User talk:GoodDay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians of all time in the English Wikipedia.
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 and 9 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!

List of state leaders in years articles[edit]

What do you mean by 'Canadian PMs are only counted once'? And why would that make someone's political history (previous or future tenure) relevant to the question of who was in office in a given year? Plus adding this historical information to the leader of one country but not every other makes the article inconsistent. Or did you plan to add that for each country? ZBukov (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping it would be added to the other country leaders aswell. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Receiving your message on my talk page, I honestly believe we should just keep the so-called overlinking just to keep consistency within the articles. It would take ages to de-overlink all the articles; with this as an exception, I think it should be left be. Neve-selbert (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping that I might be able to start a move to de-link the repetition across those articles. But, I won't bother anymore, since it's being opposed. Feel free to revert my changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Thanks[edit]

And boy aint these folk a piece of work? Got a spot next to you on the group W bench? Juan Riley (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See edit history & discussions at Elizabeth II, Rideau Hall, Rideau Cottage, List of Canadian monarchs, to name a few. There, you'll see why I've chosen to walk away from the discussion at Commonwealth realm. PS: I shant elaborate, so I'll allow you to make your own conclusions. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No need to elaborate. Tried to get a professional historian editor involved last week or so on refining these Commonwealth articles. He politely declined in a way that led me to believe I was trying to be Sisyphus. Juan Riley (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Haha :) GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll leave you out of current goings on (now being accused of 3RR) since you may be feathering a nest I may soon need to nest in. Good luck GoodDay. Juan Riley (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Good luck to you aswell, JuanRiley. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

personal info[edit]

For me it would depend on what personal info they wanted. — Ched :  ?  16:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody (including WMF) is getting any personal info from me. It's too bad, though. I think I would've made a very interesting Arbitrator, if I'd been elected. Becoming a member of the very body which site-banned me one for a whole year (April 2012 - May 2013), would've brought a interesting incredient to the comittee. As an Arbitrator, I would've restricted myself to banning only vandalizers and sock-masters, as I'd have a full appreciation of what being banished is like. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
More often then not. Arbitrator GoodDay, would've been like Henry Fonda's charactor in 12 Angry Men (1957 film). -- :) GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually - having read through the link that Risker provided, and watched the video - I wouldn't object to that sort of identification at all. I'd also say that from what I know (which isn't all that much), I'd be inclined to support you if you chose to do it. — Ched :  ?  17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd only run if there were absolutely no identification requirements, the way it is for running for Administrator. BTW, within the next 2 years, I just might run for Administrator :) GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't want to give out my exact address, SS # or anything - but ... Anyway - I look forward to a RfA, and wish you luck. You'd likely have my support. — Ched :  ?  17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ched :) GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If memory serves me, when I identified to the WMF (a couple of years ago), they only needed name and date of birth; I sent them a copy of my ID with all other bits of information redacted (at the time, they would destroy it after making sure the candidate was at least 18, or so we were told). Then again, policy has changed; we've been asked to complete an NDA. So I don't know what info they'd need now. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, confirmation by WMF (if elected) should be the same as a successful RFA. They have their reasons for wanting such info, of course. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrator GoodDay?[edit]

I'm considering a RFA over the next 2 years, as apparently Wikipedia's adminstrator pool has been shrinking. What does the community think about that? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure I want to be a member of any community that would have me (apologies to Groucho). However, you have been one of the few rational folks about in the last several days so sure. Juan Riley (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Very funny. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
What's funny? Have you looked at the arbcom nominee's? I have so little experience here I shouldn't have an opinion but saw two names that made me spit up my beer. Juan Riley (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Took a few minutes to peruse the arbcom stuff. As me mother would have said: JEEZUZ, Mary, and St Joseph! Not sure if this is as bad as or as entertaining as the US GOP primary. Juan Riley (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Just as a thought, GoodDay, but if you ever hope to be considered for adminstratorship, taking passive-aggressive snipes like you did today at Talk:Rideau Hall doesn't help. Resolute 00:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Marie Serneholt[edit]

If you want to, please take a look at the article Marie Serneholt, which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Queen of Canada[edit]

