction of ANI action against another editor for doing that. As to the specific moves in question, they are long stable at their actually current titles, so this involves WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:EDITCON, and WP:NOTBURO policies; you have invoked a lengthy and editorially time-consuming process to change a page names on the basis of personal dissatisfaction with procedure many years ago but with no substantive justification for either move. And the one was not contrary to a previous RM; it was not an RM announced to the community, but a loose discussion among editors already working on the page, and was not about capitalization but whether it should be at the present title (styled one way or another) or at a completely different title like "First-Year Player Draft" (styled one way or another). Such a 2007 chit-chat has no relevance for whether a page in the modern Wikipedia can and should be moved to comply with multiple guidelines and with the sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Came here via the RM. SMcCandlish you need to drop it with the WP:ASPERSIONS. If you think you have a case, take to ANI or ARB, but the finger pointing needs to stop. Just leave your comment and move on to something unrelated to the intentions of other editors. Nemov (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Raising concerns about editorial decisions an actions is not aspersion-casting. We have user-talk pages for a reason, and the main one is resolving issues of this sort, in lieu of WP:DRAMAboards. Why on earth would you suggest I escalate something like this to one of those? PS: Even the ASPERSIONS page you cite recommend user-talk first and foremost.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC); annotated 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want Dicklyon getting into any trouble for his unilateral pages moves (since reverted), while the related-RFC was ongoing. I fully intend to respect/accept what ever the results are at the draft pages of MLB & AFL. Also, I never had (nor do I have) any intentions of reporting Dicklyon (or anybody else) to WP:ANI. Taking editors out of the uppercase/lowercase RFC, would be opposed by me. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - I've no intentions of opening up RMs at NFL playoffs, American Football League playoffs (though I wish it was shortened to 'AFL playoffs'), Major League Baseball postseason & Stanley Cup playoffs. In those instances, 'playoffs' should be lower-cased. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"While the related RfC is ongoing" is the point here. Would it have killed you to wait until the RfC was closed? There's a non-zero chance that the RMs you opened could result in moves that end up having to be re-RMed again not long after. As for "American Football League" pages, I think they are at the not-so-WP:CONCISE titles because of the still-extant and big-deal Australian Football League, so are a form of WP:NATURALDIS instead of doing "AFL playoffs (American football)" or whatever (which may make sense, since the "A" already stands for "American"). I've not even wanted to think about "postseason", "playoffs", "finals", and so on. Some dispute about one or aother of those already erupted at some highly particular article, though I went through literally every non-primary source coughed up by Google News and demonstrated that indy RS do not capitalize the term in that case, despite repeated claims by proponents of the capitalization that they do. Par for the course. I think what happens is people assume that what they see in primary and other prompotional sources (league material, teams' websites, ticket sellers, fansites of the league / a team) is what the independent sports press and other actually reliable and secondary sources are doing too, without actually bothering to check (i.e., I don't think they're lying about the sourcing, since it's easy to verify). But making wrong sourcing claims like this still has a disruptive effect of spawning such pointless and tedious disputes and dragging them out and wasting other editors' time. Why do a few editors in a few topics just insist on not following the same naming guidelines and title policy as everyone else in the encyclopedia? What is the block here? A lot of these aren't even specialized-style fallacies, because the things are lowercase in most of the topic-specific secondary material; it's a "primary-style fallacy" or "official-style fallacy" or "marketing-style fallacy".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Those who know me best, know that I'm pro-consistency. Whatever the RFC (btw I've decided 'not' to go to Wikipedia:Closure requests tomorrow) result is? I'll abide by it. My only hope, is that the result will be applied consistently, whatever it is. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That might not be possible with all that "playoffs" stuff; for some specific instances it seems to be treated as a proper name across most of the indy RS, but in most cases not, so a handful of them might be capitalized even if the rest are not (and there won't be any P&G and/or sourcing basis on which to lowercase those few, or uppercase all those that don't quality). In the end we can't force the sources to be consistent, and the community cares more about doing what the sources do than being consistent to a very fine level. The peeve-petter in me would prefer more consitency, too, but I've learned a long time ago to not hold my breath for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that consistency is impossible among these sports page titles, let alone page titles in any given group. A year (or more) ago, I was unable to get Year AFL season adopted to intros & infobox headings of the American Football League's 1960 to 1969 season pages. To this day we've got "American Football League season" in the AFL season pages & infobox headings & "NFL season" in the NFL season pages & infobox headings. On a 'country/sorta country' level? I couldn't get Confederate States of America moved to Confederate States, to match with the United States page name. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

