User talk:GoodDay/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You read my message & now you're throwing a tantrum. Very well, I'll revert to your preferred version. But, only so you'll pause your contempt for me. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite

You couldn't have known this from my actions, but I didn't block Travelmite based on Skyring's email. He was saying basically "I believe that he's being disruptive in these ways", followed by lots of evidence for this assertion, but because I wasn't comfortable blocking merely from an email, I did my own investigation and found the cited diffs (Skyring didn't mention them, and they're irrelevant to the argument he was making), which in my opinion are enough for sanctions for anyone. In the end, Skyring brought the situation to my attention, but aside from the user's identity, nothing that Skyring mentioned factored into my decision to block Travelmite. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How stands the commonwealth?

To jokingly paraphrase Benet's putting words in the mouth of Daniel Webster's revenant. Juan Riley (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be still intact. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Twould appear that its history is rewritten by the day...but I shan't partake...tis a bitter pork pie. And no I aint mental..just laughing. Did have a serious question on the side for you though. Is it just me that thinks the "oldest thing to pretend to state leadership" thingy is just a forum for people with agendas? Reminds me of the list of Nobel laureates with folk constantly claiming so and so as a native in this ever shifting border world. I decided to leave both alone after a while. Perhaps these articles are to trap otherwise disruptive folks into chasing their own tails? Juan Riley (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting things like UK+15 vs 16 are equal stuff? GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: It's regrettable, but there's some folks out there on Wikipedia, who'll never grow up :( GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, "they" do not. I have taken a different approach in principle to you..but similar in practice. I avoid "those" articles, do little editing, lurk a bit, and when I occasionally take a look see at "those" articles and "those" people I just get amused at the rather warped WP articles "they" edit. Something that is WP's problem not mine. Other than that, do have a relaxing cuppa and a good day. Juan Riley (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, ok. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Info

Ok this morning I took the time to read all about Sir David Smith position as I found it odd that hes mentioned so many times over at the AUSTRALIAN HEAD OF STATE. I think hes being misrepresented ....he does say "founding fathers made the Governor-General, not the Queen, our head of state."....but goes on to say "The truth is that Australia has two Heads of State. The Queen is our symbolic Head of State, the Govenor-General is our constitutional Head of State." - " The truth is that Australia simply has two Heads of State, each with separate and different powers. " source -- Moxy (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm more concerned about the growing abrasive attitude of one of the editors at the Rfc. As a non-Australian, I feel insulted by the editor-in-question. It's likely best, that I allow others to deal with this topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive me

It was a joke. Yes, if and when Charles III ascends the throne it will solve a lot of problems. Hurrying that event along to avoid having to renumber a bunch of entries in a wikitable is probably overkill. --Pete (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No prob. IMHO, my United Kingdom and 15... option, would be best for Elizabeth II's entry at that article. However, attempting to adopt it, would (as we both know) lead to another Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It's one man propping up the crumbling British Empire. One day his modem will blow a valve, he'll be offline for a week and the whole thing will deflate to its natural size. --Pete (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha :) GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Australian head of state topic

As a member of WP:RETENTION, I wish you'd walk away from the Australian head of state topic, for your own good. All you're doing is pushing your PoV that the monarch isn't Australia's head of state. You've been pushing this for over 10 yrs now & this SPAish behaviour has gotta stop. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Must have missed this. A ping would have helped. Have I ever said that the Queen isn't the head of state? If so, when and where? --Pete (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

My observation is that you're refusing to allow edits, that show and/or point to the Australian monarch as Australia's head of state. You've been pushing this "We don't know" position across Wikipedia, for over 10 years. It got to a point where you were beginning to make me doubt if the monarch was head of state, aswell. This growing doubt in my mind, is what prompted me to open up the Rfc at WP:POLITICS. Now, considering your past, it could be construed as though you're still pushing that the Governor-General is head of state, but are using the "We don't know" argument, as a smokescreen. Per WP:AGF, I would prefer to think that's not the case. I don't control what goes in or stays out of any articles. But, something's gotta give, concerning this Australian head of state topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And when did I ever say that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state? Come on, you are promoting fiction here. I've stated my position again and again, but you don't seem to have grasped it. --Pete (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you don't seem to be grasping it. Though I won't have anything to do with it, I fear that you are heading towards a possible ban from the Australian head of state topic. I can only hope, that won't be the end result. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You have accused me above of holding an opinion that the Queen is not the head of state, and that the Governor-General is. I have repeatedly denied this, and I do so again, right here in this very thread. How many times do I have to say it before you accept it? Do you think I'm somehow lying about my own state of mind, and that you know it better than I? I'm just not grasping my own repeatedly-expressed beliefs???? --Pete (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You're pushing the supposed dispute as though it's a bigger deal then it actually is. But so far it's being shown that the 'dispute' is more of a molehll, then a mountain. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

We have a well-sourced article demonstrating that Australians at all levels are divided in their views. You, Mies and I have batted heads over it for years to provide a stable article documenting a notable dispute. That's the reality. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good luck, Skyring. In whatever you're trying to accomplish. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You puzzle me sometimes. What on earth am I supposed to be trying to accomplish now? --Pete (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Australian monarch is the head of state, which is what sources & a growing number of editors are pointing out to you. If you can't or won't accept that & thus won't stop editing against or posting against it? Then again, good luck to you. I won't be responsible, if the community begins judging you as being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. It is easily demonstrated that there is a division of opinion on the matter. WP:NPOV means that we don't get to choose one side over another, except insofar as WP:WEIGHT applies, and when Prime Ministers, Governors-General, the media etc. make the same claim, it is not a WP:FRINGE view. Ergo, we include relevant well-sourced material in our encyclopaedia. This is pretty basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't help you anymore. You're too determined to have your way. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

