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, 8 months and 6 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]


President of Brazil[edit]

Hello GoodDay, Seems we having trouble on editing President of Brazil. I live in Brazil, i am State Judge of Pará (State of Brazil). I am Member of OAB (Order of Lawyers of Brazil). I certainly know all brazilians laws more than you , that's my job. You think Roussef is still president of Brazil, that's not how it works. When Brazilian Senate approves the opening of Impeachment Process, the defendant becomes suspended, and the Vice-President, becomes Interim President. If you check Portuguese page of list of Presidents of Brazil you'll see that Impeachment occurred before in history of my country, on President Fernando Collor, and Itamar Franco replaced him. This is happening with Dilma Rousseff, Since he's suspended, Michel Temer is the new President. If STF (Superior Court of Brazil) back to decision (impeachment), Roussef will return to presidency, if not, he will be unable to elect any public office for eight years. Sorry for not contact before, i was busy with many Federal Process.


Ps: Sorry for any english mistake, not my native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolitoPaiva (talkcontribs) 15:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)<!

You haven't got a consensus for the changes you want to make & yet you persist in making them. Make you case at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
What are you doing here? WP:3RR applies to you too. --NeilN talk to me 16:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I've reached the 3 reverts in 24hrs & won't be going over it. Meanwhile, NP is up to 6 reverts in the last 1 or 2 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You have 4 reverts in 24 hours unless I've forgotten how to do math. --NeilN talk to me 16:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You're correct. I'm quite embarrassed about this. I was going with the WP:BRD approach & lost track. My apologies. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fantasy titles in Miguelist claimants articles[edit]

Dear GoodDay, I'm asking here your help because the not-assumed supporters of the Miguelist pretenders are again promoting false and impartial information (giving titles of fantasy) in the articles of Miguel Januário, Duarte Nuno, Duarte Pio, etc., and reverting factual and referenced information in the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. As usual, they also want to block me because I'm restoring the truth in Wikipedia and they accused me of being a hidden supporter of Constitutional Line pretenders (OMG!) (see here). Can you help to resolve this discussion? Thank you. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016[edit]

Please read the first sentence of the article, and try to understand what it says. See also WP:EW. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The referendum is neither binding or non-binding. However, if I continue to oppose your personal preference in this, you'll likely report me. Therefore, have it your way. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong. The referendum was non-binding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It's neither. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A belated Canada day greeting[edit]

How goes it in the great white north? Juan Riley (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks & the same to you. It's quite great here. I just had to turn down a gal who asked me to mow her lawn. She keeps going out with other guys & is trying to take advantage of my feelings for her. I no longer answer her phone calls or bother with her :) GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like you are younger than I. Last time (nearly 20 years ago) my wife asked me to mow the lawn I hired someone to do it. (On the other hand "mow her lawn" could be slang for something else--in which case never mind :)) Juan Riley (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It's better that she get the guys she's having sex with, to mow her lawn. I'm just not in the mood to be her errand boy. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

10 July[edit]

10 July

It took only 300 years to restore her good name. - Good day to appeal, - arbitrators like some more "I will sin no more" statements though, to my experience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

What the heck. I promised them I wouldn't be disruptive in that area, again. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I believe you, especially "to no avail" ;) - It's the best group of arbcom I remember, missing Yunshui though, and Floquenbeam, with that unforgotten line "no foul, play on". If only that was said more often ... - They restored Andy's name (on my request, and then I was told he had to make a "substantial statement", and learned the new word "self-abasement", - in my 2016 talk archive), and Ottava Rima's, now also Rich's, - there is hope for another good day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I hope they'll take notice I haven't been blocked for anything, since my reinstatement in May 2014. This includes successfully serving my 1-year probation. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi GoodDay. I added the parenthetical to the infobox on United States presidential election, 2016, and I see that it was removed. I believe that it is best to keep it there, so that readers are immediately aware of the new information as reported by several reliable agencies. Note that I was careful to say reported, pending the official announcement tomorrow morning. With that disclaimer, I don't see how my addition could do any harm. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


