Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:23, 26 August 2021

This editor is a WikiGnome. This user is a participant in WikiProject Ice Hockey. Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 1 month and 22 days.

You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talkpage's 'history'.

Awards

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

Edit count & Pie chart

Edit records

My Arbcom Case

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay

Archives

Aug–Sept 2007 Sept 2007–Feb 2008 Feb–Apr 2008 Apr–Jul 2008 Jul–Oct 2008 Oct–Nov 2008 Nov 2008–Jan 2009 Jan–Feb 2009 Feb–Mar 2009 Mar–May 2009 May–Jun 2009 Jun–Jul 2009 Jul–Sept 2009 Sept–Oct 2009 Oct–Nov 2009 Nov–Dec 2009 Dec 2009–Jan 2010 Jan–Feb 2010 Feb 2010 Feb–Apr 2010 Apr–Jun 2010 Jun–Oct 2010 Oct–Nov 2010 Nov 2010–Jan 2011 Jan–Feb 2011 Feb 2011 Feb–Mar 2011 Mar–Apr 2011 Apr–May 2011 May–Nov 2011 Nov 2011–Feb 2012 Feb–May 2012 May–Aug 2012 Aug 2012–Feb 2013 Feb 2013–May 2014 May 2014–Jun 2015 Jun 2015–Feb 2016 Feb–Jul 2016 Jul 2016–Jan 2017 Jan 2017–Jan 2018 Jan 2018–Feb 2019 Feb 2019–Jul 2020 Jul 2020–present

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Nomination of Christine Fang for deletion

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

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

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

Consistency making opportunity

A discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Lead_sentences has resulted in the consensus that redundant lead sentences should be removed from international relations articles. There are hundreds (possibly thousands) of these. There is also a list here. It will take me months to edit all of them, meaning months of... inconsistency. Any help would be much appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:, I'll do what I can. In the meantime, I'll let you handle the US presidential primaries articles, as I'm not overly good at re-writing intros. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. The relations intros do not need overwriting, only simple deleting, but the sheer number of them means that perseverance is needed, and I am not good at that. Surtsicna (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll take me awhile, particularly with the better known countries. Fortunately, I've been running into mostly 'red-links' :) GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

PS - To keep my sanity. I'll do a country block, per day. Tomorrow, will be the Armenia relations articles, the next day Australia relations, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I have been doing it. Unfortunately, I think I lost my sanity half-way through the A's. Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GoodDay, glad my list is also of service to you as well. Please be aware no U.S. relations articles are listed as stated at the top of the page, but the issue of the sentence redundancy still exists on U.S. foreign relations as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :) GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: It seems when I goof up (see below), I tend to get a figurative anvil dropped on me. So, I'm abandoning the articles-in-question & letting others implement the WP:AVOIDBOLD & WP:REDUNDANCY there. See The Welsh Year articles, as another example. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have rewritten the intros of the Canadian federal elections from the Canada Act 1982 to the most recent. I'm thinking of letting it simmer for a while to see if there is any opposition and then complete the set. Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, we should keep the Year Canadian federal election in the intro of those articles. However, if nobody else is objecting to the removals or reverting? I shall let it be. I'm guessing you'd find stronger resistance on the US presidential election articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:, I've done the same at the intro of 44th Canadian federal election, which is being heavily watched, as it's about to be called (and thus moved to 2021 Canadian federal election). If the intro change isn't reverted there? you'll likely be safe with all the others. After that, you next step would be all the provincial & territorial election intros. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

MoS Ping

You were pinged to the section below here, the ping must take into account the section listed in the edit summary, which was incorrect. Best, CMD (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Why have you removed the Prince and Princess of Wales from Year in Wales articles? Was there a discussion about this? I can't see it in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Wales. Deb (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: Because the prince of Wales doesn't reign over Wales & thus princess of Wales isn't his consort. The prince of Wales isn't a monarch, but merely a title. The British monarch reigns over Wales. For examples, see the Year in Scotland articles, post-1707 & the Year in Northern Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't want the monarch of the UK listed; that's inappropriate. The Prince of Wales is the ceremonial guardian of Crown possessions in Wales and the representative of the Queen in Wales. There may be some people who think it's appropriate to remove the Princes and Princesses of Wales from these pages, but even they wouldn't approve of replacing them with the monarch of the UK. Please could you undo the changes and discuss on an appropriate Talk page? Deb (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That place in those article's are for the Monarch. The prince of Wales isn't the monarch of Wales & hasn't been since the late 1200's. Again, look at the Year of Scotland articles & the Year of Northern Ireland articles which list the British monarch. Like them, Wales is a part of the United Kingdom (before-1707, Wales was a part of England). GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