My way? As I say, this is basic wikipolicy. You know, the established view of our community on how to write an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's up to the community to decide, concerning your behaviour and/or conduct. They collectively will judge, as to whether you're being an obstructionist or not, by your continuing to 'revert' any edits that show or point towards the monarch being Australia's head of state. Again, I tried for years to get you away from this topic, but to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What's your understanding of NPOV - a very basic policy - as it applies here? --Pete (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, the community will have to decide for themselves, about your behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's okay then. I'm pretty sure that the community is in favour of NPOV. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to help you (and I realize the appearance of user StAnselm, has given you a shot of adrenaline) but regrettable, I haven't been able to get through to you. Good luck, Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Whatever differences we might have, I do appreciate your kind concern. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Atleast, you've acknowledged that I've tried to help you :) GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW: I want you to stick around Wikipedia. We gotta have somebody, who can go toe-to-to in discussions with Miesianiacal ;) GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

At the WP:POLITICS Rfc - Either 2 editors are wrong, or 12 editors are wrong. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too negative. But, I got a feeling this whole Australian head of state topic? is heading for AN/ANI or Arbcom :( GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be good to have some policy-wise eyes on the thing. --Pete (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

My concerns are for you, Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion at the RFC & now the Australian WikiProject & Australian noticeboard, about non-Australians being uninformed (i.e idiots), is a slap in the face to many editors. I was going to oppose any attempts made by anyone to get you barred from the project, per your disrupting it to make a point. However, I feel now that you've gone too far with this. You're on your own, pal. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

PS - We've nothing more to converse about, concerning this topic. If you've other things to chat with 'here', by all means please do :) GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Titles

I was told by a reviewer to fix these because previous editors had broken references there and that we could not have just one word like vacant so I fixed them after the reviewer told me to Wifey93 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Who's the reviewer? GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Where's everybody, these days?

Wowsers, I've been noticing lately that quite a few veteran editors that I come across often, have gone long stretches (days & weeks) without participating at Wikipedia. PS - Is my breath that bad?? GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Saw this and was beginning to think of a long hypothetical reason...then just decided on: ya think? Wouldn't be surprised myself. Juan Riley (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It just appears odd. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Republic

Hey I stumbled upon your userpage by accident. I noticed you want Canada to be a republic on its own. Commendable. I too think Canada should be a republic. So many things ic ould change for Canada. Winterysteppe (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Someday, the red maple leaf will indeed join the 21st century :) GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. My biggest pet peeve is premier and Lieutenant Governor. It doens't make sense in my head. Winterysteppe (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In Canada, the lieutenant governors are merely provincial versions of the Governor General. The premiers are the provincial versions of the prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I moved to the states. Living here made me believe the Lieutenant Governor should be just "governor" or "Governor general". It makes a bit more sense. Winterysteppe (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me for the lurking, GoodDay; but of the many things I find admirable about Canada, a minor one is that glorious maple leaf flag. On the republic stuff--well that is up to you Canadians. Though I would be pleased if you did so, I must admit that not going that direction is just another sign of Canadians being Canadians. And that aint a bad thing at all either. Juan Riley (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The average Canadian isn't even aware that the monarchy exists. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for also lurking as well, but does the average Canadian not, well, look at their money? CMD (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No comment. :) Juan Riley (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt many would know who the old gal is. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And as much to do with value of that bill today as the long dead George, Ben and Alex? Well some might argue less but I said I aint going there. Dont not tempt me. Juan Riley (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Giggle Giggle. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What a magnificent flag Canada has. It's hard to believe that sentimental empire fanboys wanted to keep that red cloth with a UK property sticker in the corner many years ago. New Zealand could take some lessons from Canada. --Killuminator (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ;) I consider the change in 1965, to be the first step towards a republic. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The coronation of Charles III will be the next major milestone, or is it maybe George VII ? Choosing the latter name should attract ridicule and I can imagine the average British tax payer happily frolicking during his lavish and expensive medieval ceremony that serves no purpose. --Killuminator (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

He'll likely go with Charles III, considering his grandson's name. I'm quite certain, he'll just have the 'one' coronation, in the UK & not proceed to have 15 more in each of the other Commonwealth realms. The one coronation & its location (and the fact that the 15 other realms won't be mentioned seperately) certaintly backs my UK+15 argument :) GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Queenie

Remember that dreary discussion about a putative discrimination and bias in favor of the UK on some pages about state leaders ? Similarities were pointed out with Andorra, and I just noticed that De Gaulle only has France in his box, while the Queen has that insipid remark about Commonwealth realms and a footnote. More comments on the page. Thoughts ? --Killuminator (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I must have really thick skin, as I put up with a lot of (IMHO) rough treatment at that previous Rfc. :) GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It certainly was vitriolic and fanatical in some remarks. --Killuminator (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm likely going to go through it all, again. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Found the original TIME article from 1950 something. The whole thing is under Great Britain. Also I noticed that user: Ryulong was banned. What happened ? --Killuminator (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding & presenting the link :) Ryulong was banned over a year ago, see his Arbcom case. I'm hoping he'll request reinstatement. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Having seen input from two editors, it seems they support a UK only which is similar to 2 but not the same so I propose adding an option 6 with only the UK. --Killuminator (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite correct. I've implemented your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, I posted a message to you (at your talkpage) about the Person of the Year Rfc change, out of curtesy to you. Though you've banned me from your talkpage? you're always welcomed to post here. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that the flag for the 1951 cover is an anachronism. The current flag of Iran was adopted well over 3 decades after that issue came out. The correct flag would be the one used by the Pahlavi dynasty. I don't know how to rectify it, so I ask for your assistance. --Killuminator (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made the correction. How's it look? Unfortunately, it's slightly smaller then the other flags. But, it's the best I could do. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to look smaller than the others to me, but even if it is smaller, It's not much of a fuss. It could be that the flag itself had different dimensions or something and with some Vatican flags in the article, it doesn't particularly stand out. Thanks ! --Killuminator (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW, I agree with ya'll that the article should be changed to reflect what's currently happening at the Rfc. However, AFAIK an Rfc has to be left open for 30 days & thus the current version kept for that length of time. I'm quite certain that if anyone were to implement United Kingdom right now? one of the Rfc participators would have a fit. I reverted the IP's change, mainly because it appeared to be a passer-by IP. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, I realize you're frustrated with what's currently happening at Time Person of the Year. But, it's rather poor taste to let that frustration out at Monarchy of Canada. Be patient & have faith in you arguments. We don't know how that Rfc is going to turn out. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Killuminator, ya ever get the feeling that somebody is trying to bait you? I reckon we've interesting times ahead :) GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm back, what is the update. BTW the flags on this page are so much more eye gauging. I checked the talk page, and there doesn't seem to be a firm set of rules regarding them. --Killuminator (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Right now at Time Person of the Year, option #5 (full deletion) is in the lead, with option #6 (United Kingdom) a close second. As for the Nobel laureates in Literature? Thank goodness, none of the entries are British royalty. PS - If Canada had always been a republic? there'd be a lot less disputes over whether or not to show the UK on its own, in relation to Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't even understand why you call here Elizabeth II there, the first Elizabeth certainly wasn't Queen of Canada, seeing how Canada wasn't a state then. The Canadian Monarchy (same goes for Australia etc.) seems like a branch of the British one. There never was an Elizabeth I of Australia, or St. Lucia etc. so this just goes on to show that she is Queen of the UK first and foremost. --Killuminator (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I reckon going with the "II" for all the realms, just makes it easier & identifies that it's the same person. PS - Just a guess, put I think there's another Canadian editor out there, who would argue heatedly with the "Queen of the UK first and foremost" statement ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary had a different approach but that's history, soon to be hopefully joined by the monarchies of Barbados, Jamaica and so on. --Killuminator (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've always felt that Wikipedia should reflect the real world's view of Elizabeth II. This is why I lean towards going with showing just "United Kingdom" in the related articles. I accept the addition of "..and the 15 other Commonwealth realms", as compromise :) GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Grand Duke of Luxembourg