I'm about to go out, but why? They don't seem to serve any purpose other than your own style. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere, they keep the words Governor of Indiana entirely in one line & Vice President of the United States entirely in one line. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
To what end? It's already on one line preceded by only three words otherwise; if it's breaking for some reason on your screen/browser, why not just "nowrap" them? It seems like a needless break that unnecessarily interrupts the flow of continuous information and fattens the succession box. It's also not the generic standard that most nominee successions have been done over the past several years until that past couple of months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's easier to read, the way I set it up. That's how all the prez & vice presz nominee navboxes are setup. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's easier to read. And aren't they that way because you made them that way... Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Some were & some weren't. I brought them all into consistency. GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering that this "consistency" is very recent, and all gubernatorial and senate nominees for American politicians, as well as all other nominee navboxes for politicians outside of the U.S. don't do this, and haven't in the 10+ years of the project until the past few months, surely the rational thing is to keep them all in line? With the separate line break, what stands out most is the hyperlink, making it falsely look like a navbox on the office, rather than on the nominees, which evening out the full relevant title of what succession we’re actually tracking (nominees for X office) all on in one line makes immediately clear for a casual reader. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm in disagreement with you concerning this matter. You're free to open a discussion at the appropriate talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You're the only one advancing the line break. What's more appropriate than talking to you? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Take the dispute to a Navbox talkpage, see what others have to say on the matter. Try WP:Third opinion. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I mean sure, but you've not even given any reason for your style beyond "consistency" and then said "I disagree". Do you have any reasons why? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Again, the style I implemented places Governor entirely in one line & Vice President entirely in one line. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I mean, yes, I can see that, what I'm wondering is why. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks better. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me, I don't really see how one, mild, recent personal aesthetic style trumps clarity of information and standard practice over ten years that's never been complained about as looking bad before. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I certainly think "[X year]–present" looks better on the navboxes of incoming officeholders, but I condeded that "Taking office [X year]" is the more appropriate form, despite looking odd. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're protesting so much over 'break' additions. Perhaps 'again' you should seek a WP:Third opinion. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Because I think they're unnecessary and unhelpful to the flow of information and I was hoping that you could try and show me a reason for them to be there while you keep going around claiming "consistency" as you make all the edits yourself. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I've already twice explained my addition of 'breakers'. You're trying my patients, now. Again, seek a third opinion on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
How about thrice and a thrupence? Sorry for intruding. Juan Riley (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I was hoping for some explanation, all hope of that is lost after false "consistency" and "it looks good" ended up being your only reasons. So you can imagine my frustration in pulling teeth here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Will you please seek a third opinion or open up a discussion about this matter, at an appropriate talkpage? So others may get involved? GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not giving a third opinion on this, but I saw it on WP:3O and it's not clear which article(s) you're discussing here. — (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Any relevant diffs that show the point of disagreement? Those pages are all highly active. — (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
here -- GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
All right, thanks. I don't see the benefit, myself. I think "Party nominee for office of region" looks better on one line, as the previous revision appears in my browser. My opinion is that the one desiring a change from the status quo, i.e., you, should seek broad discussion of it rather than insisting that someone else do so. Especially when you are the sole proponent, and when the only argument for it appears to be that you think your way looks better. I think that'll be all I have to say on the matter; take it as you will. — (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolution Procedure Comment[edit]

