User talk:GoodDay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 100 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
Wikignome crop.gif This editor is a WikiGnome.
WikiProject Ice Hockey logo.svg This user is a member of
WikiProject Ice Hockey.
Logo you were the missing piece.png This user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention.
Navy binoculars.jpg 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).

Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 10 years, 2 months and 20 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'.


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

Edit count & Pie chart[edit]

Edit records

My Arbcom Case[edit]


Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, GoodDay. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I was right all along,. HA!!!![edit]

Long live canada!

Re: WP:BOXING[edit]

I guess they're here to stay, for now, but the 'non-consensus' was left very hazy with regards to sovereign flags and which flags to use for boxers using multiple nationalities. There simply was no agreement on either of those issues. Whenever it next comes up, I'll be sure to latch onto it and make as much of a fuss as possible (no joke) so that maybe in a future 'RfC rematch', more editors will see sense and support getting rid of the damn things. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, it's best next time, to concentrate on which flags to use, sovereign or non-sovereign. Again, most of the commotion over that, will be around usage of the British flag. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


As you previously participated in a related discussion, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024. Reywas92Talk 23:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Topic Ban[edit]

Are you still topic banned from UK related articles? WCMemail 09:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No. It expired well over a year ago (sometime in 2014). GoodDay (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Donnie Park[edit] this weeks EotW. He is considering retirement. Encouragement to stay is needed. Thanks for all you do. Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders: Viceroy, Queen's/King's representative or Monarch's representative[edit]

I am unsure how to go on from this situation now. According to the latest edit:

  1. Support for Monarch's Representative has 6 votes
  2. Support for the status quo has 4 votes
  3. Support for Viceroy has none apart from our 2 votes.

Perhaps it may be time to come up with a fourth option. I have one possible idea:

  • Lieutenant-Governor (Lieutanant-Governor –)
I honestly feel that this is the most tolerable compromise that we have. A quote from this official PDF document states:

In form, the Cook Islands has two Queen's representatives — one (the Queen's Representative) for the Cook Islands as Cook Islands; the other (the Governor-General) for the Cook Islands as part of the Realm of New Zealand. This arrangement is akin to those of Australia and Canada, where the Governor-General is the Sovereign's representative for the whole of the federation but each State or Province retains its own Governor or Lieutenant-Governor to represent the Queen in that State or Province.

Is it possible to get an administrator to review the case beforehand, though? I need help with this. Neve-selbert 15:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Howdy Neve-selbert. If Zb has left the discussion, then so be it. I've no problem with you adding a fourth option to the Rfc. If you so desire, you may request an administrator to reviw the Rfc. BTW - I've opened up a discussion at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, concerning Elizabeth II's entry. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Zb has shown no signs of leaving, unfortunately. Which administrator would you recommend for me to request for review? Neve-selbert 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It should be someone who's got little to no interest in the dispute, IMHO. I believe that Newyorkbrad, would be a cool choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
On second though, we might as well just describe the QR as a Governor-General (Governor-General –)—the QRs serve all of the duties one would expect of one. I just feel that we are getting absolutely nowhere with Viceroy as a solution, the opposition of ZB and Mies is 100% diehard. In spite of this, I still believe we should wait until after Newyorkbrad (contacted) weighs in to review the options. Neve-selbert 16:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
My wiki-senses tells me that the status-quo (Queen's representative) will likely be retained. Most likely Monarch's representative will end up being the preferred alternative. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there nothing more we can do? Neve-selbert 16:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not unless a truckload of editors show up at the Rfc, over the next 20+ days, supporting Viceroy. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, it is none other than ZB being the preeminent stumbling block to change. If we can get him to accept Governor-General (getting him to support Viceroy is 99.9% impossible) as a compromise, then this whole thing will be probably be over in seconds. Neve-selbert 16:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You'd have to persuade Miesianiacal, aswell. Anyway, it's worth a try :) GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This dilemma is impossible. Whatever happens though, Monarch's Representative will never be implemented. If that means we have to keep the status quo for now, then so be it. Neve-selbert 16:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If a trucklod of editors show up, wanting Monarch's representative implimented? any attempts to resist its implimentation, would be futile. Anyways, it's likely the Queen's representative will be retained... atleast until Charles III ascends. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Which do you think is the safest option?
  1. Withdrawing the RFC at this very moment and keep the status quo.
  2. Come up with new alternatives for solution.
  3. Cross fingers in hope that a truckload of editors will come round to support Viceroy.

Reluctantly of course, I am leaning towards #1, although I just wanted to know what you think. Neve-selbert 17:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Allow the Rfc to run its course (which I believe is 30 days) & accept whatever the result is. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Update: for 6 February 2015

  • The votes thus far:
    • Option A (status quo) has 10 votes
    • Option B (Monarch's Representative) has 6 votes
I feel reasonably confident that the status quo will be retained, hence quashing Option B. And (when the demise occurs) Queen–King's Representative will be used to follow up in the succession year.
If, over the course of the next week or so, consensus is clearly in favour of the retention of the status quo, could we request the closure of the RFC?

Thanks again, GoodDay. Neve-selbert 05:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

When Liz passes & Chuck takes over, sure thing we change to King's Representative. As for closing the Rfc criteria? no probs, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to go for it now? Or should we wait a week or so? Neve-selbert 05:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd wait. Otherwise, ZB & Mies would have a fit. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)