Hi, GoodDay. Do you think it might be a good idea to reopen another move request—to Monarchy of Luxembourg? It has been around a month since Number 57 closed the request as a mere no consensus on 23 February. Frankly, I believe that in this second time, listing the move reason as to why the page should be renamed as simply "per consistency with Monarchy of Liechtenstein, Monarchy of Monaco, et al" would give us a greater chance of a success in moving.--Neve–selbert 03:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, bother.--Neve–selbert 11:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

May as well wait six months, then. GoodDay (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SLBY

Viceroy, Queen's/King's representative or Monarch's representative

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

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

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

• Lieutenant-Governor (Lieutanant-Governor –)

I honestly feel that this is the most tolerable compromise that we have. A quote from this official PDF document states:

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

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

Howdy Neve-selbert. If Zb has left the discussion, then so be it. I've no problem with you adding a fourth option to the Rfc. If you so desire, you may request an administrator to reviw the Rfc. BTW - I've opened up a discussion at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, concerning Elizabeth II's entry. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Zb has shown no signs of leaving, unfortunately. Which administrator would you recommend for me to request for review? Neve-selbert 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be someone who's got little to no interest in the dispute, IMHO. I believe that Newyorkbrad, would be a cool choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

On second though, we might as well just describe the QR as a Governor-General (Governor-General –)—the QRs serve all of the duties one would expect of one. I just feel that we are getting absolutely nowhere with Viceroy as a solution, the opposition of ZB and Mies is 100% diehard. In spite of this, I still believe we should wait until after Newyorkbrad (contacted) weighs in to review the options. Neve-selbert 16:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My wiki-senses tells me that the status-quo (Queen's representative) will likely be retained. Most likely Monarch's representative will end up being the preferred alternative. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there nothing more we can do? Neve-selbert 16:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not unless a truckload of editors show up at the Rfc, over the next 20+ days, supporting Viceroy. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, it is none other than ZB being the preeminent stumbling block to change. If we can get him to accept Governor-General (getting him to support Viceroy is 99.9% impossible) as a compromise, then this whole thing will be probably be over in seconds. Neve-selbert 16:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to persuade Miesianiacal, aswell. Anyway, it's worth a try :) GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This dilemma is impossible. Whatever happens though, Monarch's Representative will never be implemented. If that means we have to keep the status quo for now, then so be it. Neve-selbert 16:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Which do you think is the safest option?

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

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

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

Update: for 7 February 2015

• The votes thus far:
  • Option A (status quo) has 11 votes
  • Option B (Monarch's Representative) has 6 votes

I feel reasonably confident that the status quo will be retained, hence quashing Option B. And (when the demise occurs) Queen–King's Representative will be used to follow up in the succession year.

If, over the course of the next week or so, consensus is clearly in favour of the retention of the status quo, could we request the closure of the RFC?

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

When Liz passes & Chuck takes over, sure thing we change to King's Representative. As for closing the Rfc criteria? no probs, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to go for it now? Or should we wait a week or so? Neve-selbert 05:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd wait. Otherwise, ZB & Mies would have a fit. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If the Demise of the Crown were to unfortunately happen in {{future year|1}}, here is a draft I made as to how we would make the transition appear in NZ and their CI colony. Neve-selbert 17:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend Queen's/King's Representative, rather then Queen's-King's Representative. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The en dash was meant to represent the transition, i.e. "Queen to [–] King's Representative". Neve-selbert 17:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Palestine a sovereign state?

