User talk:GoodDay/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions about User:GoodDay. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

A belated Canada day greeting

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

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)

Infobox

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)

Pence

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. —151.132.206.26 (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. —151.132.206.26 (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. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolution Procedure Comment

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. —151.132.206.26 (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. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC

@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 (151.132.206.26 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. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

POTUS

Hi there! I noticed you gave me a thanks for my fixing of the butchering to the President's list. If a talk page war erupts, I hope you'd be willing to back me up. You've sent me thanks for this and other edits in the past, so I'm just assuming that means we have similar goals here. Thanks! Good Day ;) Spartan7W § 15:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a stickler for consistency & stability, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. If you need help with anything, just ping me I'm happy to do so. Spartan7W § 15:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Horace White

I noticed you changed the end date of the term of office for Horace White, and a number of other politicians. You left no edit summary for any of them, so I'm not sure why you did this. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

New York State officials, like governors & lieutenant governors, leave office at mid-night New Year's Day. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

With so many vandals changing numbers and statistics, it would be great if you could leave a brief edit summary. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for clarification or amendment motion

Hi GoodDay

A motion has been proposed with regards to your recent request logged at ARCA. The motion can be viewed at the request page. Amortias (T)(C) 11:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Noted & watching. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The motion has been enacted, and is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Amendment request: GoodDay (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A good day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been over 4 years, but now I can finally mention them on my talkpage. Diacritics ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Compare Gustav Holst and Albert Ketèlbey ;) - I know the feeling: For two years I couldn't add an infobox to an article when I expanded a two line stub to something substantial, because I had not "created" it. Never made sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Republic of Canada

Hello GoodDay,

What are some of the benefits of a republic over the current regime of Canada? 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We get to choose our own head of state. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

But then you have no one to blame on said choice but yourselves? Laughing. Look south and think Nixon, W, oh god don't even go there.....Juan Riley (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd take my chances. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Beacon Reader

Could you review and remove the speedy deletion for a page I wrote. I am not affiliated in any way with the company, just surprised Wikipedia didn't have an article in the first place for it. Thanks! Travelmite (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's best I let others deal with that article. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

More drama! User Pete/Skring has made some ridiculous but serious accusations against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He is rehashing what happened at the Head of State dispute page, plus my request he respect COI rules as a membership of another organisation. Travelmite (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been so peaceful, since the Australian head of state arguments faded away. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Peace and good will is the objective. Now the issue is that my requests to get my side of the story were reverted. Travelmite (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Edward Behr

Hi - sorry for such a random question, however, I noticed you had edited Edward Behr (journalist). Do you happen to know if his last name is pronounced "BEAR" or "BEER"? Thanks, in advance - DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've not a clue. GoodDay (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. I am thinking of making an edit request to List of state leaders in 2002. Per WP:OWNERSHIP: "If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason.", Zoltan clearly acted improperly. He reverted this edit without reason. @GoodDay and Blackmane: Would this be a good idea, perhaps? Thanks.--Neve –selbert 06:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, don't go around those articles. Don't play with fire. GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDay. You cannot agree to stay away from them as you said [1] then turn around and raise an edit request. That would be viewed as gaming the system and would not be viewed favourably at all. Remove the article from your watchlist, don't look at the history, don't look at Zoltan's contributions, just completely walk away. You're picking at the edges of your promises and a community sanctioned topic ban would be the next course. I can safely say that the community who join in that discussion will not be inclined to be so generous again. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand. But, just for some clarification, @GoodDay and Blackmane: what if I found mistake that needs fixing on one of those pages (e.g. bulleting misplacement etc.) Shouldn't I let anyone in on that simply as a "Good Samaritan" passing by? (For context, I have actually found a mistake relating to bullet inconsistency on List of state leaders in 2008).--Neve –selbert 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be viewed as proxy editing. So, don't go there. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It just seems unfair how that Zoltan seems to be let off the hook, while I always have to carry the can. The fact that he gets free and practically uncurbed rein over those articles, while I can't even be allowed to suggest fixes to grammatical errors, is rather tragic. Had I ever spewed the amount of personal vitriol that he had on my talkpage, I know beyond doubt that I would never get away with it. Such a sad state of affairs indeed.--Neve –selbert 21:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Believe it, I know all too well how unfair the 'pedia can be. I also know how swift, action can be, when one's under extra scrutiny & catches the wrong attention from others. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, just wanted to let you know that I opened an Rfc and nominated an article for deletion in the past week or so (if you're interested).--Neve –selbert 21:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Monarchy of Luxembourg

Well you know what they say, third time's a charm. One can only hope, of course.--Nevé –selbert 22:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion thread at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016

I collapsed the discussion thread you started at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Infobox because it directly duplicated the topic already under discussion at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Infobox inclusion, again. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion at that thread. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hi GoodDay. Just wanted to let you know that Grand Duke of Luxembourg has now become Monarchy of Luxembourg, moved now after all this time. Third time lucky, indeed. Thanks again for your support, and best wishes. --Nevé –selbert 05:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No probs :) GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hold your horses!