I think he may mean that the "the law has been passed and enacted" but may be found unconstitutional. The government's position goes against everything he has been arguing for the last 10 years. TFD (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Prepare for a long drawn out discussion at Monarchy of Canada, TFD :( GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Just remember you share the responsibility for its long drawn out-edness if you keep it going. -- MIESIANIACAL 00:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into an edit war with you or get bogged down into another one of your filibuster quagmires. I don't know what's gotten into you lately, but it's not gonna be my problem. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how many will notice the Rfc at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, but I betcha some will be surprised that there is a Canadian throne ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not to cause any problems, but who did England steal the stone/stool/etc from to create it? Juan Riley (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Holy smokers, don't say England, it's the United Kingdom :) GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. Us folk south of the boarder are insensitive. Gotta go pet my chihuahua. Good night. :) Juan Riley (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha, no probs. Nighty night. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah TFD, he does appear to be upset over the Succession to the Throne Act's wording, how it was passed & enacted. PS - Though highly unlikely, I'd luv to see the legal challenge go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada & they declare the act, unconstitional. Then see it all unravel & Canada become a republic :) In truth, the SCOC will likely reject such a challenge & the monarchy will continue with its new succession law. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Up the Republic! (Tell me at anytime to stop lurking GoodDay.) Juan Riley (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've a theory. The way the Act was passed & enacted, was a Canadian republican conspiracy. Designed to cause a Constitutional fight & show the people how the monarchy is more trouble then it's worth :) GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
A monarchy makes for a rich philosophical discussion. Such as: how many queens can dance on the head of a pin? Juan Riley (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Kinda funny: The professors challenging the Act's constitutionality & the court that's hearing the challenge, are both from & in Quebec. The lone province that didn't sign onto the 1982 Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Wowsers, I'm a 10-year old Wikipedian today :) GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Surprised you have survived? Juan Riley (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, JuanRiley :) GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template editor[edit]

"The template editor user right allows trusted coders to edit templates and modules that have been protected with the "protected template" protection level"--Moxy (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I put in an edit request at the appropiate Template. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada[edit]

I believe you've hit three reverts at Monarchy of Canada now. 1, 2, 3 (reverting back to here). -- MIESIANIACAL 18:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't as each is slightly different. Anyways, I'm leaving your last edit (with the dispute tag) to the infobox, in place. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Being slightly different doesn't make them any less reverts. That was one of the first things I learned at Wikipedia.
Since I wrote a response to your remark at Talk:Monarchy of Canada as you deleted it, I'll drop it here, anyway:
What was wrong with your edits was already stated in my edit summaries: The residences are still the monarch's when he or she is not physically present in them (this was already explained to you ten days ago at Talk:Rideau Hall; though you did dismiss it with your usual argument closer). If you insist on making the change you want here, you going to have to be consistent with your logic and modify all the references to official residences to make sure they state the buiilding is only the residence of the prime minister, president, monarch, leader of the opposition, whatever, when that person is physically in the country. According to your thinking, the White House ceases to be the residence of the President of the United States when the president is off at a G8 summit in Europe. I'm fairly certain you know that isn't true. Further, the monarch can and does stay in a number of places when in Canada. So, stating Rideau Hall and La Citadelle are the monarch's residences only when the monarch is in Canada is doubly false.
The "when in Canada" statement following "list" just didn't make any sense. -- MIESIANIACAL 18:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That you're using the White House as a comparison, merely shows me that you really don't get it. That's alright though, as I understand your feelings about the Canadian monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I've left your dispute tag in place. Actually, instead of reverting, you should've placed dispute tags right after I added "When in Canada", the first time. Furthermore, my first edit to the infobox, should've been to delete the residence section. From what I can tell, all the Commonwealth realms' infoboxes don't have residence listed, accept Monarchy of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Btw, I noticed your usage of "(When in Ottawa") at your Sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting your recent post & reverting, along with your edit summary. Your refusal or inability to recognize your problems in this topic area, makes it impossible to reason with you. To sum up, you're always leading with your heart, not your head. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't even presented a cogent argument in defence of your edit. I have for mine. You keep repeating the same assertion over and over and over; a statement repeated is not an argument. So, let's glance at your user page and then look again at who's being driven by their heart. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't help you any further. Please remember, that I tried. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Succession to the Throne Act, 2013[edit]

FWIW, if the Quebec court rules that the Act is legal & thus in effect since March 2015. Will you be ending you opposition at the article-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take your lack of response, to mean you won't stop your opposition. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a knee-jerk revert; the edit and the edit summary do not align at all. What you did was add duplication back into the section (the Succession to the Throne Act was enacted on...) and re-inserted words that were removed so as to be neutral; i.e. not take sides on whether the succession is or was and just leave what's sourced: the parts of the constitution pertaining to succession.

There was some remark about "minority" view, but, it's unclear what exactly that referred to. Putting aside the fact minority views aren't banned from Wikipedia, if you meant "succession is", a) I didn't add anything that says "succession is" and b), ignoring both the absence of a cite stating succession no longer is by male preference and the fact "majority" isn't a synonym for "correct", where's your proof "succession was" is the majority view? If you meant the Act of Settlement, Bill of Rights, etc., are part of the constitution, a) you left that in and b), not counting the constitutional experts' opinions, is the Supreme Court and Ontario Superior Court to be dismissed because you think they are together a minority?