Another dispute now, one editor (Spirit Ethanol) is pushing his PoV over whether or not Palestine should be considered a standalone sovereign state at RfC... despite the fact that Israel still occupies parts of Palestinian territory. If only that previous dispute about the Queen's Representative could just be closed right now, I am finding it hard to keep up with two seperate disputes at once.--Neve–selbert 11:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the Queen's Representative Rfc is over, so I wouldn't be too concerned about it. As for Israel/Palestine? I tend to stay away from that disputed area. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have already reverted him three times today and vice versa. The current revision grossly breaches WP:BRD, as he has done away with the status quo without any consensus for his WP:POINTy changes. Could you revert him? Thanks.--Neve–selbert 12:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

He has now broken WP:3RR. I have reported him.--Neve–selbert 13:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Article's status quo has been restored, per WP:BRD. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, GoodDay, although could you please change the title of the RfC to something less biased towards the Palestinian side (something like: Inclusion of Palestine as either a quasi-sovereign state or a sovereign state). I have tried doing so, although Spirit Ethanol has reverted twice, on the spurious grounds of the section title "being part of his talk page comments". Thanks.--Neve–selbert 22:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

SE's got a point, in that some of the comments are based on the current question & so to change it now, would create more confusion. I recommend that you get an un-involved administrator to review the Rfc question & see what he/she can do. Administrator Newyorkbrad, would be my suggestion :) GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have contacted him. Would there be any way to halt the Rfc as it is at the moment? The Rfc question is outrageously inaccurate and biased, and (as expected) a whole truckload of editors have voiced their discontent—of which I am not surprised. He is deliberately disrupting the project to make a pro-Palestinian point (being able to do since the article is not covered by arbitrary sanctions per WP:ARBPIA). Simply put, he is seeking to exploit the Rfc to go around Wikipedia designating Palestine as a fully sovereign state in its very own right, equal to Israel. This is woefully inaccurate (although with his wording of the Rfc question) he seems to be unfairly winning.--Neve–selbert 16:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way to abort an Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

How long do you believe the Rfc (and dispute) will last from now?--Neve–selbert 19:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

An Rfc lasts for 30 days, unless it's closed early or aborted. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Spirit Ethanol did not even bother discussing the issue—he just jumped to launch an Rfc. Per this section of WP:RFC, it states that "editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others". So, technically, this dispute is only 1/2 legitimate, if at all (not to mention the biased manner of its wording). How he is managing to get away with this is beyond me, honestly.--Neve–selbert 20:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, SE did jump the gun. An attempt to get a local consensus, should've been made, first. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue (of course)—although it does really seem like no-one is quite interested in reviewing the dispute. I believe now that the best way to go for convenience is to request closure ASAP due to lack of consensus for any change, not to mention both the misleading way the Rfc was presented & the fact that no prior discussion took place before it.--Neve–selbert 16:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The request for closure was already rejected at the RFC-closure page. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I am unsure where to go from here. The discussion is practically frozen in time, people have voiced their opinion. Yet, nobody is keen on reviewing them & I am uncertain over what action to take next. What would you recommend?--Neve–selbert 17:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's likely that the Rfc will have to run its course (30-days), flawed though it is. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Spirit Ethanol's conduct has been deplorable, there can be no doubt. He is an opportunist IMO—for the record: it wasn't actually him who started this whole thing off. It was AusLondonder. I reverted his edits, and then somehow SE came along and reverted my revert, rashly creating an Rfc in the process. Could a moratorium, in the meantime, on the Rfc be considered instead?--Neve–selbert 17:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A 1-year moratorium was placed on British Empire, concerning the topic of super power. I don't know if a moratorium can be placed on an editor, though. PS - Strangely enough, an editor is looking into seeing if I should be barred from starting Elizabeth II Rfcs in relation to the United Kingdom & the Commonwealth realms topic :) GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) It was an idea, and I am not exactly trying to request a moratorium on a particular user, just that particular article (on the issue of Israel vs. Palestine; I have contested the rejection). PS:reply - I will certainly oppose the attempts of anyone trying to bar you from Elizabeth II topics. To be honest, I find it rather odd that it should be you being barred, and not that other editor attempting to impose his stupendously fringe POV, etc.--Neve–selbert 17:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Another administrator (via the Rfc closure page) might decide to shut it down. We can only wait & see, I guess. PS - As for the 'other editor' in the UK/Commonwealth realms stuff? I just can't figure him out :) GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Having had a think about it, I believe that (until an admin decides to hopefully shut it down) a moratorium should be imposed on the article per WP:BLUDGEON. The rationale for change is, as you know, inextricably flawed (so I doubt this option would be seen as objectionable to many outside editors). Would it be wise to make such a request?--Neve–selbert 20:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Where are you planning to make this request? GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I am unsure, hence delving into the hypothetical. How did British Empire get the moratorium?--Neve–selbert 05:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The British Empire article example, is the only one I have & it's a poor example. The discussion their lasted from Oct' 2015 to Feb' 2016 (with the Rfc being roughly a month, Jan/Feb 2016) & it had only one editor strongly pushing for the addition of super power. It was on those basis, that I recommend a 1-moratorium & to my surprise, it got adopted. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Just to be absolutely clear, my main objective at the moment is to find a way to temporarily halt the Rfc, until an admin reviews its neutrality as fit for purpose. The Rfc runs out on 12 March, and heaven knows how many uninformed editors will land on it by then; I am pretty sure they will hastily back the Palestine is not a substate of Israel red herring nonsense. So, at the end of the day, I am searching for the quickest route to a pause of the Rfc—be it at the help desk, asking a presently active admin, or elsewhere (even reporting SE could be an option).--Neve–selbert 05:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not certain as to what the next move should be. In my 10+yrs, I've found that it's quite difficult to stop an Rfc, which is begun my another editor. Particularly, when others start chiming in. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I left Admin Number 57 a message (also a participant at the Israeli WikiProject).--Neve–selbert 06:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Rfc is really getting out of hand, now. Two editors have landed to the Rfc in the past 12 hours with both convinced that Palestine is being "unfairly displayed" as a "substate of Israel". There must be a way to get this Rfc paused, I am determined to find a way. Number 57 also seems uninterested.--Neve–selbert 15:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless a huge number of editors show up in the next 20 some days supporting the status quo? It's highly likely that Palestine will be given it's own space. I'm not sure if one can stop an Rfc-in-progress. You may have to accept such an outcome. I can think of only one other editor to contact & I'm not sure if he'll be interested. That would be Jimbo Wales. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I will certainly contest any consensus supporting Palestine as a standalone entry, acceptance is beyond the fray. The Rfc question is biased and illegitimate, and has zero credibility whatsoever. Accepting such an outcome would be a travesty of justice, and I would presume there are mechanisms within Wikipedia to prevent such gross misrepresentation. I plan next to go to the Help desk, this seems to be the right thing to do next while I rethink my strategy. Jimbo seems to be the next step, although I am not expecting him to reply to me personally (rather one of the stalkers). But thanks for the insight, though; I very much appreciate it.--Neve–selbert 15:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Still, an admin has not yet reviewed the Rfc. Would it be best to go to Jimbo, now?--Neve–selbert 18:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave that decision with you. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying the accompanying footnote