At a guess, it would be again because of the Australian league in the first case, though a template only used within the American F. L. article would not seem to raise any ambiguity issues, so that one's weird. On the second, my guess would be that just "the Confederate States" is not frequently found in RS, while "the United States of America" has undergone a shortening process to "the United States" generally (despite that bringing it into some minor ambiguity issues with a few other countries that in long form are "the United States of [Something]" but usually not called that). The CSA's name didn't undergo the now-conventionalized shortening process because the CSA ended before that process took firm hold.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's still so annoying, particularly the intros & infobox headings for the AFL season pages. I mean the name of those pages already tells one which league it is, so where's the harm in using (example) 1969 AFL season in the intro & infobox heading at the 1969 American Football League season page. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Generally, abbreviations are expanded on first use in a page per MOS:ACRO1STUSE: ...an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses... —Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: What of the infobox headings? GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Typically, they just repeat the page title. —Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Kind of a stinker, when you see a long worded page title repeated on the infobox heading. Where an abbreviation would be so much neater & in-line with the NFL season pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree. There's no reason to repeat the full page name in the infobox at 1969 American Football League season. ACRO1STUSE is about running text, not infoboxes, which are often full of abbreviations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. I was orginally just saying that ibx headers just seemed to always parrot the page title, but there's probably no formal guideline. —Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems that MOS:INFOBOX says:

It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title, but falling back to use that (with {{PAGENAMEBASE}}) is usually fine

—Bagumba (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeking permission at WP:NFL, for abbreviating to AFL & NFL in the season infobox headings. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oddly, 2023 NFL season has "2023 National Football League season" as its infobox header. —Bagumba (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

When were those changed? or were they always that way. Don't tell me, my memory is going. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I never paid attention. —Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I'll back away from the whole 'uppercase vs lowercase' general content dispute, going forward. PS - I'll respect & abide by the results of the RMs at MLB draft, AFL draft & NBA Conference Finals, no matter what they are. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Irreverent description

No matter how many times I read those edit summaries, I think you're saying "Irreverent description". Thanks for doing them, in any event. Useful corrections. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I don't know how long they'll stand. There's a staunch Canadian monarchist out there, who might object to my deletions. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiGnome?

It says above that you're a WikiGnome. But I don't get it. Have you read where that user badge links to? It says "A WikiGnome is a wiki user who makes useful incremental edits without clamoring for attention. WikiGnomes work behind the scenes of a wiki, tying up little loose ends and making things run more smoothly. Examples of WikiGnome-like behavior include improving punctuation, fixing typos, correcting poor grammar, ...". You're kind of the opposite, often clamoring for attention when you have nothing to contribute, admittedly not understanding English grammar, showing no respect for style guidelines, and just injecting a lot of noise and pushback into places where others are trying to get these jobs done. Consider changing that. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty nasty, Dicklyon. What's the purpose of your post? What good do you expect it to do to express such contempt for a longtime user? Who or what does it harm if GoodDay chooses to call himself a WikiGnome? Bishonen | tålk 20:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

Calling himself that is not where the harm is, but my comment was to point the way to some positive changes I'd like him to consider making. He has just been such a thorn in my side for years now. I'm sure he understands me on this. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider you a thorn in my side. But, I'll think 'twice' next time, about arguing on your behalf, should you get blocked again. In polite terms, you've annoyed me, just now. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoah, one minute here. I don't oppose you on every thing concerning the area of uppercase/lower case & I just (mere days ago) helped get you unblocked, in relation to that area. Maybe you'll succeed in your quest to get lowercasing adopted everywhere's you believe it should be adopted. But barking at editors, (who sometimes agree with you) when they disagree with you & just recently got you out of a jam, is a non-starter. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say always. And I'm not at all sure you unblocked me. You made several unnecessary RMs contrary to what makes sense, and you ran ahead on changes where patience was needed, and you interjected unsupported opinions all over the place. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I will not get into a (figurative) shouting match with you. Recommend you hit the showers & cool off. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Dicklyon won't show up for a shouting match in the next few days; they have been blocked. Bishonen | tålk 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

Understood. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What an absolutely shameless and unnecessary attack. Shame on you Dicklyon. - Skipple ☎ 21:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. A two day block seems light. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, GoodDay. I was having a Bad Day and took it out on you. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Accepted. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Canadian royal flappy things

Hello! I hope you don't mind me pushing you on your position over at the royal standards article. Hopefully it will help the closer, but who knows? Anyway, I thought it would be good to speak in a situation where we're not at loggerheads! A.D.Hope (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerning RMs & RFCs, I've always accepted the closer's decision. But you must be careful not to bludgeon the RM-in-question. PS - I thank you for making me aware that New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Solomon Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, Granada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Bahamas & Belize, haven't issued King Charles III his own standard/flag. Perhaps a tiny step towards becoming republics? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there's a line between discussion and bludgeoning and I do try and stay on the right side of it – sometimes enthusiasm does get the better of me, but I've no desire to derail the process.

It'll be interesting to see what those Commonwealth realms do when Charles visits. If they knock up a flag they'll probably stick around, if not they might have an eye on the door. I could see Canada's decision to use a simple banner of arms rather than a personal flag being influential. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, Canada's got it set up that it's nearly impossible to abolish the monarchy. Even the United Kingdom can abolish theirs, easier. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be a little amusing if Canada ended up being the last Commonwealth realm standing. In practical terms I reckon the UK will probably find it more difficult, though, even if it seems easier on the surface. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)