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 23 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

Nomination of Christine Fang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Fang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The final nail in the coffin of consistency

HERE LIES

WIKIPEDIA TITLING CONSISTENCY FOR BRITISH MONARCHS

(4 AUGUST 2002 – 3 NOVEMBER 2023)

No shot at resurrection here.

Unfortunate, but it is what it is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the public has spoken, concerning monarch article titles. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Believe it was Yes Minister which said "the public? You can't trust the public!". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect future RMs will be more intense, as they'll be based on who's the primary name. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: and @GoodDay: Again, sorry to barge in on your conversation. However, I need to say a word on this matter. And I do apologize if I am violating WP:AGF, WP:5P4, WP:NOTGETTINGIT, and/or WP:CANVASS by my words.

I am planning on having a conversation with that RfC closer very soon. I know I said that I was going to respect the RfC final decision. However, even just glancing at what was written in that discussion back in mid-September, multiple false assertions about Wikipedia policies and what has been going on with the RMs in the world of NCROY were stated. I am not sure if the closer took the time to assess the validity of these claims (However, I do appreciate the closer mentioning my evidence). However, I am concerned that the closer's decision may have been based on the quantity of claims instead of the quality of evidence. I would like to be assured by the closer themself that this was not the case.

Anyway, you two have been a huge inspiration for me in this Wikipedia "battle", and I thank you for that. Please know that I did my best to highlight this dichotomy between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT that we had been seeing in RMs in NCROY-related articles. Please know that I tried to make the most powerful case possible that this wasn't about WP:CONSISTENT, but what all of WP:TITLE calls for. Please know that I tried to argue that this dichotomy was not just about British monarchs, but all contemporary European monarchs. And please know that I am exhausted and frustrated like you may be.

I am frustrated that my RM rationale for Elizabeth II's article was dismissed as WP:TLDR out of hand by multiple users (even though I told all readers in that discussion that they should read the entirety of my explanation before participating). I am frustrated that because of that RM I started, I was subject to unwelcome comments about, among other things, my time as a user on Wikipedia, my knowledge of the Commonwealth realms, my comprehension of Wikipedia policies, and even false accusations that my RM was part of a coordinated plan. I am frustrated that a certain user started another simultaneous RM on British monarchs that could easily be argued as a WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE response to my challenging of the "consensus" with these NCROY titles. And I am frustrated that my RfC evidence was immediately collapsed for being a WP:WALLOFTEXT despite showing evidence to argue that the upheld "consensus" was a myth.

Quite frankly, I do not understand why the length of my text matters. Critically reading and analyzing long texts is crucial to building any encyclopedia. And as a university student, I have been assigned to read dozens of written texts that were far longer than my Elizabeth II RM rationale and NCROY RfC evidence. Were those sources worth dismissing because they couldn't be expressed in a single paragraph?

I am genuinely curious how historians are going to use this saga as a case study many years from now. Perhaps this 19-year drama can be seen as evidence of a trend of how pathos seem to win over logos as the most effective tool in scholarly debates?

P.S. On a lighter note, @Tim O'Doherty:, do you need help editing William, Prince of Wales's article? I would love to help you get my royal idol's page to FA status. We can discuss this more on your own talk page.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the RFC result either. But, that's the way the community winds are blowing, in terms of article titles for monarchs. The "of country" bit, is slowing being deleted, across the board. Been gradually happening over the years, RM by RM. Today, we have Frederick the Great (instead of the more consistent - Frederick II of Prussia), Catherine the Great (instead of Catherine II of Russia), Mary, Queen of Scots (instead of Mary I of Scotland). Some of French monarchs have lost "of France" & Swedish monarchs have lost "of Sweden", etc. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT - Sorry, hadn't clocked this in the mess of notifications I got this morning, or I would've replied earlier. I do like your lengthy thesis-like comments on this topic, makes me glad we've got something of a scholarly editor here. Also pleased to learn that I've been an inspiration to someone, which is a first for me. Re William, we'd be glad to have you there: feel free to comment in the GA, make suggestions, edit the article directly etc. Like I've said elsewhere, I don't have masses of time myself, but eventually it would be good to have many more royal FAs. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT - Getting ridiculous now. Look at this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: Well, the Norwegian monarchs Haakon VII, Olav V & Harald V, just had their country removed from their bio titles. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Damn. Missed it. Your point, in the Edward I of England RM, summed it up nicely: "it's helpful to see which country the monarch is reigning over or primarily reigning over, by reading the article title". Even more so for Haakon, Olav and Harald, as they're not exactly household names. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing the next step will be, remove the country from the bio titles of consorts & those in line of succession to a throne. Example: Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway to Crown Prince Haakon or Queen Letizia of Spain to Queen Letizia. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

More sensible is to just hack off the country willy-nilly. William, Prince of Wales? Why have that when you can have William, Prince of? Then back it up with WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRITOP and you've got yourself a successful RM. With things like this, you can argue that white is black. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect William's page title won't be changed. Those with heirs-apparent or heirs-presumptive titles, will likely be safe. "Duchess of Brabant", "Princess of Orange", etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: now it's the recent Danish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: and @Tim O'Doherty: Remember that RfC I initiated earlier this week about this matter? It did not end well. I became exhausted from trying to refute the claims participants made to the point that my off-screen life has been negatively affected. So I withdrew my request for the sake of settling things down.