Ciao again, GoodDay. I now think there should be a third option to the Rfc. The footnote alongside the Palestine entry should be clarified, in my view. This could and should be the best chance of a possible compromise on this whole can of worms. We just need to think of a way as to how we can clear up the footnote to help cool tensions.--Neve–selbert 10:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A footnote will likely be allowed, if the Palestine entry is given its own place in the article. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I would note that there is already a footnote, although its neutrality has been called into question by some. Giving Palestine "its own place" in the article would tantamount to whitewash and I would have to rule that out as part of the compromise. The editors still seem to be stuck in the mindset that "Palestine is a substate of Israel!", even though this claim has been debunked time and time again. Someone just has to give, and I think that the modification (what seems to me as an adequately apt footnote) is a big enough concession to give. They must realise and accept that the layout and formatting of the article is not going to change. So, back to the footnote, I open to ideas as to how we can change it.--Neve–selbert 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's going to be interesting to see which way an administrator is going to close that Rfc, next month. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The end of the 30-day road

Yet somehow, SE has decided to extend it (for an indefinite period). I am unsure if this is against protocol or not. What do you think?--Neve–selbert 07:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It's highly unusual & quite surprising to me. I was under the impression that the Rfc was going to be closed with a result to his liking. I don't know if it's allowable. GoodDay (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, it's alright to extend an Rfc, as long as editors are still commenting on it. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems as if this is all finally over—as JzG has closed the discussion. Oddly, his explanation seems to have been eaten up by Legobot for some reason.--Neve–selbert 09:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's all over. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo

SE has now turned his attention to Kosovo, deciding to move the Kosovo entry from being indented under that of Serbia. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I reverted his edit as the issue had not yet been thoroughly discussed as per WP:BRD. He then went on to revert my revert. If you don't mind, could you revert his edit back to the one that you made at 05:51? I worry he may report me again if I decide to do so. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 10:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As a participant in discussion with position that Kosovo is part of Serbia, I advise you (GoodDay) to leave it to a third neutral party to assess consensus on using subentries. Best discussed on state leaders talk page. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

At what point in 2016, did Kosovo's status change? Note, we have it tucked neatly under Serbia's entry in List of state leaders in 2015, 2014, 2013 etc. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The edit war at Monarchy of Canada

The edit war continues despite the attempt at discussion on the talk page. As there has been no consensus and editors continue to alter the images, I will have to bring any further changes to the banners being displayed to WP:ANEW. Please note that I am notifying all editors involved in altering the banners, and that this notification can be considered the equivalent of {{uw-ew}}. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I just don't understand why one of the editors is pushing the usage of the Duke of Cambridge's royal banner, over usage of the Prince of Wales's royal banner. Anyways, in agreement, this may need to go to WP:ANEW. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Past experience with one of the editors in the dispute, tells me that this is going to go on for quite a while :( GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ref desk humanities

Is there a reason why you keep removing the ip editor's remarks? Blueboar (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP is an banned Evading editor, named User:Vote (X) for Change, who's been pestering ANI, Reference Humanities & Reference Language, for weeks. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah... Suggest you included that in an edit summary... Just so others know what's going on. I figured there was a reason, but had no clue what the reason was. Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, the big wigs don't seem either able or willing to deal with Vote X. I've been turning back his evading IP pointless posts for weeks, but now I'm tired of it. I'll let the others deal with him. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know who the big wigs are. The WMF is very loath to deal with any such cases (if you start thinking about it, there's at least a half a dozen long-term vandals who ought to be prosecuted), and what else is there to do? Semi-protecting the helpdesks is a perennial hot-button issue, as I'm sure you know. Please don't stop reverting. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've no problems continuing to revert an evader. But, it is time consuming & yes, after 'bout 10 reverts by myself - I'm obviously giving him recognition, thus encouraging the childish behaviour on his part. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

We're always going to give this jerk recognition, whatever we do. Best we can do is block ASAP and breathe. On the bright side, I'm watching Bowie sing All The Young Dudes, 1974. Recognize that, X. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha, ok :) GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Neve–selbert 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll pass. I'm currently involved at a disputed Rfc at Time Person of the Year & also watching a confusing discussion at File talk:Coat of arms of Canada.svg :) GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Would it be too much to ask for just a brief summary from yourself at the DRN discussion?--Neve–selbert 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend you cancel the DRN case & start up a discussion about acting state leaders at the List of state leaders at Year. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that anyone would notice. These articles tend to be under the radar and only I and Zoltan regularly edit those articles preceding 2016.--Neve–selbert 22:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If you fail to get a local consensus, an Rfc would likely get the attention of several editors. Anyways, it's your call. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Round Names

I'm going to have the debate here with you to see if you can change my mind or I can yours. If the NHL next year were to change the way the playoffs are structured back to the 1980s style of four teams in each division make the playoffs and the winners of the first two series will meet for a divisional final; would you say that this divisional final were to be named "divisional final" because the NHL says so or Conference semifinal because perhaps TSN says so?Conyo14 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If the system was changed back to the 1981-93 style? We'd have Division Semifinals & Division Finals, as no doubt the media would describe them as such. Note: The media described them as Division Semifinals & Division Finals during 1981-93. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, you said secondary sources outweigh the primary source, well technically a quick google search would find more sources for "first round nhl playoffs" than "quarterfinal nhl playoffs." So technically the secondary sources are on the primary source's side.Conyo14 (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sticking with Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals, per editorial discretion. You & the other fellow, are free to try & get a consensus for your proposals there, of course. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Then do we have an agreement? You may use quarterfinals for talking on the page. That's fine. I am totally OK with that. Then we can change all of the surrounding pages to say first and second round w/o change. If you are of course in agreement. I have no other proposals other than that one. Conyo14 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarify, what surrounding pages?GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I mean if other pages need to redirect to the playoffs like National Hockey League rivalries, the link would need to know which round or quaterfinal or division semifinal it is for the reader to know where to go. Conyo14 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