I see a request for a Third Opinion. I also see the signatures of three registered editors (this editor and two others) and the IP address of an unregistered editor. I am deleting the Third Opinion as not applicable. If there is an issue about the formatting of infoboxes or navboxes, a Request for Comments may be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It's not totally clear to me when to use 3O and RFC. I will, however, point out that one of those editors, JuanRiley, only made a rather puerile comment and was not participating in the discussion at all. The IP participated on seeing the 3O request and it was entirely between myself and GoodDay before then. If you still think RFC is the better place to go, we can explore that next. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
In general, Third Opinion is only used when there are only two editors. In this case, the unregistered editor was a major participant in the discussion. If the Third Opinion volunteer was one of the two of you, then the unregistered editor should have either logged in or admitted at some point that they had failed to log in. We can't just discount unregistered editors as if they weren't there. (I and some editors would like to restrict their editing privileges, but that isn't happening.) You can also request moderated dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Originally I only wanted to get the actual issue clarified for whoever wound up responding. But if you want to consider my eventual response as the Third Opinion, okay. — (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:, I feel like you didn't read the discussion at all and are basing this solely on just seeing an IP address... They were not a participant before 3O, nor was I discounting their participation, which is, frankly, incredibly insulting. If you care to actually read the discussion, you'll see that it's immediately clear there were only two editors involved, myself and GoodDay, and that the IP came in after the 3O request to ask for clarification on the pages, stated they were not after providing the 3O themselves, though did chip in some input. I don't know if that counts as 3O, with a stated desire to not be involved but still offering a few words, but to be honest, I've certainly lost faith in your own capacity to act as 3O if you won't bother to make even a cursory attempt to read the discussion... Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Like, for the love of God, "I'm not giving a third opinion on this, but I saw it on WP:3O and it's not clear which article(s) you're discussing here." Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I did read the discourse, and it was not self-explanatory. As is too often the case with 3O, what I saw was a long back-and-forth, and it was difficult to know what the issue was. Unlike most Third Opinion requests, I couldn't even hit the Article tab to see the article that was being discussed, because this is a user talk page that is discussing a box, not on a template talk page but on a user talk page. Very often, on a Third Opinion, I have to ask the parties if they will state concisely what the question is. If you want to be insulted, go ahead and be insulted; if you want to complain about the other editors, go ahead and complain about them or insult them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: If you had read it, I should imagine you saw the requested diff illustrating the disagreement. Not sure what would have been unclear after seeing that. To be fair, from your initial (and second) comment here, it did sound like you only looked at the signatures without taking anything else into consideration. I hope that makes it more understandable for there to then be an assumption of same. — (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


@GoodDay:, so am I going to have to be the one seeking a resolution here, or are you going to try for this one? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest you start an Rfc at the Mike Pence article & note it relates to all such navbox nomination info. I can't remember how to set one up. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
But, as the IP noted above you are the one wanting a change. I don't really see why I have to do all of the legwork on this. I had to look into making a 3O request, which only didn't proceed based on it being incorrectly removed by the above mis-(or failure to)read of the discussion prior. If you can be bothered to seek a resolution, then why are we here? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If and when you make the RfC, or decide to leave it to me, do make sure to include this full conversation section at the new discussion area so we don't have to re-tread. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
HAVE IT YOUR WAY. You've been driving me up the 'bleeping' wall over my additions of tiny little 'breakers', for these last few days. Why you've only started complaining when Trump picked Pence? is beyond me. Jeez. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Because you won't bother to give a real reason. I've (and IIRC others) have been removing them as you went across your minor crusade these past several months so I figured you'd eventually stop or leave it up to a contrary editing style. You came to my page first and told me to stop. If you made any real attempt to communicate or seriously participate in the process, it wouldn't have taken quite as long, so I don't really see how I'm to blame for your frustration. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Do what ever you want. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Meaning you're fine if I go through and remove the line breaks? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Do as you wish on all of them. Republican, Democratic, Reform, American Independent, Progressive etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Fine, I will do. It's not lost on me that you've again left this task entirely on me, but I think you and I both appreciate an end to this. I thank you for agreeing and hope our next discussion evolves less tortuously. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not in agreement with you on this matter. Merely tired of discussing it. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I’m the same IP editor, now on my home computer ( is a public library system). As you’ve made no response to my last post, I’ll assume you’ve read it and, in an (frankly rather strenuous) effort to assume good faith, also assume you agree that you went about it the wrong way even if it was a Good Thing. I wish you’d seek consensus rather than give up when urged to do so, but that’s your prerogative. I’ll just ask you to follow the spirit of WP:BRD in the future, and to keep in mind that “discuss” does not mean “tell others to stop disagreeing.” Take care. — (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)