The crown prince has not yet become the King of Thailand. All your recent changes are inaccurate. What is the hurry? Wait until the new sovereign is crowned. I think you should save your edits, revert them, and add them when appropriate. Sheesh. Seligne (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware (until these last few hours) that the succession to the Thai throne wasn't automatic, unlike most monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There is still a remote chance his sister will be named monarch. Seligne (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The prime minister has already announced that Vajiralongkorn will ascend the throne. GoodDay (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

King of Thailand

Hi there. Long time no see. The edits surrounding the new King of Thailand give me the urge to strangle someone. It's so cringy watching editors rely on reliable sources AKA media rather than actual legal documents. What do you suggest ? Killuminator (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Vajiralongkorn, is the King of Thailand. He ascended the throne, upon the death of his father. It's apparent though, that some editors aren't going to accept that, until they actually see it in writing. Not much can be done, without an edit war erupting. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

IKR, just look at the late King and his predecessor, accession is automatic. The most relevant legal instrument would be section 23 of the 2007 Constitution. The 2014 Constitution doesn't seem to abrogate that section at all. I managed to find an unofficial translation. Section 23. In the case where the Throne becomes vacant and the King has already appointed His Heir to the Throne under the Palace Law on Succession, B.E. 2467, the Council of Ministers shall notify the President of the National Assembly. The President of the National Assembly shall then convoke the National Assembly for the acknowledgement thereof and shall invite such Heir to ascend the Throne and proclaim such Heir King. Maybe a mediation ? As someone who studies law, I've encountered numerous examples of poppycock in media and I don't consider it very reliable. Killuminator (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Those who are touting the -he is not king, yet- sources, are demanding a straight forward -he is king- sources. It appears nothing less, will appease them. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No wonder Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source in academia. Killuminator (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I only hope that when this -proclamation- is made, it's retroactive to 13 October. Otherwise, it'll be the first in modern times for Thailand, that the throne was vacant. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

These proclamations, coronations and regencies don't change the fact that someone just got a promotion to King. Even toddlers become kings if they are first in line. Assuming and exercising functions is another thing entirely. --Killuminator (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears, until a source showing Vajiralongkorn as king of Thailand is produced? Such edits will continue to be rejected & reverted. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, GoodDay. It seems as if 69 List of state leaders articles are in need of updating given the sad passing of the Thai king. Zoltan Bukovszky still hasn't found time to do so (and to be fair to him, he does have his work cut out for him). Would it be alright if I just went around and changed (1946–present) to (1946–2016), or is it still too soon?--Nevé –selbert 19:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Likely best, that I take care of that. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. With regard to the regency situation in Thailand, are you sure that Tinsulanonda isn't an acting regent? According to this article, "Gen Prem's appointment is in line with the constitution, which states that the council president is acting regent when the throne is vacant, according to Section 24."--Nevé –selbert 22:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It means he's acting as regent (or serving as regent). A regent itself is an acting monarch :) GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok.--Nevé –selbert 22:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, I was browsing some Thai royalty articles and I stumbled upon a sight to behold. Srinagarindra (mother of the late king) has a page so full of fawning and sycophancy, most of which is unsourced. It looks like a fashion magazine or PR work for her. --Killuminator (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a lot of complimentary info. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Founded dates

Let the discussion finish please. There is no point jumping the gun with any changes either way. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, just trying to avoid WP:OVERLINK. No probs. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup I see what you were doing, just no need to spam peoples watch lists multiple times if we can do it all in one shot in a little bit. :) -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Living Presidents of the United States

Hello again GoodDay. Just wanted to let you know that the reason why full names were included in the last column at Living Vice Presidents of the United States was because some of the VP first names were not included anywhere else in the article (that is, there is no way of knowing what Biden's first name is without clicking onto his article). I'm all for consistency, but I don't see where else we can include the forenames of obscure VPs, those that didn't eventually become president themselves.--Nevé –selbert 19:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But, it's so much more neater/compact & matches better with the Living Presidents of the United States' section. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps using initials might be the best way to go. So it would "J. Biden", instead of just "Biden".--Nevé –selbert 19:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There's only been one Biden as Veep, though. But, I'm not gonna fuss too much about it. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Naughty