We should use Conference Quarterfinals & Conference Semifinals for any articles linking to the 1994 to date playoffs. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, are we not in agreement here? Deadman and I would like to change it to first and second round for the SC playoff articles from 2014 to 2016 and any future articles. Please let me know if you will allow us to change it without you reverting it. Conyo14 (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yourself & Deadman should not change those articles & future articles to first and second round. I'm not one to resort to edit-warring & won't do so there. At the moment, there's 3 editors who oppose such a move by the 3 of you. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You're one of them, but you don't exactly have an argument anymore. Do you? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've already contacted WP:HOCKEY. Best to wait for more input on this matter. PS - Browbeating me, isn't going to win me over. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No I don't need to. You just want to see status quo. I want to see change. It's all right though, change is very difficult for everyone. This however shouldn't be so. Conyo14 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My position on this matter hasn't changed. Best to have discussion at 2016 Stanley Cup playoffs article. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

BRD issue

Sorry to bother you about this, GoodDay, although this really is quite important. Yesterday, Baking Soda (aka Spirit Ethanol) made an unprovoked POV edit to List of state leaders in 2012 and List of state leaders in 2013 (here and here) that I reverted soon after per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. He then proceeded to revert my revert and given my history with reverting I simply cannot revert him again. If it isn't too much to ask, per these essays, could you temporarily restore the status quo while the issue is discussed? If not, that's fine. Thanks anyway.--Neve–selbert 20:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, doing reverts on his behalf is considered proxy editing, Neve already warned of so by @OpenFuture:. Furthermore, issue already under discussion on 2016 talk page. Baking Soda (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I should have every right to revert the edit. Baking Soda ignores everything I am trying to tell him.--Neve–selbert 21:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

In this very rare moment when GoodDay is not in evidence, y'all will have to wait before sucking him in to your problems. Juan Riley (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Baking Soda, you should revert your bold changes & not restore them, until you get at least a local consensus, per the spirit of WP:BRD, as there's no WP:DEADLINE. I believe things will go much more smoothly & nobody will end up blocked, if the dispute is handle at the talkpages of those articles. Personally, if I were you Neve-selbert? I'd avoid those List of state leaders in Year. In the meantime, don't worry about Baking Soda's bold changes & just bring your concerns directly to the affected articles talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm always being framed as the bad one in this scenario by the likes of TMCk and OpenFuture. That's the real problem being perpetuated, GoodDay. The fact is, the user made a historical error and I reverted him on that premise in my edit summary. Yet those two users continue to believe that I am a POV-pushing bogeyman and that Spirit Soda is some sort of godsend that can do no wrong. Frankly, I feel as if my name has been blackened. It's hard to get them to listen to you, as they just don't want to. I'm the bad guy and that's the way they like and always will see me, no matter how much I try to reason with them. They couldn't care less for what I have to say.--Neve–selbert 06:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You were blocked for 2-weeks, over those articles. Indeed, there will be a bit of a target on your head, when you edit/revert/post around there. Increased scrutiny, is the price we all must pay on Wikipedia, after being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything more I can do now? This really is insane. The pure sadism of OpenFuture is getting too much for me.--Neve–selbert 20:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Potential for a proposal?

Similar to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal. I'm not sure if it is best for me to make the proposal for an alternative or you, exactly.--Neve–selbert 22:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

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!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The only person I can think of to nominate? is me. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

friendly advice

I don't think that siding with the people who banned you a few years ago is going to produce any dividend. It looks to me like you have been beaten down. A case of if you can't beat'm join'm Centuryofconfusion (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland hasn't had a flag of its own, since 1973. You'll need to provide sources to prove otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That level of knowledge of the past implies a sock puppet - any thoughts GoodDay? ----Snowded ^TALK 20:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed there is sockery involved, IMHO. Just not certain as to who. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This place is full of bullies.

..and many people don't realize that that is all they are. Sigh. On the other hand: have a good day. Juan Riley (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia bullies, tend to loos a lot of their bite as more editors oppose their stance. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, however, many new editors get bullied by those pretending. You've been thru the wars and I could care less about threats. But I wonder. Juan Riley (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I've a lot of lumps on my head, which I picked up over several years. Thankfully, they've been healing up since my return in 2014 :) GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Pssst as a man who lived as boy in Belfast: if there weren't puppetry going on there I would be astonished. Sorry for always bringing issues to you. You should have a good day. I ordain it!Juan Riley (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Very little phases me, these days. The best approach is a calm approach. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

So far I find copying and pasting their comments from my talk page to the article talk page works as they squirm. Juan Riley (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia puts the effort in to stop bullying, especially when the system can be used as part of the effort, it will eventually corrode the whole system. The "civility" conditions are just a facade. I saw new editors bullied when looking at the history of some political article. Of course, they left. Well, I better get back to work. Travelmite (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it can be rough around here. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Etiquette

I know you didn't do it in bad faith but please don't edit my comments, I'm aware of the need to outdent comments in a thread and will do so when I feel it needs to be done. Mo ainm~Talk 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't bite the hand that feeds you. I randomly selected where to outdent the discussion. It gets difficult to read both your posts, when they start getting squeezed into the right side of the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that can happen, but didn't feel it needed doing at that point, as I said I don't think you where being a dick doing it, no harm no foul. Mo ainm~Talk 15:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Just remember, after 10 indents, ya'll are suppose to outdent :) GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hamilton Bulldogs (AHL)