How can it be inappropriate with Wales, yet appropriate with England, Northern Ireland & Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're approaching this topic as though Wales were a sovereign state (i.e independent country), which it's not. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Scotland, Northern Ireland and England don't have an equivalent of the Prince of Wales. Just as the "Events" section is limited to events that directly affect Wales only and the Births and Deaths sections are for people with a strong connection in Wales, so the "Incumbents" section is for people with a direct link to Wales. Deb (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, the Year in Wales pages existed long before the others and their format is well-established. Deb (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me, but again you're trying to distinguish Wales as being different from Scotland, Northern Ireland & England. The E/S & NI Year articles, also devout their 'events' sections to events within each respective constituent country's Year article. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

TBH, I'm quite surprised (indeed bewildered) by your reaction to my correcting edits. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

These are not corrections and I'm baffled by your thinking that they are appropriate. It's on a par with the Archbishop of York suggesting that Welsh sports teams should sing "God Save the Queen". I've explained all this above. There is no rule that says Year in Topic articles all have to be in the same format, and if you look at them you'll see that they are all different. "Incumbent" does not mean "ruler" or "head of state". It just means the person currently holding a position. We could add "Captain of the Welsh Rugby Union team" if we wanted to. Deb (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, the British monarch & prince (princess) of Wales shouldn't be in any of the Year in... articles of Wales & the British monarch shouldn't be in any of the Year in... articles of Scotland (post-1707), England (post-1707), Northern Ireland. But that's not the case. We should have an RFC covering Year in... articles, on this matter. PS - Usually the head of state is only listed in the Year in... articles of sovereign states, btw. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point - and it supports my argument. Deb (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If an RFC in the proper place were held. Would you agree with me that, only the first minister, legislature & other political offices pertaining to that particular constituent country, should be listed under 'incumbents'? In other words, leave the monarch & royal titles to the Year in sovereign state articles. Example: In the Year in Wales articles, we don't list the British monarch and/or the prince (princess) of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Then, what about the Prince of Scotland? Peter Ormond 💬 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: Or Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall etc etc. Recommend you give your input at the RFC at WP:YEARS. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

C'mon, revert these edits on this page!

I'm trying to prove the reasons I want these edits reverted! You have to revert them right now! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You ain't that Nate Speed fellow, who's had his IPs blocked, concerning that article? GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, I'm not that guy. I'm just trying to prove that Warner Bros. supported that movie and that the reason it also had a UK release was due to the international sales company, which is why these changes need to be reverted. 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Nah, you haven't convinced me, Nate. Best ya get somebody else, to do proxy editing for you. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not Nate! And I AM trying to convince you! Believe me! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested. Get somebody else. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But the page is locked until November because it was FloorMadeOuttaFloor's fault! You have to revert them! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes! You have to! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything & you can't force me. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Just do it already, I swear to God! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't believe me? Then ask for changes to that WP:FILMDIST policy to include multiple distributors outside a movie's local country! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Besides, you've just been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim Houston - multiple reversions

Hi GoodDay. By repeatedly reverting the Tim Houston article, with edit summaries like "it's over, lad", you're not following WP:CIVIL. Also, as the edit you're reverting is controversial, please provide a citation for the "premier-designate" term that seems to be in question. Cheers, have a good night SECProto (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@SECProto: CBC news has been using the term. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Great! Please provide a citation in-line, as you're the one who wants to include the term in the article. SECProto (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You didn't watch the election on CBC news? GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe "editor stated he saw it on TV" is a valid citation. Reviewing a topline CBC article , it doesn't refer to him as the premier-designate. I've reverted the edit until an appropriate citation for the term can be found. SECProto (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Whatever, he's the premier-designate & he's going to become premier of Nova Scotia, sometime in late August/early September. So if you want to be argumentative over something that's going to happen? that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Disappointed

This is extremely disappointing. We were starting to cooperate and doing very well, or so I thought, and then you decide to revert all the edits without any prior warning, despite the agreement to wait to see if there are any objections, and despite there having been no deadline. How can I ever trust you again? Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There was a rejection, at 2021 Canadian federal election & I'm not overly in favour of unbolding. You had enough days to complete the task, so I figured you merely abandoned the idea entirely. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: If you're not still angry at me. You may want to chime in at Mass images/sections removal discussion. There's a growing number of editors, objecting to the section removal idea. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Australia

"Prime Minister of Australia" is the title of the role. Used in the first sentence at that point it is entirely appropriate to capitalise it. Please stop editing Australian articles that you don't know anything about. I should note we have already had this discussion ad nauseum earlier in the year. Deus et lex (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerning Australian articles, I don't appreciate your tone at this moment. They are not limited to being edited by Australians. PS: Would you please clarify your position at the RFC I mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deus et lex: Go over to WP:JOBTITLES & introduce your argument on how the Australian government officials should be exempt from lower-casing, in the intros. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Greetings!