Please don't mark edits that you know are disputed as minor, or perform them without edit summaries, as you did here. Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. GoodDay (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, this edit would have been a perfect candidate for that particular checkbox... --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Over-tiredness, on my part. GoodDay (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yukon

While you're correct that Sandy Silver cannot replace Darrell Pasloski as the incumbent premier in the infobox on Yukon until he's sworn in, the rule is not that he has to be sworn in before his name can appear in the infobox at all — in actual fact, the rule is that as long as he's correctly denoted as the designate rather than the incumbent, the new premier-designate or PM-designate does get listed in the jurisdiction's infobox alongside the incumbent for the duration of the transition period. We do this, in fact, precisely to minimize the amount of editwarring over newbies trying to prematurely denote him as the incumbent. Silver was correctly denoted as the premier-designate rather than the incumbent, and Pasloski was listed above him as the incumbent — and that's exactly what the rule says we're supposed to do in the transition period between the election and the swearing-in. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Long time no see

How are ya, GoodDay? Thought of you last week..when I was wondering if I would move to Canada depending upon the election. Also am seeing if I can parlay a week block into an indefinite one. Other than that...how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? Juan Riley (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Howdy, barring the unexpected, Clinton will get as much as 300 electoral votes & thus easily win the US prez election. I've never seen a play called Mrs Lincoln. PS - Why would you wish to be indef blocked? GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Laughing...about the play. I don't really care about being blocked one way or another {brings up that old rock tune eh?). Let us not go there. Just messaged you cause you are one of the few nice and rational folks here. Juan Riley (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Tis a slow sunday night so the three admins wo tripped all over themselves last week to block me have yet to waken from their slumber. Perhaps should I not vother you tommorrow with a silly message I am gone. Juan Riley (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's from all the brow beating I took in the past :) GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Tis a slow sunday night so the three admins who tripped all over themselves last week to block me have yet to waken from their slumber. Should I not bother you tommorrow with a silly message I am gone. Until then GoodDay, have a good day. Goodnight. Juan Riley (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If administrators are giving you a difficult time. The best thing to do, is walk away from them & the dispute-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Tomorrow's silly message. I'm almost disappointed that am still here. And I'm laughing as I read an article entitled: You're Not Actually Moving To Canada If Trump Wins. At the risk of giving away my age, reminds me of a late night argument I heard between my parents (RIP) many decades ago. Just the usual indecipherable loud voices downstairs until my mother's voice got a lot louder and distinct as she said: "I'll buy his goddamn train ticket to Canada!" Hope your day is going fine. Juan Riley (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My day's great. I laugh at the celebrities who claim they're leaving the USA if Trump is elected. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

When the dust clears there is the weather and then there is that monarchy thing. :) Juan Riley (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, monarchy. The hypocracy to democracy. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

On the plus side you do have a written constitution. Note the discord in UK now...some due to its being "unclear" who da boss is. But that weather..oh my. Basically I am New Yorker/New Englander as bred so what's a "little" snow and cold between friends. Well 5 years now in slow-droopy-nothing-goes-on-southwest. But hey! Its got weather I can live with. No hours spent digging my driveway out.Juan Riley (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wish Canada became a republic. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

All right finished the article. Sigh. Perhaps Ireland (am considered an Irish citizen..just never invoked it). Cool and rainy better than frigid and snowy. And there is always Guinness to warm one's soul. Juan Riley (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Be interesting to see if the UK leave the European Union. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