I know where you are coming from but it is the Team Infobox on the Team Page. The franchise history is just a guide to the history used by the team. The team is not the franchise. Yosemiter (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend that article be split up, into 2 seperate Hamilton Bulldogs articles. 19:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to split into Hamilton Bulldogs (1996–2003) and Hamilton Bulldogs (2002–15), there just has never really been a solid consensus to do so since there was a transition season (not to mention several business side people/things stayed the same). If you are curious they last time it was talked about was in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive64#St. John's IceCaps but it seems there was mostly non-consensus. So I went forward and made the IceCaps like the Bulldogs (which was already mostly the it is well before I came around to edit it) for some consistency. Honestly, I feel you should have left your splitting statement on the Project talk page to see if we could get a solid consensus and fix the articles if feeling on the subject have changed. Yosemiter (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I ain't got the skills to split those articles. But, I mentioned the oddity of them, at WP:HOCKEY. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi and I expanded and referenced this article. Can you take a look? Thank you: Amaro Rodríguez Felipe.--80.39.243.106 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll let others do that. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland

Hello, GoodDay. You seem to be an experienced editor in this area. Can you please point me to any previous dicussions, RfCs or whatever, that might support the contention that there is an existing consensus on Wikipedia around the issue of the Northern Ireland flag? Miles Creagh (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been around for over 10 yrs on Wikipedia. TBH, I can't remember there being any Rfc on the matter. All I know, is that there's been sources for Northern Ireland not having a flag of its own & on articles like Northern Ireland & Countries of the United Kingdom (for examples), I've never seen the Ulster Banner. PS - Suggestions that those who oppose using that flag are Irish nationalists? won't likely get you anywhere fast. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, because none of the (many, many) prior discussions I've now read through on the topic seem to have arrived at any kind of consensus. PS - I've never suggested that those who oppose the flag are Irish nationalists, although I've just been accused of being a Unionist, myself! Miles Creagh (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been accused of a lot of things on Wikipedia. Don't let it rattle you. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh that 'undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns....'

I never thought Willy was talking about Wales. Who knew? Tread lightly my friend for 'traveler' may be a synonym for 'editor'. And if one might disagree with someone's somewhere decision as to what a country might be? Well one might hear: 'Get thee to a nunnery". Here 'nunnery' might be a synonym for 'blocked'. Other than all that nonsense, how are you my friend? Juan Riley (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine & yes, there's nothing further I can add about the infoboxes at England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. The younger folk, can deal with the mean spirited treatment :) GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Leaving us older curmudgeonly folk to grump about ambiguity and inconsistency? Yup. Pretty much as I see it these days. Juan Riley (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Haha ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Doug Ducey

Hello. Please stop edit warring on Doug Ducey. Twice you have seen the explanation in the edit log referring to the style guide at MOS:JOBTITLES and both times you have ignored it and reverted without offering any explanation. Please review the style guide so that you understand the correct format for expressing job titles on this project. Then kindly undo your edit. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Why are you applying MOS:JOBTITLES to only Ducey? There's 49 other state governors & number of lieutenant governors. Also, there's all the former governors & lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your question presumes some bias/agenda regarding this individual where none exists. Where I see this style error, regardless of the job title or the individual, I fix it. Couldn't care less about this particular person. This is just a format fix. So please revert your edit. X4n6 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't be difficult, please. I've asked for clarification at MOS:JOBTITLES. Having gone through many American gov't officials bios articles. I've noticed nearly all of them use capitalization. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: I've read over MOS:JOBTITLES & going by their "Louix XVI" example - Governor of Arizona is correct. Decapitalization occurs if your hav Arizona governor. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You asked a question, which I answered. More importantly, you obviously haven't argued that the style guide doesn't apply. Because you know better. So I don't understand the basis for your objection to fixing this. On the other hand, if you have some COI regarding this particular individual, then you need to divulge it. I also recommend you re-read the style guide. Specifically, please read the first sentence. Then read the context in the article. It says he is the "current Governor of the U.S. State of Arizona." That is obviously not the formal title of that office, so the word "governor" is not capitalized. Nor is it capitalized as a proper noun, because the word "governor" is a common noun - as the style guide clearly states. X4n6 (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Governor of Arizona, is a formal title. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Now you're not answering my questions. Why are you objecting to the style guide applying to every other article on this project, except for this one individual? What makes you think this article is exempt? Do you have a COI you're not divulging? Also while "Governor of Arizona" is a formal title - when used in the proper context - "23rd and current Governor of the U.S. State of Arizona" is not. X4n6 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to de-capitalizing on all the governors & lieutenant governors bio intros - if you were to de-capitalize all the governors & lieutenant governors bio intros. BTW: Dicklyon appears to agree with your interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLES. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not on a campaign to fix all governor and lieutenant governor articles. JOBTITLES is much broader than that. As I said, where I see errors, I just fix them. Regardless of the individual. It's just a format fix. Sorry that you seem to see it as something more. It isn't. However, if you'd like to fix it on all the governors and lieutenant governors, you can certainly do that. But I do see and appreciate that you've restored the edit. X4n6 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a consistency buff & it usually gets my attention when any editor makes a change to one article in a series of articles, but not to others. Why paint one pole Red & leave the others Blue. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. Now I hope you realize that's not what was going on here. But I'm also a POV buff and it usually gets my attention when someone tries to push an agenda, but won't admit it when asked. X4n6 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda, but we do seem to be on different trains of thought, here. Anyways, tomorrow I'll be de-capitalizing the governors & lieutenant governors (current & former), in an attempt to implement consistency. PS - note the intros of Jan Brewer, Janet Napolitano, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that I wasn't being accusatory. I was simply trying to understand the basis for your objections to something I just saw as routine housekeeping. But I am aware that there are likely tons of articles where JOBTITLES could be applied: governors, lt. governors, frankly all officeholders at every level. Also corporate and academic titles as well. If you'd like to go on a singular mission of correcting this error throughout this project, it could likely be a full time job. Because it is a common error. You might even consider creating a bot. X4n6 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take care of the current ones first & see how it goes. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy editing! X4n6 (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'll pass. There's just too many (a vast majority) of those article which have Governor or Lieutenant Governor in their content, contradictory to WP:JOBTITLES. Guess we'll just have to leave Ducey as the lone exception :( GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

DRN?

