User talk:GoodDay/Archive 34

Your comments on my talk page

GoodDay, I did not reply to your kind words of friendship due to the fact that I was away at the beach for 2 months with limited access to a crappy public computer. I was able to read my watchlist but found it hard to edit as the PC kept blocking whenever I tried to do so. Let me add that there are no hard feelings on my part and you shouldn't have deleted your comments.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne :) Sorry for my bad assumption. It's difficult to not be paranoid, when having numerious Wiki guns pointed at one's head. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not in the habit of playing with guns, let alone pointing them at anyone's head LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie :) GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Message for Steven Zhang

Hey Steve, having considered your offer of working on Dispute resolution noticeboard, I must turn you down. I feel it's in my best interest to avoid any 'big' tasks, where there's potential for conflicts. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• GoodDay, you may be interested in the ANI on diacritics here. LittleBen (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

:) GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough (I just happened to notice this) but you'd be welcome there in future. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Impartial study of the effects of using diacritics in article titles may be of interest. LittleBen (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

:) GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Just a quick hello. Is everything OK with you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No can do. I'm banned from British articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd be fine on a RfC concerned with grammar. — Jon C.^ॐ 08:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't chance it myself. You need to show that you can step away. --HighKing (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's too many guns at my head, guys. That Rfc will have to continue, without me. GoodDay (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit tenuous? Linking an internationally famous pop group to political discussions regarding Britain and Ireland? So if a discussion comes up about a porn star who happens to come from the UK or Ireland, GoodDay could receive sanctions for commenting on her tits? Jesuuuuuuuus--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not chancing anything on those articles. Not even gnome edits. GoodDay (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Jeanie, if this was anyone but GD.... You have several editors who just live only to bring him down!! They claim GD has an agenda to be disruptive and they are just as bad and sometimes worst!! Raul17 (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, Jeanne is right. This RFC is in no way related to the ban. --HighKing (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

With an indef ban hanging over my head, it's not worth the risk. GoodDay (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the community was divided over banning me from British & Irish articles. In agreement with Steven Zhang & Dambarnesdavies, I volunteered to accept the topic ban. It can 'someday' be revoked by them (Steven & DBD), after they've reviewed my recent conduct. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are making the right choice. There is some bad blood there already, and I wouldn't risk jumping in the middle of it if I were you. -Rrius (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've no intentions to become a target, again :) GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ireland on the move

I am RMing Ireland again over at WP:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Kauffner (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Though I can't go near it, I'll certainly monitor the process. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Season numbering

I just noticed you had been going through and adding the modern era numbering, which I had agreed to do. I just wanted to inform you that there is a discussion about that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. At this point, I'm not really sure which numbering to use. AutomaticStrikeout 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'll wait until WP:BASEBALL decides on the numbering scheme. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise we could both wind up wasting a lot of our time. AutomaticStrikeout 23:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan ANI

I noticed you recommended resolving that after the election. How would you forsee doing that? pbp 00:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Leave the Ryan article locked until after the prez election, no matter what version it's in. A protected article will force discussion, which will lead to consensus. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Christian Waber

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Christian Waber. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider it important enough to discuss. Therefore, I'll let your revert stand. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Numbering

I didn't want to wade through 140-plus articles only to have someone revert it. I want to see consensus on the project page. In any case, the idea of "Major League Baseball" itself being 140-plus years old is dubious at best. And I say again, calling the x-th anniversary the x-th "season" IS FACTUALLY WRONG. 1969 was the centennial. It was not the 100th season, it was the 101st season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I'd favour no numbering on the MLB season articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine. Have you commented at the project page? (I would make an exception for occasions where MLB explicitly celebrated an anniversary: 1969, 1994, etc.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep commented there & agree with the 'anniversary' exceptions. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have likewise reiterated my comments here. Now we'll see if anyone is actually watching, or if they're focused on some distraction, like the MLB post-season. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Contribution.

Hey, GoodDay. You have been randomely chosen to please help contribute to my WikiProject. This WikiProject is about different cultures. If you can take some time and help contribute to it, that would be very nice of you. I am starting this project this week and would like to finish by next week. Please help me with this project. Thank you very much. Please answer on my talk page because I might not be able to keep track of who is contributing and who is not. I would like you to also share your culture. If you can give me a little summary about your culture such as, foods, lifestlye, holidays, traditions, e.t.c, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. So if you would wish to contribute, please reply on MY talk page. Happy edits! Have a great day! Please answer on my talk page in the section, Volunteers. In this section, please state your culture, what you wish to share, and please sign your posts using the four tildes. Thank you. Please contribute. If you have any questions just ask me on my talk page, as well. DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to pass, as I'm mostly into gnoming. It's best I don't get into any potential cultural arguments. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Rose Report

I see that you've edited a number of Irish articles, so you may have an interest in Irish history. I'm trying to get some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland#Rose Report on the "Rose Report" which has been listed for several years on WikiProject Northern Ireland as an article in need of creation. I've had the request for information up since 20 August without response. At least we should be able to identify what it is, so we can see if it really belongs on that list. Even if you don't know what it is, saying so would be a help. If we get enough of those, that will at least answer the question about its relative importance. Thanks in advance. --Bejnar (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been banned from British & Irish articles/talkpages/WikiProjects etc etc, since February 2012. Sorry, Bejnar. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

PS- Even if I weren't topic banned, I'd still have to turn you down. I'm not interested in the politics of those articles, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Turnbull

Thanks for your 3RR warning here. I direct your attention to the discussion here.