IS that not an old curse? "May you live in interesting times." Juan Riley (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Laughing..oh my lord...it is a wiki page! so I bracketed it. Juan Riley (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the British Parliament will reject the Brexit result, just to keep the dispute going. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That would be interesting--a constitutional crisis with no constitution document in sight. But I am not sure it will happen. I don't see much evidence of backbone to the remain side. Just opportunism. Juan Riley (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that there'll be a British general election, in 2017. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a bet...will buy you a beer if so and if you ever get down to NM. Juan Riley (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Make it a 7-UP. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is Labo(u)r is afraid that Brexit base will decimate them...and Tory's are looking to see which side the bread is buttered on. Juan Riley (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Political parties looking out for themselves, ha. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the Scots start rebuilding Hadrian's wall--in reverse! Juan Riley (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I knew Scotland wasn't going to go for independence in 2014. They didn't want to let go of the London purse strings. Just like Quebec will never want to let go of Ottawa's purse strings. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. On other silly news reports: 'Lost Nuke' May Have Been Found Off Canada Coast. Welcome to the nuclear club.Juan Riley (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I always assume you know when I am being sarcastic--I am never dissapointed. On the Scotland thing..is there a Stuart pretender hanging about? Juan Riley (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My wife (a New Jersey native) would nominate for the Scottish throne (care for a scone?) The Bruce (Springfield). Juan Riley (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Franz, Duke of Bavaria, is the Jacobite pretender. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Very good...you are fast. "Jacobite" always reminds me a movie I saw as a child: Errol Flynn and a Welsh actor I think playing an Irishman....let us see how fast I am...The Master of Ballantrae...an adaptation of a Robert Lois Stevenson novel and Roger Livesey is the Welsh actor. Juan Riley (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Between Jacobites (aka SNP) and Jacobins (aka EU)...where is the UK to go? Juan Riley (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If the UK does leave the European Union, Scotland will have another independence referendum. Scotland will again, chose to remain in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We will see. And as you say 'tis interesting. Juan Riley (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Goodnight GoodDay. Nice talking with you. Juan Riley (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nighty night, JuanRiley. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's post-time! Juan Riley (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please note that United States presidential election, 2016 is under 1RR (see the talk page). (Also, don't shoot the messenger...the notice is just a formality since you made a revert). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Noted :) GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maine

Hey, do you know how to add a red dot to Maine? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I've not a clue. The techno stuff is beyond me. GoodDay (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You should get Rollback permissions

Hey, I noticed that you asked an IP editor to stop intentionally blanking an article. I noticed also that you used the regular "undo" feature. May I suggest that you request Rollbacker permissions? With it, you can undo obvious vandalism (like that intentional blanking) instantly. (The only caveat is that there's no confirmation screen, so be careful, if you do get the permission, to avoid clicking [rollback] when it's not vandalism.) Rollback undoes all consecutive edits done by one user to one page. For example, if the editor you just warned had blanked two different parts of the page without you doing anything in between the two edits like you did, you would be able to undo both edits in one click. Since, in most other ways, it acts as if you had just clicked the Undo button, any edit done using the Rollback button is completely undo-able. If you make a mistake or two, just undo the edit you made using the regular Undo button. One more advantage of the Rollback feature is that it allows you to use a program many of us use called Huggle, which you can look into here.
I will note that, if you do apply, the reviewing admin will look into past problems (Yes, I peeked at the public block log.) when deciding whether to give it to you or not. However, because it has been more than a year since your last block, it should not be a problem. — Gestrid (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I go the old fashioned way :) GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Richard von Weizsäcker

Good day to you! I have reverted your edits on Richard von Weizsäcker. I had previously conciously changed the information in the infobox to President of the Federal Republic of Germany because it is the most precise way to formulate it. Everything else makes it appear as if he held two different offices, which he did not. Also, it would imply that West Germany and the Federal Republic today are different states, which they are not by international law. There is a footnote on this issue for exactly this reason. Just wanted to explain that. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the revert, as East Germany & West Germany merged to become Germany in 1990. Anyways, I won't be pushing the matter any further. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

They did not. That is the whole point. The Federal Republic of Germany (West) annexed the East. Yes, we call it reunification, but the East just joined the existing West Germany and accepted the political system that came with it. Including the president, who was not even re-elected after the fact. He just stayed in office, because it was the very same office. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We shall have to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You disagree with me on historical facts about my home country? Interesting... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GoodDay. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

I'd like to bring to your attention this edit you made to List of Governors of South Carolina regarding the ethnicity of Nikki Haley. You changed "Indian American" to "Native American", which is incorrect. Haley's parents are from India, which makes her an Indian American. She has no Native American ancestry to my knowledge. MB298 (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I thought she was Native American & American media was calling Indian American as Natives in the USA are often called Indians. No prob. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert dispute

Hi GoodDay. I felt compelled to report the user Drdpw since he violated 3RR within a 24-hour period. I do realise my own behaviour will also be scrutinised but since I was the one trying to restore the previous layout (per WP:STATUSQUO) the second time (the first restoring the original alignment, that was tweaked by Drdpw without prior consensus), I doubt there will be much focus on my edits, which have been conciliatory for well over the last 24 hrs.--Nevé –selbert 22:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, those numberings should be removed from the Living Presidents of the United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for feedback

You have recently contributed to the discussion at talk:Living Presidents of the United States about changes I have made. I initiated that discussion and have tried to drive it to consensus, in the process making more recent talk page edits than the other editors combined. For your participation in that discussion, I thank you. I am, however, wondering about my participation in that discussion.