What's that? Miles Creagh (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

DRN is is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but it's likely better to go to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that, thanks. I doubt anybody's going to want to touch this with a bargepole, myself. Miles Creagh (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, Why bother getting involved in an endless argument about whether or not the flag of Northern Ireland is official or not? It's as good as official in practice, and lots of well known flags around the world have no official standing without this fact having to explicitly dominate the introduction. The article is now fine as it stands. The official status of the flag has been made quite clear. No need to go over the top about the fact that it lacks official status in statutory law. The article states that it was official until 1973 but is still used by unionists. What more do you need to say without sounding as though you are protesting and hate the flag? Centuryofconfusion (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite curious as to who you are or were. Anyways, I've mostly walked away from the Northern Ireland flag discussion & am content to accept the results. GoodDay (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hockey on the ice listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hockey on the ice. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Right now this links to bandy, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me. Hockey on ice is ice hockey, and the redirect should justifiably go to that page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Chairman/woman vs Chair

Hey, can you explain your reasoning for adding gendered terms to articles like Howard Dean and Debbie Wasserman Schultz? This appears to be out of step with the actual job title used by the DNC, as well as with the MOS/guidelines. Am I missing something? Thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you opposing Chairperson, for Schultz? Also some of Dean's successors are using chairman & not just chair. At least be consistent in what you're pushing. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That should be changed to "Chair," I have no problem with that. My issue is with you adding "chairwoman" (or man) when that's not the term they use. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm opting for Chairperson & don't understand why you reverted it. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not your place to "opt" for a title that is different from what Schultz and the DNC actually use - you're introducing factually incorrect information. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Many secondary sources call her chairwoman. More importantly though, you haven't explained the inconsistencies among Dean, Kaine, Brazile & Schultz. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to draw this out here since we're also talking on the Schultz article talk page - but if you're really set on this, go ahead and link some of the sources you found for "chairwoman" there, I'll be interested to see what you found to support that term. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Not interested in the subject anymore. GoodDay (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year articles

Hi GoodDay. I was curious as to whether or not it would these following arrangements would be agreeable: i.e. staying away from the List of state leaders in 2016 article on an indefinite basis while being able to edit the preceding articles on a free whim apart from adjusting Palestine in any circumstance. There remains quite a few syntax errors I would like to be able to fix on the 2001 and 2011 articles, for example.--Neve–selbert 16:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You should stay away from all the List of state leaders in Year articles, for six months. Some of the individuals who frequent those articles, aren't (IMHO) ready to see you participate there, again. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I fully understand that, although most of these individuals you mention predominately circle around the List of state leaders in 2016 article, which is an article I plan to completely avoid. The preceding articles (especially those pre-2010s) have only edited by Zoltan Bukovszky after a state leader departs, changing "–present" to "–2016". There are just a few uncontroversial fixes and updates that should be made with Guernsey and Libya and a few other countries (unrelated to Palestine/PNA). FWIW, I've also decided to shelve that debate on the acting leaders serving without a vacancy for the time being at the moment, so any edit I would make is bound to be uncontested.--Neve–selbert 23:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You're free to do as you wish. But, walk away immediately, if faced with a conflict. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly promise to follow WP:0RR with those articles for six months.--Neve–selbert 14:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Restrictions concerning editing about the Northern Ireland flag

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. I am sending you this to help you stop yourself from breaking any restrictions imposed by the Arbitration committee for matters concerned with "The Troubles"

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, 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 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 be reminded that articles about the Northern Ireland flag come under WP:1RR. Try to work within the restrictions placed upon us all, and it is far better to work with others than work against them. I am trying to inform everyone who has contributed to the discussions or edited about the Northern Ireland flag.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of it, thus the reason I've been carefully observing the 24 hr window. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Good, but make sure you are sware that it is not just about 1rr editing. It covers all aspects of behaviour. Again, I'm not pointing fingers.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No probs. Just trying to make sure that things aren't changed until a consensus is reached or a compromise is put in place until discussions have ended :) GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Juxtaposition of NI and "not pointing fingers"? Is that the joke of the day? Sorry for making light of the situation. And how are ye, GoodDay? Juan Riley (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm doing fine. It doesn't matter to me if the UB is used or no flag is used, for Northern Ireland. Just trying to keep the status quo in place, until a consensus for change is met :) GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Gee. I hope WP informs the folk in NI when they have decided upon the consensus for their flag. :) Juan Riley (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User Boxes

GoodDay, I was wondering if you might do me a favour. I don't know how to use user boxes. On some peoples' user pages they have boxes supporting causes. I don't know where to find user boxes for the two things I wrote on my user page. I tried to make it myself but it's all come out haphazard. Do you know how to make miniature boxes for the purpose? I just want two miniature boxes. There might be more to follow when I know better how to work the system. If not I might just blank it again. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The only way I could ever figure out how to make any boxes, is by checking over another user's box, via their edit-page. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into that. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok & don't forget to read over WP:INDENT ;) GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I know what to do not for WP:INDENT. If you press three of those colons, then I have to press four on the reply. Is that correct? Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll give you five ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

President of Brazil

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

NicolitoPaiva

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

You haven't got a consensus for the changes you want to make & yet you persist in making them. Make you case at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing here? WP:3RR applies to you too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've reached the 3 reverts in 24hrs & won't be going over it. Meanwhile, NP is up to 6 reverts in the last 1 or 2 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You have 4 reverts in 24 hours unless I've forgotten how to do math. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're correct. I'm quite embarrassed about this. I was going with the WP:BRD approach & lost track. My apologies. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fantasy titles in Miguelist claimants articles

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

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

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

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

You are wrong. The referendum was non-binding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It's neither. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)