Follow the link to the source and you will see, as notified in discussion, that the material in the article is unsupported. Where does that "10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide" claim come from? If you think otherwise, please comment there. You complain that there is no consensus for deletion, and if you think a consensus is needed before removing clearly unsourced material, please advise where I can find this policy.

You seem to be threatening an edit war over this. I suggest that you do not. I suggest that you seek advice before inserting unsourced material, because I would consider this disruptive.

If you have any concerns, please raise them on the article talk page. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Put your paranoia away :) I was merely giving you a heads-up, nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout 20:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing a "what if" list from the Major League Baseball Wild Card Game article

How exactly is putting the actual two best non-divisional teams (most people likely don't know who were the runner ups in the Wild Card prior to 2012 and clearly only pertains to the 1995 onward era) in a one-game playoff prior to the implementation of the MLB Wild Card Game a true "what if" scenario!? You really seem to be thinking way beyond or ahead of another wise basic scenario (like thinking about how differently a manager would operate and what not). A what if scenario would be which team would have a better chance of winning, thus altering the playoff outlook (and possibly even further than that). Another actual what if scenario would be speculating how the cancelled 1994 season would've ended if it weren't for the strike. And using Lou Gerhig as an analogy doesn't make sense because that has nothing to due w/ using a final statistic (we can at that rate, go on all day about how much differently a player's career might have turned out had they not gotten injured), like end of season records as a main point of reference. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:08 p.m., 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A 'What if' list is irrelevant. Leave the alternative timelines to readers imaginations. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

1998 iihf worlds

Having the nav box direct readers nowhere is better than directing them from the '98 to the '97 world championships? Why? The way you have it suggests that there is no article detailing the 1997 world hockey championships, and that is not true. Are you in the process of creating a major expansion to the 1997 content or something?18abruce (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no 1997 IIHF World Championship article. The current setup is confusing, as it directs readers to an article they're not particularly looking for. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The first section here is precisely the IIHF World Championship of that year. Why do you think readers do not want to be directed from the 98 championship to the 97 championship? From 1930 until 1997 the same format is used, the pages divide beginning in 1998, but that in no way implies that the same content is missing in the earlier articles. If you planning a major expansion of the 1997 content, that would be great, otherwise your change does not make sense.18abruce (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's misleading to less familiar readers. They're expecting to go to the 1997 IIHF World Championship, not the full tournament, 1997 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Senators revival

I am looking into the mini-controversy over terming the ottawa senators as a 'revival'. I have always believed that a revival in sports has merely meant that a new team has taken on the name of a new team. Not that it was 'reborn' or the same continuous franchise. Do you disagree with that? If you look at the meaning in other fields, such as theatre, a 'revival' is merely putting on a play that hasn't been done for a while. It doesn't mean it's the same group of actors or organization or anything. In sports, it merely means that a new team is reviving the name. I put that into Revival (sports team) and no-one has argued about it until today. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Senators franchise was not revived, thus the reason for my removal of that term. It's very important that we make this clear. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is it 'very important'? Do you have some personal connection? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's important that we don't confuse readers. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to express an opinion one way or another on this specific argument, GoodDay. But no, two editors on one article cannot form a consensus that is binding on another. Your arguments in reverting UrbanNerd are inaccurate. He, in fact, is right. You chose to remove and got reverted. The next step is to discuss on talk page, not revert war. There's no time limit, and no need to rush into your preferred version. I would ask you to please undo yourself and let the discussion play out. Resolute 02:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Snerk... ok, forget my request to undo the edit, as DJ has fully protected the article. I'll admit, I was thinking of doing the same. Resolute 02:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I protected at the reversion I saw it at so as not to be accused of picking one version of the other. But if GoodDay asks me to I will undo his edit for him. -DJSasso (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the longstanding version is what I've reverted to. Anyways, now that the article is protected, it'll force UrbanNerd to the discussion table. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No actually link you removed has been on the page for more than 2 years. -DJSasso (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, UrbanNerd will join the debate at the Senators page. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Some friendly advice: this edit gives the impression that you are deliberately misunderstanding the message you are responding to, and are inciting the editor to respond intemperately. I'm sure you're aware that the editor was referring to the first Senators incarnation as being defunct. I suggest that you do not need to restate your views, even if others choose to restate theirs, as you've been quite clear several times on your viewpoint. isaacl (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanNerd's confusion over the two Senators clubs, isn't helping. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe either of you are confused regarding the facts of the matter, so there's no need to remind others of historical events. As there is no official NHL revival certification authority, this is a argument solely over what definition of revival to use, and there's no single correct answer: the term can be used however people choose to use it (and there are plenty of reliable sources that will use it liberally). Particularly since consensus seems to be to omit the term from the infobox, which is what you've been advocating, I think it would be best for you to stop poking other editors with your point of view. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the consensus is to omit. I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Election

I know that the media are reporting millions of votes, those are not official votes. These[1] are actually still the only official votes we have, but I blanked the boxes, which is better than saying zero, which it is not. Apteva (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction, there are "official" results available as they come in, and if you or anyone has a link to them they can be added. Apteva (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally had no interest in taking them off of the television and updating them every minute or two. Apteva (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No probs. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

PS- You wouldn't believe how many edit conflicts I just ran into at that article :) GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That was you??? Apteva (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently so. GoodDay (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 US presidential election