Have I been pushing my own ideas too much?
Have I ignored those with opinions different from mine?
Can you think of any way my talk page involvement could have been improved?

You may answer me here, on my talk page, or by e-mail. Thank you for your desire to improve this online encyclopedia! YBG (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Being bold is encouraged on Wikipedia, as the project is ever evolving. Don't ever be reluctant to push for changes. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

2020 Democratic National Convention listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2020 Democratic National Convention. Since you had some involvement with the 2020 Democratic National Convention redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thailand

Ok, thanks! --Jerus82 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Vajiralongkorn

Well,well,well. It looks like we were right about the succession one way or another. Even Andrew MacGregor Marshall, someone with more insight into the Thai situation that most of us, was right to call out that there are no constitutional provisions for a vacant throne. This whole thing was a circus. On the bright side, Thailand is now closer to becoming a republic with this militaristic, capricious and unpopular buffoon with no viable successors. --Killuminator (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha, Rama X very well might be Rama the last. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy, one user is stubborn. Rulers.org, a fan fluff site with no sources is more reliable to him than Thai law and media sources. --Killuminator (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Elect/Designate

This seems a rather recent development to say "we don't [do this]." And don't we both see how the US makes itself (somehow here on Wikipedia as well as in real life) the exception rather than the rule? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

One President-at-a-time is how the practice has been. Patients is a virtue. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean, again since when? While I have relatively dropped off the incoming leaders beat for the past few months, it certainly hasn't been the practice for immediate several years' past that I had been. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the United States article, then it should good enough for other country articles. You don't see Trump in that article's infobox. If you wish, opening this up to an across the board forum, would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The US articles have always made rules for themselves despite the 190+ other countries using a different but uniform standard. So I don't quite agree qith the standpoint that if it works forthe most popular guy that everyone else should do the same thing. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The country infobox 'government sections' are for office holders. Let's wait until the incoming official assumes the respective office. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

*Sigh* Again we're at divergent POVs where I'm thinking back to how we've done it in my 10 years and apparently in the six months I've not been on these articles you've decided a new precedent. Ah, well. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Note, out of frustration over your persistence in using 'Elect', I no longer bother arguing over the content of navboxes in officer-elects/designates bios. GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess? I wasn't aware editing involved political trade-offs now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The term "President-elect" has been used since the very beginning. It is in the constitution (see 20th amendment) and everything. Prior to the counting of the Electoral votes, the term is a honorific. Nobody DOESN'T use it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor hobbyist candidates: 2020

I see you have put in ol' Falleres, who is a perennial hobbyist candidate. He didn't even shell out the two hundred bucks to get on the ballot in New Hampshire this year. If you wish to put a section called "perennials and other minor candidates" leave him out. PLEEEESE! Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The 2020 article has a talkpage. Bring your concerns there. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of United States gubernatorial elections, 1963

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on United States gubernatorial elections, 1963 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Howdy Pkbwcgs, I rather you would've tagged it with AfD, but oh well. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

could you explain why you got rid of the valid popular votes of several candidates who got electoral votes on the talk page?

There was no consensus to remove them.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus to add it & so far more editors wanted it removed. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajiralongkorn

I believe you broke this page, could you fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.23.134 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry if I sounded rude. 79.117.23.134 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No probs & it didn't sound rude :) GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert-dispute, follow-up

Hi again GoodDay. I reported Drdpw to ANI here, concerning Wikipedia:OWN. FWIW, there was "No action" when he broke WP:3RR last month.--Nevé –selbert 17:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas GoodDay!

...and I hope many more. 75.173.12.181 (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you as well, User:75.173.12.181. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you as well, User:Bzuk. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Donnie Park (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Donnie Park (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to your aswell, User:Donnie Park. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Queen mother

Hello GoodDay. Would you mind commenting on the discussion at Talk:Queen mother#Requested move 23 December 2016 concerning whether Queen mother should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother? Thanks and Happy Holidays.--Nevé –selbert 15:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald

Good morning. You are editing many times in the Donald Trump article but only 1 edit per day is allowed otherwise editors can be sanctioned, including being blocked. Many people slap a harsh pre-worded warning but I prefer to offer you a personalized explanation and one that is not so harsh.

For this article type of contentious article, edit summaries should be used as much as possible.