Greetings GoodDay! As you are an experienced editor and have been cooperative with me since few days, I want to bring your attention to the article Monarchy of Pakistan, where DrKay has been edit warring with an absurd and non-sense logic that monarchy was not the "system of government". I then gave a source which said that "constitutional monarchy is a system of government", and even asked them to not revert and discuss the matter, but they continued with their edit warring. If I were edit warring like him, I would've been blocked. Even a child knows that monarchy is a system of government and also, majority of the Commonwealth realm articles have the phrase "is a system of government" in the lead. Other arguments can be seen in the edit history. Please look into this matter. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 12:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the Maverick Party's infobox be 338 seats instead of 107?

Hey.

Just recently we had that little argument on how the Bloc Québécois should show 338 seats instead of 78 in the infobox. I'm wondering if the Maverick Party should also show 338 seats instead of 107? What are your thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06:The Maverick Party should have 0/105 & 0/338, as well. I've made the changes there & brought it up at WP:CANADA for a review. Thanks for pointing it out. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW - I had to make a run through of all the registered federal parties infoboxes. Putting the Senate above the House & removing provincial wing parties. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Whoops, thanks for the correction. Self-reverted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife:, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IP harassment

FYI I have blocked that IP for harassment and edit warring. HighInBC 06:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It is 100% inappropriate to taunt a blocked user as your did here. See Misplaced Pages:Gravedancing. This is the exact sort of harassment that the IP was blocked for. Leave them alone or you will get a similar block. HighInBC 23:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I've already had enough of that editor & moved on. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

...and it continues.

@HiLo48:, I can understand why in the past, you'd often get angry with a certain editor. There's just something arrogant & overbearing about his approach to this project. Ok, I've ranted enough & it's alright if you don't want to respond. GoodDay (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Your recent editing history at David Hurley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood @Nick-D:, but wish the other editor would get a consensus before adding to said article. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

PS, I'll leave the warning here for 24 hrs, rather then delete it, like the other fellow did at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry @Nick-D: about he & I taking over your talkpage. PS - Can't you banish him to the Phantom Zone? GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MoS RfC closure challenge: job title capitalization in infoboxes. Thank you. ― Tartan357  01:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Banned user

You're almost certainly correct in your suspicion that I'm getting wikistalked — somebody just registered a brand new username, "Bearmutt", just to leave a snarky message criticizing me over on the Simple English Misplaced Pages instead of here. So I don't know whether it's a banned user, or an active editor who's just trying to keep their powder dry by logging out or creating alternate fake usernames so that they can't have their attacks linked back to their real identity, but either way somebody's definitely playing games and actively looking for ways to try to get me into trouble. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, this has to be thought out. Do you recall any registered editor, that was in a recente heated discussion with you, or an editing spat? GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I did a reverse IP lookup on the IP number and it resolved to Teksavvy, so it's definitely a Canadian. So one possibility might be Zanimum because of this, but I don't think there's enough evidence to take that for certain off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat: The article that was eventually deleted. Was it an article that he created & did a lot of work on? GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that you've mentioned Simple Misplaced Pages. There's an Australian editor (who I've been at logger heads with), that I wish would transfer himself to that place. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I wonder, if I successfully had Australian head of state dispute deleted, what would that article's agenda pushing creator do. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Poorly sourced, predominantly synthesis; fails WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTESSAY. - Ryk72 00:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Given my personal history with the article's creator. It would be better & look less biased, if another editor nominated it for deletion. The Australians made their decision in the 1999 Australian republic referendum, as to who their head of state was. IMHO, the article was merely created to promote its creator's PoV. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

Hi, I noticed that you recently edited the Justin Trudeau Misplaced Pages article. Please read the Justin Trudeau talk page, and join the discussion. Thank you,Peerreviewededitor (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

We should review all additions for NPOV.--Moxy- 11:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please revert the talk page notices you've been leaving on bios about the close challenge ongoing at AN. It is not clear how you chose these articles, and it could be construed as canvassing. Thank you. ― Tartan357  23:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Doubt it, as I have absolutely no way of which side those editors will take. I also left a 'neutral' message on those 'seven' bios. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)