I can't speak for anyone else, but I added the Florida electorates because the Huffington Post has the state officially counted for Obama as of about an hour ago. The source on the page (CNN) doesn't, so either HuffPo jumped the gun or they know something that CNN doesn't. I'm assuming that other people are adding Florida because Romney's aides have conceded there. --Bad Graphics Ghost (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No doubt, Obama will win Florida. However - CNN, NBC, ABC & CBS haven't called the state for anybody. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. I saw that the rest of the page credited Florida to Obama, but forgot to include its electoral votes in Obama's total in the upper-right infobox, so I corrected the oversight. Tzepish (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, Florida hasn't been decided yet. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning Just a friendly reminder, keep the RR's down to three. United States presidential election, 2012 is subject to sanctions, see Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. Apteva (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've put away my 'R' button. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles R. Denny

The article is also the description of its subject's biography. See also polysemy. 121a0012 (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I always remove Biography as a section heading in articles. They're like if you opened a book & each chapter was called Book. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Except the previous editor might have had some reason to use the word as a section header which should be taken into consideration.GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. 117Avenue (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixing intros

Good day, user GoodDay. I saw you making some positive contribution in Mihrimah Sultan article. Do you think it is necessary to state her mother's Ruthenian origin in the first sentence, in consideration of WP:OPENPARA rules? Every slave that entered the Ottoman Harem naturally had an ethnic origin; however I doubt that has to be stated there. Thanks for your attention and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I no longer get into such details on articles, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's OK. Could you do me another favour please and fix the "navigation boxes" in this article as I don't have a clue how to do it. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix those. But, I've noticed that the 2 templates don't exist. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments

As a significant contributor to, and/or participant in discussions of, the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be appreciated and helpful.--JayJasper (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

President pro tem

No problem. :) JTRH (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Giggle Giggle. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Associate justices of the Supreme Court of the US

The Honorable William "Wild Bill" Douglas was the 79th associate justice of the US.
By custom or tradition the associate justices are numbered sequentially from the establishment of the Supreme Court of the US.
Normally there are eight associate justices at any given moment.
Each justice other than the chief justice is called an associate justice.
Where's the confusion or the potential for it?
Smiles!
Doc (a retired professor of business law).
DocRushing (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's a way to distinguish each seat, it's best we avoid numbering :) GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

By what authority do you presume to declare what's "best"?

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Less familiar readers (when they look at the infobox), will -for example- assume that Stevens is the 80th, if Douglas is numbered as the 79th. PS: Why would you 'only' numbere Douglas, btw? GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. Douglas was the 79th Justice, not the 79th Associate Justice. By adding the number in the infobox before "Associate Justice of the Supreme Cout of the United States", you are creating a falsehood. Since there is no way to adequately deal this in the infobox, it should simply be handled in the body if at all. -Rrius (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge the point about the 79th justice versus the 79th AJ.

I too had noticed that, and I had begun correcting it inside the infobox when GoodDay and I began our exchange.

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason to forego numbering in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that Douglas is the only AJ numbered in the respective biographies?

I don't know, because I've not gone on a campaign to check all the others.

I happened to notice that someone had labeled Douglas as the 71st rather than the 79th.

In the literature of the legal profession and the literature about it, the justices are often described in terms of the sequential numbers.

The numbering system is quite clear on the page to which I referred you a few minutes ago.

Who would assume that Stevens is the 80th?  Maybe only one who is so woefully uninformed that he does not know that there are eight chairs in addition to the center chair.

Again, please:  By what authority do you dictate what's "best" – as though the rest of us must obediently cave in to your personal preferences?

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the numberings from all Associate Justices infoboxes, per my edit summary reasoning. The infobox can't adequatedly handle the situation, due to there being concurrent service. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The numbering signifies each judge's appointment to the bench – there doesn't seem to be any potential for "confusion" there. I think you should probably postpone this mass deletion of useful information until you acquire some support from other editors. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The numbering in the infobox creates confusion, as associate justices serve concurrently & thus their tenures overlap. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The chronology of their appointments does not overlap, though, and many people find such linear categorization to be very helpful. Those who would confuse the number of sitting justices on the court do not require special protection at the expense of serious readers. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A compromise has been implimented at William O. Douglas, which (I hope) will be applied to all such bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In the infobox, a less familiar reader would for example, consider Associate Justices X & Z as the 9th & 11th associate justices, because Associate Justice Y was numbered as the 10th. Thus an erroneous intepretation. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In my experience (I have done extensive historical reseach on the U.S. Supreme Court in my off-wiki life), descriptions such as "the 33rd Supreme Court Justice" are very rarely used. (William Rehnquist reportedly was proud that he was the 100th person to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, but that was more as an answer to a trivia question than anything else.) It should also be noted that there are ambiguities in the numbering (comparable to the Grover Cleveland issue with presidents) because Justice J. Rutledge and Justice Hughes served non-consecutive terms. Although including some form of numbers might be acceptable in tables, I don't recommend them for inclusion either in infoboxes or in article introductions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This morning, due to the influence of GoodDay, I posted a compromise on the page about Justice Douglas – by inserting it in a suitable place in the text – after another user placed the ordinal number again inside the infobox (after GoodDay had removed it again).

Now I willingly agree not to place that number inside the infobox, especially not in the caption below the portrait of him.

However, I've become persuaded, and I remain so, that the ordinal number is a useful, helpful, and constructive bit of data about any justice of the Supreme Court of the US.

As one who has studied, practiced, and taught the law – starting in 1970, 42 years ago – I have a deep and abiding interest in the Supreme Court and those who have served there, so I too have done much reading and studying about this range of subject areas.

If the ordinal number is placed in a proper place in the text, then the context unavoidably helps any reader, even a slow-witted or poorly informed one, to understand the significance of the number.