Lastly, refer to archive 40, which addresses the first 1-2 sentences of the article. The rationale for the somewhat stable version that you removed was that any claim of Trump being a politician is because he is (or will be) President. A number of people disputed whether Trump is a politician because he never held elected office. The 2 sentence structure doesn't address whether or not he should be called a politician but does address redundancy. To say that "Trump is an American politician....and President-elect" is redundant. If there is a separate sentence about President (or President-elect), then the separate sentence expanded on the word politician.

Consider the following sentence: President Obama is a Nobel laureate and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. That is redundant. The only claim to being a Nobel laureate is the Peace Prize.

Thank you for reading this message. Usernamen1 (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You can edit the article many times. What you can't do is revert more then once per 24 hrs. Saying Trump is the current President-elect..., is redundant, as he's the only US President-elect at the moment. Best to keep lead as much the same as the lead at Mike Pence, as much as possible. GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out not putting "current" President-elect. I see no challenge to not purposely putting in redundant statements. Usernamen1 (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to let others decide on whether politician stays or goes. I'm mainly concerned about keeping the lead as simple as possible, keeping in mind that it'll change again on January 20, 2017 :) GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Hello GoodDay: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, --Nevé –selbert 00:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks Neve-selbert & a happy 2017 to you, as well :) GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, GoodDay!

Happy New Year!

GoodDay,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. MB298 (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks MB298. HAPPY 2017 to you, as well :) GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! User:HopsonRoad 18:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Dipping my nose in. I think the only solution to this, might be lowering the percentage inclusion threshold for U.S. gubernatorial election articles. Too bad, there's no way to tell if the Libertarian nominee personally took enough votes from Shumlin or not. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, I left similar notices to this one at the Talk pages of the other interested editors. However, no-one but you and I has engaged the the DR/N site, although I notice that Tiller54 has been active in WP. He may feel protective of the article, since I believe that he did most of the work to bring it to GA status. Or he may realize that the apparent consensus from before no longer exists and has become disengaged from the discussion. If you are comfortable with the idea, you could try the two-person infobox idea with a footnote for Shumlin, which I tried in this edit. Perhaps that would help Tiller54 engage on this topic, further. Please let me know your thoughts. I'll watch this page. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've implemented the compromise. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Tiller54 has reverted the compromise with no explanation and says that the compromise should await the dispute resolution, in which he has not participated, to date. I chose not to revert this edit, because I thought it would be better, if someone else did to avoid WP:3RR. I would suggest that you do so, and ask him to engage at the dispute resolution page. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The volunteer is awaiting a reply from you at The dispute resolution noticeboard. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay and Happy New Year. Who should initiate the WP:RfC, or should we let the matter lie quiescent, until the next revert? User:HopsonRoad 13:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If there's another revert, then I recommend that you begin an Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hassan

It's literally the title "Governor Hassan Announces that She Will Resign as Governor Effective January 3, 2017" Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If her resignation took effect at midnight (12:00:00am on 3 January 2017), then her gubernatorial tenure ended 2 January 2017. GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's honestly ridiculous that you want to use your opinion on how her resignation works over the actual titular description from the state government on how it works. I'm not going to get into a brawl over it, but I do have the backing of an official source. You can make your decision based on how that single minute is quantified on your own. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand how the 24hr clock works, but I'll chalk that up to your youth. There's a reason why Mexican Presidents tenures end on November 30 (not December 1) or New York governors tenures end on December 31 (not January 1), it's because the changes take place at exactly midnight. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You can choose to disagree with me if your own obsessions lead you that way to but don't give me that aged bullshit. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Call it what you will, but you're still wrong on the departure date, if the resignation took effect at midnight. Unless, you've a source showing a fraction of a second after 12:00:00 AM. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

In the article the article cited above, it says "Following the precedent set by former Governor and Senator Judd Gregg, Governor Maggie Hassan today informed legislative leadership from both parties and Governor-elect Chris Sununu that she will resign at 11:59 p.m. on January 2, 2017, in advance of her swearing-in as a United States Senator on January 3." Note: at 11:59 p.m. on January 2, 2017. So it doesn't seem to be a matter of misunderstanding the 24-hour clock, which I recognize is easily done. YBG (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

So, whether it's 11:59 pm or a minute later, the correct date is 2 January 2017. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

When a resignation occurs and when it is effective are two entirely different things as we see time and time and time again and again with one PM after another. Renzi and Valls are the two latest to have to deal with this. The title gives the effective date, January 3, 2017. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

When has the resignation taken effect? On or after 12:00:00 am? GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's effective the 3rd, that means it's after. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

So her resignation took effect after midnight? That's the only way it would make 3 January, the departure date. The source you've provided, doesn't say after midnight, however. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