Please explain or undo your revert. -- MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The succession to the throen, is no longer male-primogeniture. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not certain (considering your & Qex's edits since then), but I think you've already restored what you're complaining about. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I wish you'd stop preventing progress at the article-in-question. I can't speak for the others, but I'm finding it very frustrating there. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
GoodDay, what's frustrating and certainly not aiding progress is ignoring what I ask you. I spelled out at length the problems with the edit you made and the summary you gave for it and you retorted with a one-liner non sequitur. And no, what I was "complaining" about wasn't remedied; in full, anyway. I took out the "succession was" part again. The repetition is still there. It's not a policy issue; just sloppy writing.
Your attitude toward opposition is a little concerning, as well. It appears as though you're trying to silence me by labelling my challenges and questions as "preventing progress"; it's a passive-aggressive way of accusing me of disruption. If so, you can only mean "progress" by your definition; i.e. movement toward no end other than the very specific one you want. Sorry, but I have as much right to challenge material and proposals as you do. If you have the required sources to back up what you put in the article, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. -- MIESIANIACAL 03:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
My reading of the current Rfc, says that you're in the minority of one with your objection to adding that the succession is absolute primogeniture & no longer male-preference primogeniture. I believe, you're taking the chance that others are as patient with you, as I am. As I mentioned earlier, you're leading with your heart not your head. Like you, I also am peeved at the way the Harper Gov't handled the whole thing. But unlike you, I accept that it has happened & the succession has changed. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
How many times do you need to be reminded of WP:DEM? "Minority" and "majority" are irrelevant to consensus.
There are cited facts to deal with. If there are ones that happen to not align with your personal or personally preferred opinion, that's too bad. The current situation with succession in Canada is obviously not simple. You can thank Harper and friends for that. -- MIESIANIACAL 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want to fight against the 2013 Act? then please, go join the two professors who're currently fighting the constitutionality of it. I will certaintly cheer the three of you on. Meanwhile, don't continue that challenge at the article-in-question. PS- I will not edit-war with you, as I'm already aware of your refusal to give in. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll try to remember it if I ever start to fight against the 2013 act. -- MIESIANIACAL 03:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully appreciate that what the Harper Gov't has done, goes against what you've been pushing for on Wikipedia, for over a decade. I can't begin to imagine what you've been going through. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Good try. But, no thanks. -- MIESIANIACAL 04:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever, Miesianiacal. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Will a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the 2013 Act & the Harper Government's actions, satisfy you? GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rfc at Monarchy of Canada[edit]

At the moment, Qexigator has chosen to support your edits (via reverting my corrections) & so far, TFD has limited himself to the talkpage. Furthermore, Graham11 & FactStraight haven't been around in days. I'm quite practical about discussions on Wikipedia & therefore it appears as though the Mies-Qex version is going to prevail. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: I only hope, the 2 professors are as successful in persuading the Quebec superior court of their arguments (and if necessary the Supreme Court of Canada), as you've been successful in persuading Qexigator of your arguments. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Purple robes[edit]

Oh, I dunno. I thought "unique style" was pretty good. --Pete (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha :) GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Purple as in Imperial(?) probe droid? Juan Riley (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It's just about a dispute that's been avoided at Head of state. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Then the same. :) Juan Riley (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently so. PS: I've been watching events at Commonwealth realm, btw :) 23:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There the talk page discussion goes on. Note how whenever for some reason the 'throne' issue comes up I am quite silent? Whatever. Juan Riley (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You're smart, indeed :) GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you clue me in to what the hell the TFD vs. Mies current discussion on Talk:Commonwealth_realm is all about. I've long since outlived the stage where I would step into a (bar) fight without caring what it is about. Juan Riley (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Not certain, but I can't wait to see the results. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 :) Juan Riley (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I am merely saying that unless a source is talking about the topic in the article then it is outside its scope. It is not a catchall article for put in anything and everything about the 16 nations or any relations between them that have nothing to do with their constitutional positions. TFD (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
TFD: Sorry to hijack GD's page but I just kinda lost track of exactly what the discussion was about. Juan Riley (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


I will shortly write a summary, I just need to back up some of my claims. --Killuminator (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There it is ! I also left some messages at the talk page with some sources. --Killuminator (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome aboard. Hopefully, these dispute will be resolved :) GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And in a list of things you should not say: ERII is a nominal figure head and how can you list her with other actual heads-of-state? Juan Riley (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I just had my second beer and suggested as much on the dispute page. No explicit mention of her majesty though. I am decorous if nothing else. Hiccup. Perhaps should sign out before the diatribes? Juan Riley (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you sleep it off. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)