If a link accompanies that number, as it does in the compromise which I posted this morning, a reader has an easy opportunity to go to the complete list of all the justices and to see a clear and effective presentation of the whole thing in living color.

If any reader still feels uncertainty or ambiguity even after that, then that reader may be beyond our help, and he might feel more comfortable at Sesame Street than at the Wikipedia.

In another case, if some other reader finds the ordinal number to be unhelpful, uninteresting, or unnecessary, then that reader is at liberty to skip on further down to something else – just as we and all other readers do all the time.

We should not place ourselves in the position of consciously and intentionally deciding which information to withhold from readers on the theory that we know better than they what they should be able to see and read, or what may or may not confuse them or displease them.

One of the basic functions of the Wikipedia is to enable any reader to pursue links and to continue reading and learning.

Knowledge is our stock in trade.

Why would we wish to keep one type of our merchandise (that is, one type of data) out of our display case and out of sight – or maybe on a bottom shelf – while assuming that a persistent and determined customer may eventually discover it by stumbling across it?

I see no justification for withholding information on the theory that a tiny number of readers might somehow feel confused by seeing that data.

Best wishes to all,

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The infobox isn't equiped to properly number the associate justices. Readers would be mistakenlingly concluding that Associate Justices X & Z are the 9th & 11th associate justice, because Associate Justice Y is numbered the 10th. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a way to do it inside the infobox, but I've already agreed – in my compromise of this morning – to place the ordinal number in the running text and in a supporting and explaining context.

Doc.

DocRushing (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet another editor has blanket-reverted my number removals. Anways, I find your compromise acceptable. PS: Would you believe I didn't expect any opposition to my removals? that I thought my deletions were a no-brainer? GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Too confusing?? Vandalism is not the solution

The numbering of justices has not confused anyone before. I thought you agreed to take it up with the editors. Now it's verging on repeated vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to blanket revert again, then that's your choice. I'm in no mood for edit-wars & will be concentrating on the discussion at the appropiate WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not just about confusion, it is about being plain wrong. It didn't confuse them, but it sure as hell misinformed people in any case where someone was listed as "Xth Associate Justice". We number Justices, not Associate Justices, and the numbers used for X were just wrong because they inaccurately said, for instance, that William O. Douglas was the 79th Associate Justice when in fact he was the 79th Justice, including CJs. Also, if you think that removing information, whether it is inaccurate crap as in this instance or even something that is actually true, than you need to go read WP:Vandal. Tossing around that word is bound to inspire heated reactions and makes you look like a fool for not knowing what you are talking about. -Rrius (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute resolved: Concensus was reached to 'exclude' numbering from infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A fair warning

I have no idea what is your problem. But I came here to give you a fair warning to stop bothering us. Take a look at Philip II of Spain, John II of France, Alfonso XII of Spain or Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Do you see any name in parenthesis in bold? No. All of them are in italics. And there is no place that says that I'm obliged to add those names, even less in bold. --Lecen (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't put them in Bold, I put them in Italics, which is how the other monarchial bio articles are done, across Wikipedia. PS: Your ownership of 2 articles (Pedro I of Brazil & Pedro II of Brazil) is quite alarming. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

They are in italics because the names are not in English. For obvious reasons, you don't have to add italics to "Peter". --Lecen (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's done across Wikipedia for other monarchial bio articles. Why should Brazil's 2 emperors be the exception? GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms for guidance on italicizing foreign language words, and Template:Lang/doc on using the lang template to assist with this (it also adds HTML to tag the text as being in the specified language). isaacl (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Read through the Manuel. Which is correct, my additions or Lecen's reversions? GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also see WP:BOLDTITLE regarding the use of bold face in the lead section of an article. As Lecen said, the italicization of a person's name is to indicate that it is in a foreign language, and it shouldn't be used for English variants. Although WP:BOLDTITLE states that a "significant alternate title" can be set in bold, I don't think this guidance is well-suited for a biography where someone has different names in different languages, and they are all being listed after the primary name, since this format is standard for biographies, and no additional emphasis is required to draw the reader's attention to it. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose, I should be amazed that the English versions are there at all ;). Anyways, what's the view concerning my addition of Peter IV? as that's the English version of the Portuguese monarch's name (who's also the Brazillian monarch). GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this specific matter; in general, if there are alternative versions of the name of an article's subject with significant usage, then it can be worthwhile to point them out to the reader. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute resolved: It's agreed for alternate names, non-english is 'bolded', where's english is 'italicized'. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No, general practice is for foreign language words to be italicized. The use of bold weight in the lead sentence is guided by WP:BOLDTITLE. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Okie Doke. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

NLP

GoodDay, your habit of fanning the flames of controversy by dropping in comments without addressing evidence or content issues has already got you blocked from editing two areas of Wikipedia. Please tone down the conflict junkie stuff and see if you can help with the evidence base on that article. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. I'm quite concerned about your 'uncharacteristically' growing obsession with that article. This vailed threat of a future ANI report on me, is telling. Perhaps, it's best that I stay away from NLP. Note: I'm disappointed in your apparent ownership behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm not going to report you to ANI, there was no threat implied. Just trying to make the point that dropping in opinions without addressing content is what got you the other blocks and if you are going to edit in controversial areas again then you need to be especially cautious. Otherwise this is an article which regularly attracts swarms of meat puppets intent on making the article a propaganda piece for Grindler's new approach to NLP. A few of us stand guard for those occasion, if that is "ownership" or "obsession" then Wikipedia needs more of it. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Chalk it down to paranoia/shell shock, I'm staying clear of the article. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Dispute ended: I've departed that discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Shinzo Abe

example: Saionji Kinmochi, Katsura Tarō, Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina, etc

rule:

1. If the term of office of the president or king is cutting two or more times then the calculated is difference.
2. If the term of office of the prime minister is cutting two or more times then the calculated is difference.

example:

#	Name	Term	#	Name	Term
False example			True example
King is Head of State
1	King Edward I	1899-1902	1	King Edward I	1899-1902
2	King Edward II	1902-1924	2	King Edward II	1902-1924
3	Queen Elizabeth I	1924-1930	3	Queen Elizabeth I	1924-1930
(1)	King Edward I	1930-1938	4	King Edward I	1930-1938
President is Head of State (or Head of Government)
1	Bill Clinton	1899-1903	1	Bill Clinton	1899-1903
2	Richard Nixon, Jr	1903-1911 (fix)	2	Richard Nixon, Jr	1903-1911 (fix)
3	Mary Ann	1911-1915	3	Mary Ann	1911-1915
(1)	Bill Clinton	1915-1919 (fix)	4	Bill Clinton	1915-1919 (fix)
Prime Minister is Head of Government
1	Bill Clinton	1899-1913	1	Bill Clinton	1899-1913
2	Richard Nixon, Jr	1913-1915	2	Richard Nixon, Jr	1913-1915
3	Mary Ann	1915-1920	3	Mary Ann	1915-1920
4	Bill Clinton	1920-1925	(1)	Bill Clinton	1920-1925

Akuindo (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed your edit (again) & I'm content with it, as it clarifies the designate tag. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute resolved: Latest addition in infobox has required clarity. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Awww shucks, you shouldn't have :) GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I needed to do something to cheer me up. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That's cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA

Where is the guideline which says lede first mention has to follow title rather than sources? because WP:OPENPARA shows correct and full name first in lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want the non-english version to be more prominant, then seek an RM on those Portuguese monarch articles. Otherwise, move on to something else. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I repeat the question. Where is the guideline which says lede first mention has to follow title rather than sources? because WP:OPENPARA shows correct and full name first in lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And incidentally, Encyclopedia Britannica is English. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You're such a dick, IIO. Go ahead & restore your improvements, since you tend to get your way. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't help what the sources say, see David Birmingham A Concise History of Portugal 2003 etc., it is simply very difficult to find modern sources that call Pedro III "Peter". In ictu oculi (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Do what you want with the intros. GoodDay (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, we'll leave all 4 articles with your edits on top. But this isn't gnome editing, this falls within the same envelope as your issues with foreign names and Irish matters. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your preferance for having Pedro ahead of Peter, will likey meet with Lecen's approval & that's all you'll need. GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines I've found are Wikipedia's guidance on the lead sentence, which states, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence," and Wikipedia's guidance on the format of the lead sentence, which states, "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence..." isaacl (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

So, I'm in the right. GoodDay (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually Issacl isn't looking at the MOS for biographies. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#First mention It specifically mentions the first mention should be their full official name while the title should be the common name. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, "Pedro Clemente Francisco José António" is the birth name; the guidance on the first mention of a person's name, however, does not take into account official monarch names. So it comes down to the familiar question of whether or not there are multiple language versions of the person's official name... isaacl (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(res to Isaacl) When it comes down to a monarch's name, we should go with the english version - in this case Peter. Of course, if Lecen sides with IIO (which I believe he will), then Pedro will likely be given prominance. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute ended: I've departed from the disagreement. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Abiding by consensus

I realize it's not fun to be on the other side of consensus, but in the end, if you want to continue to be a productive contributor, you'll have to co-exist with those you disagree with, since asking all of them to avoid you isn't a viable solution. I know it's not easy, but when a dispute arises, it would be best for you to tread lightly, stop making any more contested edits, and let a group of interested editors decide upon the best way forward. In this season of goodwill, please don't pursue any restrictions with other editors, as it does not foster a collaborative atmosphere. You've been able to work with others on many occasions; please focus on this and just walk away from problematic situations. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There's but one editor (Djsasso), whom I wish to leave me alone; just one. I've been doing my best to avoid him for months, including ignoring his posts. What is his obession with me, anyways? Perhaps you could have a word with him. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as at times you feel a need to argue in favour of issues of importance to you, sometimes other editors wish to do the same. Whether we like it or not, the amount of influence we have on how others choose to pursue their interests is often fairly limited. I am hopeful that you are open to my suggestions on working with others collaboratively, which I believe is the best long-term approach. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Most editors that I've had disputes with, are editors that are anything but saints. I just want Djsasso to leave me alone. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, there isn't much someone can do about the behaviour of others, including whether or not they choose to join open discussion threads. Trying to keep these interactions as positive as possible would be mutually beneficial. We all make mistakes at times, but if we can be open and flexible with each other, it is easier to admit our follies with minimal ego-bruising, and move forward. isaacl (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, honestly. But, Djsasso has & continues to, rub me the wrong way. He didn't have to comment at Steven Zhang's talkpage (where I'm seeking a topic-ban appeal or atleast a modification), but did. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he could have chosen to let someone else comment, and your mentors could have chosen a less confrontational method of evaluating your edit history than soliciting feedback from someone who's been in conflict with you (I understand how this method could potentially be more effective than others, but it also is more likely to result in hard feelings). But what's done is done, and I think it's fair to point out that you have had numerous disagreements with other editors that led to some heated discussion. Now this happens to everyone, but when trying to illustrate that your topic ban, issued due to your difficulties in resolving issues smoothly, is no longer necessary, it is relevant information to consider. So you can just treat it as points that would have been revealed anyway, and do your best to explain how you were able to deal with these situations, leaving out your personal comments on the motivations of other editors. (To be honest, though, from the few discussion threads I've read prior to your ban, I'd suggest continuing to stay away from the British/Irish area, and leaving the topic ban in place. Your style of interaction hasn't been very effective in this area, or a number of others, which is why I suggest in general to just avoid points of conflict.) isaacl (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually prefer modication to the B/I topic ban. Allow me to make my proposed gnome edits, but keep me banned from the talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that will work out too well: if someone disagrees with one of your edits, you won't be able to discuss your rationale. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt anybody would argue against changing John Bull (born 1924; died 2012) to John Bull (1924–2012), for example. These aren't edits that would rile up 'old' disputants. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Commas