God, I honestly don't care enough. You can debate the merits of the primary source vs the secondary source, I've said everything I have to say on the matter. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The source pushes either 11:59 pm or 12 midnight, each one means 2 January 2017 is the departure date. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I note in passing that this is in contrast to Mark Hatfield, who in a similar situation, chose to forgo the extra seniority in order to complete his term as governor. YBG (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I've opened up a discussion on Hassan's departure date as Governor at Maggie Hassan. I know it's only a matter of seconds, but best we get this right. GoodDay (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

re: your thanks

I added the links because of an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 20#Next king of the United Kingdom. You seem to have an interest in the topic, so I thought you might want to opine. Best, -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a hunch, but I suspect there may be one editor out there, who will take issue with your additions. So far, we haven't heard from him, since December 23 :) GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Vajiralongkorn's disorder

The reason why I edited Vajiralongkorn, because I have a reference website link from news, that he has AIDS. This is the reference website link below.

[(The Australian) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/wikileaks-cables-reveal-scandal-and-disease-in-thai-royal-family/news-story/033690f155184621fad844ba2d2377b6] Murashel (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC+7)

That's not a reliable source. Smacks of yellow journalism. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if we accepted it as indisputably correct (which we shouldn't), it does not say that he has AIDS. It says that the US ambassador thought he was suffering from a blood-related medical condition. AIDS is one of many such conditions. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed infobox?

Did you know that we argued in 2013 about collapsing infoboxes? Look for the comment of a user who has trouble to click the little "show" tabs (look for "show" tabs), - that's all I need to know. It's about accessibility as a service to our readers, including those who have difficulties --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know, until now :) GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Around the same time, we had an argument over an infobox for Götterdämmerung (it's still on the talk), in which I asked if we'd help users who'd need it, even if there were only ten. (Yes for me.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've dropped the idea of a collapsed box, as someone brought up the problems that it causes for readers with physical limitations. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, - make it known ;) - Other users have other limitations, such as limited knowledge of English, - English is a main reference for readers worldwide in whose languages many topics are not covered. They have a much easier time reading (and possibly translating) parameter-value pairs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, the non-English language topic. Something that's gotten me into many a trouble in the past ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Like I am in the infobox trouble? My new year's resolution: avoid discussions of the topic, always a waste of time, "they" don't listen to arguments as mentioned above. Allegedly I drove away valuable editors who want their articles clean = infobox-free? See Gustav Holst, discussion also still on the talk, but that was 2016 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Haha. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, what is the point of this thread? Cassianto ^Talk 20:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always had little to no concern for non-English language readers and/or editors. IMHO, there's other corresponding language Wikipedias for them to view or edit. For example: If their only language is German? we've got German Wikipedia for them :) GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If their only language is German, they will have to consult the German Wikipedia. When their native language is some African language (just for an example), and they know some English, they may not have many articles in their language. (Even German just reached only 1 million, so there are many more topics only in English.) They will come to English, no? (Unless French is their second language.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

My attitude is that they can create and/or expand a Wikipedia of their own language. For examples: I'd oppose moving Munich to München and would support moving Taisaoch to Prime Minister of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I would not want to move Munich. What do you think the imagined African person could begin a basic article on Munich with more ease, from the infobox or the lead, IPA and all? - My example is this opera house, "given" to me in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't give much attention to infoboxes in other articles, in general. My concern surrounds infoboxes in bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The difference? I just don't give as much attention to non-bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Pierre Boulez, one of the great people I was happy to meet. When he died I added a bit of structured information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I would oppose an infobox for that article. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I love Beethoven ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, the infobox should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Canucks Template

I've reverted your edit again. Edler was an alternate captain during the main season games. So far, nobody with a letter has been injured this season. Also, Alex Burrows is also an alternate captain - yet he's not shown with a letter on the roster. Also, i've been to several Canucks games this season, and he was wearing an A in all of 'em. Thanks and reply before reverting again. Wiki Pancake 🥞 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Howdy WikiPancake, we need a source which shows that the Canucks have announced Edler as an alternate captain. Just peeked at the Canucks official website & so far, they haven't updated the letters on their roster this season. You'll need such a source, to add the Edler info to List of current NHL captains and alternate captains, as well as 2016-17 Vancouver Canucks season, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Font size reduction in the Donald Trump infobox

Re: this edit

1. MOS:FONTSIZE advises against further reduction of font size where the font size is already smaller than default. As a guideline, that represents a community consensus. This is an accessibility issue and Wikipedia takes accessibility seriously.