And Tim, just to let you know, Surtscina had some things to say about your RfC from last January. I hope you didn't mind me providing that link. Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT - Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen. When it comes to Surtsicna, we often don't see eye-to-eye. I don't resent him/her for saying that, as I know that I've said similar (and probably worse) in the past. I just hope that in the future, if needs be, we can work constructively with each other on a project, like when I invited him/her to WP:CIII in March. So while discussions can get really spiteful and heated sometimes, I bear no grudge towards Surtsicna and have have never sought to argue for the sake of argument—I said pretty much the same thing about his/her NCROY RfC and am not surprised or angry that s/he said the same about mine: all part of the WP policy game, I suppose. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said there, in my last post. It's the editors who decide what happens & doesn't happen. Give ya examples

• 1) Article content - In the last two or so years, lowercasing titles & section/subsection headings within article content (the President, is now the president), has gotten the upperhand.
• 2) Article titles & content - A few years ago, diacritics were adopted (Peter Štʼastný, instead of Peter Stastny) by English language Wikipedia.
• 3) Nicknames have been adopted (Frederick the Great, instead of Frederick II of Prussia) to royal bios titles.
• 4) Denial of birth in the Soviet Union, has been pushed on most bios of Estonians, Latvians & Lithuanians born before their countries gained independence.

GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

More good news for you, @GoodDay: and @Tim O'Doherty:! As an uninvolved editor, I just closed the Edward I of England RM as no consensus! Your reasonings were a big factor in my decision! Hurricane Andrew (444) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

NHL Captains and Alternate Captains

please can you stop removing Sean Couturier as the assistant captain of the flyers he is an assistant captain, but he is injured if you go on elite prospects he will be listed as one of the captains. Vancouver Canucks 1 fan (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Vancouver Canucks 1 fan: Very well, but keep an eye our for an IP. They keep removing Couturier, claiming there's a source that says he's the only Flyers player wearing a letter. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

When is the last time a letter appears on Couturier’s jersey? December 2021.[1] --98.21.56.147 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@98.21.56.147:, that's a question you may ask the other editor (see above), who says Couturier is an alternate. The sooner you both come to an agreement? The sooner the issue is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Hi GoodDay. I removed that RfC tag you added at VP Proposals. I hope that's ok. The RfC would get too messy if we started it with the current opener. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem @Firefangledfeathers:, Just seen an RFC in the section heading & figured the editor forgot to add it :) GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

reason for not awnsering

I was wondering if you want my insta or my cell number so we can talk privately as me going to school isnt the only reason i dont awnser you right away i have been going through alot with the passing of my brother from suicide along with getting covid in january and other illnesses plus i had to recover from a bad head injury for a couple weeks i work in a autoshop and i had the lift go into my head and had to get it glued shut. Vancouver Canucks 1 fan (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have instagram or a cellphone. I'm aware of your real life situation, now. So, things are cool between us. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for saying exactly what i have been trying to say on the 2011 ted lindsay award on the daniel sedin page to these dopes who have been reverting every little thing i edit despite mine being the accurate one. too many people on here are too power hungry so thanks for vouching for me, something not many people have done for me recently. 2601:40D:8281:F3C0:F4B9:4DD6:4221:421D (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It may help, if you create an account. IP/mobile editors tend to been seen with skepticism, by established editors. Anyways, no problem, fixing the finalist for the 2010–11 Lindsay Award. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

40-40 club

I'm curious why you changed your vote. As I mentioned yesterday there's very little hope of other things being added since it's taken me a month, an RFC, and little discussion to add a very real achievemen. This was recognized on the field and by MLB for only 5 players. I'm disappointed that I've even had to go through this process to add it. Nemov (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Opening a request (meaning to the rest of community) is always tricky. We don't know how it will end up. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh for sure, but for members of the baseball project to see baseball games stopped to recognize the achievement of having reached 40-40 club oppose this is strange to me. This has been an achievement receiving significant coverage for over 30 years. What's the real harm here? This process proves adding anything is going to take 6 plus weeks of limited input. Anyway, thanks for contributing. Nemov (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Trump comment

On Donald Trump talk page you wrote,

However, I foresee this discussion devolving into unpleasant areas. Therefore, I'm going to stand aside & allow the content dispute to continue forward, by others.

. This remark appears to be more of a personal reflection rather than a contribution to article improvement. It's fine to step away from a discussion, but that is best done without negative commentary on the other editors who are trying to work through the content issue. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not commentary on any editor. It's commentary on the topic & knowing when to back away. I've chosen to back away. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is that you don't need to announce that to anyone. Either you have something to share or you don't and if you don't have anything to say just then, you can still comment at any time that changes in the future. It comes off as chit-chat, as if the article talk page were a facebook or twitter environment for socializing rather than a workplace for editorial collaboration. I suppose you can post personal chatter in user space, as many editors do, but it should not go on article talk pages or messageboards. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed, concerning the proposed paragraph at Trump's BLP. I see no reason to repeat myself, there. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody was expecting you to do that, so it's not like excusing yourself early from the dinner table. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll continue to watch the said-discussion at Trump's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Good. Maybe you'll want to return and comment as the discussion progressees. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Will be watching to see the result. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)