Can I ask why you are adding commas after the bracketed birth/death details in bios? A comma there is ungrammatical. Per WP:OPENPARA, no commas. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I thought they were required. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not grammatical. The user above has pointed this out, but you carry on doing so. This is not a "fix", but a deliberate error. Please stop it. Jared Preston (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I only add them when it's MDY, not DMY. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, but the example I showed you is a DMY article. Jared Preston (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction, I do add them to DMYs, but in a different manner. I make'em this was Day Month Year, in place & Month Day, Year in place. I fail to see the problem with that. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Scott

We've put these infoboxes into place for years without incident so I don't see why I need to bring this to the wikiproject when this is an issue that you have solely perpetuated. It's obvious DeMint is the incumbent senator and Scott is succeeding him as the designated senator, "designate" is even appended underneath the actual title to reduce what little chances of misconception there are. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It creates the impression that DeMint was Senator-designate before Scott, witch is the wrong impression. Wait until January 1, 2013 & then add the proper succession box. Otherwise, let's get feedback from the proper WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see how anyone could legitimately think that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a possibility. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's also a possibility that someone could misread every word based on a loose understanding of English. We shouldn't cater to the lowest possible means of intelligence, we have to expect something from the reader. Give them credit, they aren't stupid and it's demeaning to think they are. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The succession boxes should only be used for office holders. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a statement. Not a reason. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's best to bring this discussion to the appropiate WikiProject, as we're not going to have an agreement between the 2 of us. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute resolved: Compromise was offered & not rejected accepted. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have a really stable connection for a few days. I personally don't see a substantive difference in the norm and your offer but I agree, it's enough. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!

Yes let me also wish you a merry Christmas, GoodDay!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you & Merry Christmas to you both, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Setting out articles - MOS

I notice you've cleared up after me on a couple of articles recently. Although why you are following me around is a mystery – two obscure articles in two days is more than coincidence. I am concerned by your most recent edit at David Griffiths (missionary). You deleted his date of birth from the article text – your edit summary states, “Alreday in the intro [sic]”. The intro should summarise the article text, which includes the date of birth. Such facts should be cited by reliable sources, and the article text is the place to do so, rather than the intro (N.B. I realise it wasn't cited in this case – I didn't add it to the article). If you are in any doubt about how articles should be set out, and you can't find the relevant MOS, either ask someone you think may know, or check some Featured Articles to see best practice. Daicaregos (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, good test case this one. Suggest you ask the question at the appropriate notice board if policy is ambiguous ----Snowded ^TALK 09:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's alright. I didn't realize I had errored or had mistreated Daicaregos. I won't challenge his revert at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would you challenge my revert. Do you think your edit was correct? I brought it up here only because you may have deleted dates of birth and/or death from the body of other articles; possibly cited. You have not noted that you are now aware this is erroneous, and therefore, it is likely you will do so again in future. I urge you to look at some Featured Article biographies for examples of best practice. Daicaregos (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already admitted to my error. Can we please move on? GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reconsolidation (talk • contribs) 04:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll drop a few words in. But, I'm not involved with that article anymore. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDay, I'm hoping this will encourage the editors collaborate to improve the article. Perhaps I should have posted it as an RfC to resolve the content dispute rather than ANI. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you should've went the Rfc route. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The good thing is that the article is semi-protected. Does that mean that editors can be held to abide by the suggestions of RfCs? --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In my experiences of RfCs, they're usually binding only if participants enforce its results. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: I also suggest that you come clean on your past Wiki-accounts. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your sudden conversion....

GoodDay! I'm pleasantly surprised! Welcome to the light side... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, that was funny. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Resource Exchange request

Hello there! I responded to your request at the Resource Exchange. Hope it helps, let me know if you need more. Take care, Moswento ^talky 10:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Empty sections in gastropod species articles

Hello GoodDay! Please understand that my revision back to the prior template (with empty sections) is for a good reason. The articles which you removed the empty sections comments (for Description and Distribution) are part of WikiProject Gastropods. The purpose of the empty sections is to make note of future work to be done by other editors, such as yourself. It is part of the template we use for species articles. I mean no disrespect to you by reverting to the prior layout. If you have good information to add to an empty section with references it would be a welcome addition. I have been adding macro photography images, then when I can find time I go back and add a scientific description and a geographical distribution section, or habitat and ecology (if possible). They say a picture speaks a thousand words. The description section takes the most work as one has to be careful to not plagarize from the source work. (see, e.g. Boreotrophon alaskanus.) If you are interested in learning more about the project please check out the project page at WikiProject Gastropods. Shellnut (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No prob. I discontinue 'deleting' those sections. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with fellow editor

There's a user, User:ANTONI20, who means well when she/he edits district pages. Information has been added, but the editor makes additional changes such as removing old information, reformatting lists to out-of-use formats, and using reverse chronological order. You can find some of our discussions on her/his and my talk pages. Please keep an eye on this editor's work as it overlaps with yours. Let's make helpful suggestions and keep this editor doing good work. It's frustrating, but maybe she/he will learn.—GoldRingChip 12:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits

My edits are updates. As for the other two idiots, their idiots are merely their opinions as to what individuals are interested in. They have created messy pages that I have reformatted. It's a question of preference and I disagree with their methods and approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay

Do you have an interest in Gerald Ford?

Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.

We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!

You received this invitation in view of your significant contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

British & Irish article: topic ban

Appreciate that you self-reverted, but please be more careful than this. It's not as though you were unaware of your topic ban from British and Irish articles, as you had been discussing it on your talk page and here just a few hours prior to your breach. For the record, I would oppose any relaxation of the current terms that allow you to continue to edit Wikipedia. Daicaregos (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've slipped up on a rough total of 20-25 articles since my ban. I've instantly reverted all of them. Using the random button from article to article, can be hypnotizing. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't counting on or expecting your support. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

On the topic ban issue. Have you thought about imposing conditions on yourself first rather than just asking for it to be revoked? I'd suggest the following

• No changes in nationality for any person on any article
• No removal of non-English names on any article
• No changes or participation in talk pages on known areas of controversy such as Derry/Londonderry and the various British Isles issues
• No comments on talk page that express opinion without supporting references or argument

Then maybe accept a mentor on those articles who will not be soft on you - Dai might not be willing, I'd take it on.

Without something like that it won't happen. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with those 4 conditions. Furthermore, I agree with having you as a mentor for those articles. GoodDay (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I raised it with Stephen here ----Snowded ^TALK 07:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Snowy. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just my 2c. For me, the *most* important point to focus on is the 4th. From there, everything else flows once you accept that your opinion doesn't matter, and we are really weighing up sources when producing content. --HighKing (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Condition 4 is easily followed. In these last 14 months (or so), around 95% of my contributions have been to main-space :) GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If Snowded is prepared to take on mentorship, and you are prepared to accept, I think something can be worked out wrt easing restrictions. RashersTierney (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope so. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If either of you 'drops out', then the default situation is the status quo. Good luck both. RashersTierney (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RashersT. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, the community will be acceptable to the Snowy/GD proposal. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. No drama please. RashersTierney (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

:)GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And it begins again. GoodDay gets told off repeatedly, gets taken to ANI etc, etc. Some people must have a lot of spare time on their hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.251.196 (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have lifted your topic ban. Keep your nose clean, and please do not let me down. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, DBD & Snowy. I won't let yas down. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope not - raise anything on my talk page you need to and I will check in most days on what is going on ----Snowded ^TALK 05:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

First Minister

Happy to look at that if you will outline what you want to do and why - it would be a good test ----Snowded ^TALK 08:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to hold off from making any RMs on British articles, as that can have the potential for controversay. FWIW, I was going to re-suggest that Deputy First Minister for Wales be moved to Deputy First Minster of Wales, as we've got First Minister of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please think before acting. Re-read (or read) the talk pages first. Do some research. As I said on the talk page, my research suggests that the position's correct title is Deputy First Minister. If this is correct, the purpose of the remainder of the page name would be only to disambiguate from other Deputy First Ministers. Consequently, for Wales or of Wales doesn't matter. If you have any evidence of the position's official title, please present it at the article talk page. Anyway, as the position does not currently exist, what would be the point? Daicaregos (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already chosen 'not' to seek an RM for that article, at this time. It's too early for me. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "at this time"? Have you any evidence it should be re-named? Daicaregos (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had my British/Irish ban lifted barely a week ago. Setting up & arguing an RM, isn't in my best interest. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If your research has uncovered evidence that the position's official title is something other than the page name, the page should be re-named. I ask again: do you have that evidence? Daicaregos (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The only sources I can find have Deputy First Minister. I can't find any foreign sources, just local sources. Anyways, I'm not seeking to have the article moved. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

See here ----Snowded ^TALK 20:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Biography

Hello GoodDay, I have seen you change "Biography" to "Life and career" in a few articles in recent times (example). While it might be OK to perform such a change in some articles, it is not necessary in the case of biographies of composers of classical music, since many of those contain sections such as "Musical style" and "Legacy", which are rarely biographical. (For instance, you can see this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Sections.) Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I do such changes, as it's odd to have a section named Biography, in bio articles. It would be like opening a book & seeing 'Book' at the top of page one. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

However, as I said, many of those articles are not solely biographical. But I guess this is a minor issue and up to each editor. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've left a recommendation for changing the section heading of such bio articles, at the WikiProject-in-question. I try not to make anymore changes to those bios, until the WikiProject decides on my proposal. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Desist meaningless mucking about

This is a waste of everybody's time, including your own. You have an appalling record at Scotland-related articles, and your current attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of sysops by pretending that you are simply a well-meaning WikiGnome is not going to lead to you being able to resume your campaign. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you smoking, anyway? First you said (in your edit-summary) that my edit was good-fath & now you come here, suggesting the opposite. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia's guidance on opening paragraphs in biographies is that the places of birth and death are not supposed to be placed within the parenthetical clause listing the dates of birth and death. However, in view of your ongoing mentorship and heightened scrutiny on your edits, I suggest you let your mentor in this topic area evaluate the situation and decide whether or not to make an edit, and not make the change yourself. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Last month, Bretonbanquet & Jared Preston told me that 'commas' were ungramatical. PS: Mais oui's charges are overblown, btw. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see this previous discussion, but I think I recall that Wikipedia's manual of style specifies that in a sentence such as the following, there should not be a comma after the year: The NHL reached a labour agreement on January 6, 2013 with the NHLPA. (There are style guides that specify a comma should be placed there, but I assume there are those that say otherwise which are being used as guidance for Wikipedia.)