2. You do not have a local consensus to deviate from the guideline at Donald Trump. As a matter of fact, you have not even sought one.

3. There is no community consensus for inter-article consistency as a general principle.

4. It matters not how many editors don't like the guideline, or how many articles fail to observe it. That is not how community consensus is determined. You are free to try to get the guideline changed.

We discussed this recently on my talk page, and the best explanation you could muster was: "Too many rules, for my taste." Please stop making these changes at Donald Trump. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It would help, if you did the same for the infobox at the Mike Pence article. I'm trying to keep both font sizes the same, in each. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been involved at the Pence article, or I would do that. As I said in the edit summary on my revert, any editor is free to make that change there, so why don't you do so? You may or may not be able to achieve consistency between the two articles, depending on whether a consensus is reached there to deviate from the guideline. But I would be very interested to see the rationale for deviating, something deemed to carry more weight than the guideline. As I suggested above, inter-article consistency is essentially an I just like it argument, and I would expect it to be given very little weight by a qualified closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the smaller fonts had been used for the incoming governors & lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - It's worth nothing, which is one of the points I've been trying very hard to make. You will drive yourself mad if you continue to pre-occupy with consistency that lacks p&g basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

We've about 50 hrs until Trump/Pence take office. It shouldn't be too difficult for me to keep these fonts equal, until they're deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

People have been trying to shrink other things at Trump's infobox, including the marriage dates and the abbreviations for the college degrees. I assume the same will happen at Pence. Thus, infobox consistency will be an unwinnable battle until every interested editor knows about the guideline and agrees to observe it (i.e. never). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll try my best to keep them consistent. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sessions

There isn't a scheduled confirmation for Sessions, so you're projecting CRYSTAL in presuming his confirmation rather than the linear progression that has been announced per [2] Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, we assume he'll be succeeding Lynch as AG until/if he's not confirmed on January 20, 2017. You're jumping the gun. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The government isn't and we know a confirmation vote hasn't been scheduled, so I don't know in what world this assumption is being made. Common sense. He hasn't even been given a committee vote, let along a floor vote, let alone a scheduled installation. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Be patient & wait until January 20, 2017. If Sessions hasn't been confirmed by then? you can add Yates as acting US attorney general - assuming Lynch has resigned as US attorney general. Remember, Lynch could stay on as AG at Trump's request. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"Upon the request of the incoming Administration, Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates has agreed to serve as Acting Attorney General until a successor has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, effective at noon Friday, January 20, 2017." Therequiembellishere (talk)

Yes, but the US Senate could confirm Sessions before then, even though it's unlikely. Thus why I'm recommending that you wait until Noon EST, January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Except there hasn't been a confirmation scheduled... Like, I really don't understand the imaginary world in which the rules we know govern the Senate are gone and we just assume he passes a committee and a floor vote without any of that scheduling being done. You're impressing a perspective that any knowledgeable person with common sense would disagree with and which both the current and incoming governments have explicitly stated what is going to happen. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Anything is possible during the Trump transition. I won't be reverting further, as it's only roughly 60-hrs 'til Trump assumes office. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the assumption that all rules are out the window, but thankfully, some have still managed to persist. "Several, like Jeff Sessions to be attorney general and Tillerson, have no chance of being approved later this week. Sessions’ committee vote won’t occur until after Trump is sworn in." // "Because of Judiciary Committee rules, Sessions has to wait longer than other Cabinet picks until his nomination can come to the floor. The panel is scheduled to take up his nomination on Jan. 24, but any one senator can ask for committee business, like a nomination, to be held over one week." Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yahya Jammeh

I don't want any dispute over Yahya Jammeh and Adama Barrow. Problem here is that no one has reported that Jammeh has stepped down and Barrow took office. Unless he does, Barrow cannot be called a president as he neither has the office nor the powers. I am not disputing that he is rightfully elected and appointed, but until he is in office, he still cannot be considered president. Per Wikipedia rules, we need sources to make any change. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: see changes made at List of current state leaders by assumption of office, which updates The Gambia's president. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have already seen it. And it is the same story there, no reliable sources have been used. As such I have reverted it and restored Yahya Jammeh as the president as well until he ACTUALLY steps down per reliable sources. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Reducing whitespace

Good day GoodDay, I noticed you made some changes to species articles where you removed a blank line preceding the stub template, such as at Shorea guiso. My own practice in this regard, adding two blank lines, has been based on the recommendation at WP:STUBSPACING. There may be other recommendations elsewhere. Anyway, I just wanted to bring this up before you got very far along with changes. Thanks Declangi (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. I often reduce white spaces in articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)