In this case, I believe by the guideline I mentioned, the places of birth and death should be deleted anyway, and so it is a moot point whether or not there should be a comma (it's basically a two-item list, so grammatically I think the comma is OK; semi-colons can also be used to separate list items when the individual items contain commas). But I suggest that you not undertake this task personally, as it would attract undue attention. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Last month, I was told that (DOB, place - DOD, place) was wrong & now I'm told it's correct. Quite frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm saying that based on my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, it should be (DOB–DOD), without any places mentioned. In isolation, without any external context, (January 6, 2013; New York) is a grammatically correct list of two disparate items. It can be argued, though, that (January 6, 2013 in New York) is more explanatory for this particular use. These are matters of style—there are many ways that are fine. In traditional publishing, an editorial board makes these style decisions and codifies them in a style guide. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If I were to delete places from the DOB/DOD intro? It wouldn't be long before 'another' orange bar appeared :) GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's indeed what I said... Your mentor should see this discussion and can decide what to do. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

[2]. Please tread carefully. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Re. Resolute and Djsasso

I think that I can provide a bit of insight privately if you wish to email me. LittleBen (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've chosen 'long ago' to not use email, forgive me. I reckon, I'm just a 'too darn' honest editor, who prefers to keep everything in the open :) GoodDay (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. You might understand the motives a bit more clearly by reading:

• this (#80)
• this (#99)
• this and
• this (#100)

• MakeSense64 was a polite and honest guy too. LittleBen (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting how your insight into me involves three discussions I had no part in. I would also remind you, LittleBen, that the both of you are under diacritic-related topic bans, and everything about this post is related to diacritics. GoodDay is showing great wisdom in not getting involved. Resolute 15:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils captains & the rest of the NHL

I have noticed that you listed the Devils as not having a captain for the 2012-13 season (saying it was locked out) and then listed Salvador as the captain as if he was named for the 2013-14 season. Are all the NHL teams will being listed that way? Even the team seasons for each club dod not list the 1994-95 as 1995 because of the delay of the start of that season. Raul17 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We've done this for the 1994-95 lockout, when the pre-lockout captain retired, stripped or was traded before the lockout ended, or an rotating captaincy was implimented. See Edmonton Oilers (MacTavish) & Ottawa Senators (Dineen). During the 1994-95 lockout, all but those 2 teams continued with the same captain 'after' the lockout, which they had before the lockout. An example at the Devils article - we didn't mention the '94-95 lockout, because Stevens was the captain before, during & after that lockout. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Butthe way it is listed, it looks like the 2012-13 season was wiped out. I like I said before, each club season by season does not list the 1994-95 season as 1995 but 1995-96. 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It would still look that way, without mentioning the lockout. I've brought a suggestion up at WP:HOCKEY for deleting no captain from all the team's & former team's captain lists. This would also remove the 'lockout' notices. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. ThanksRaul17 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the no captain notifications from all team's & defunct team's captain lists. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Around?

I need a quick favour, so I was wondering if you are on right now. -Rrius (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What's up? GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you go to File:41st Can Senate.svg and count the white boxes? There should be six, but only four appear for me. -Rrius (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's showing 4 white boxes. GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't figure out what the heck the problem is. -Rrius (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way to fix it. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to back off on the Leo Komarov article

Getting yourself blocked for edit warring won't do anything good. Let the debate play out on the talk page. Request a WP:3O if need be. Resolute 19:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I know. I just get heated with agenda editors. I wish he'd expand his argument to a Community-wide forum, instead being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Both sides of this debate have a POV/agenda. I may disagree with them, but I'm not going to vilify them for disagreeing with me. The debate will resolve in its own time. How the article looks in the interim sort of misses the bigger picture! Resolute 19:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If he would just take his argument to a Community-wide forum. BTW, what happened to Jaan? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The article-in-question has just been protected. PS: Oh no, he's now moved onto NHL team roster templates. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bill Heindl, Jr.

Good day, GoodDay. I've come across your name many times when editing hockey articles, so I thought you might be someone to check in with. I've done a fairly straightforward expansion on the Bill Heindl, Jr. article, but am hesitant to add some more info, which I think is notable and could very well push it to a DYK nom. In short, the issue is this: numerous posts on forums have suggested that:

• Heindl grew despondent after his career ended, marriage failed and his father died, and he attempted to kill himself, survived but became a paraplegic. I haven't had much luck in accessing legit citable sources for this.
• he may eventually have become a competitive wheelchair athlete, as there is an award from the BC Wheelchair Tennis Ass'n that uses his name, but nothing that confirms it is named after him or why
• he may also have competed in wheelchair racquetball, as I cam across his name (without the Jr) as having placed at a tourney
• he eventually died in 1992, and one blog at least suggests it may have been a suicide, but I can't find a proper obit
• and this is what would make an awesome hook for a DYK: on April 25, 1980, numerous posts suggest that Bobby Orr, who was on the Oshawa Generals in 1965-66 when the Gens played in the Memorial Cup, as was Heindl, apparently arranged a benefit game for Heindl in Winnipeg, and said game is apparently the only time ever that Gretzky and Orr played in the same game. I am suspicious since I can't even find unusable photos of this, and you'd think there'd be one somewhere. There's listings on eBay for game programs that have Orr on the cover. There's apparently a transcript of a Peter Gzowski interview with someone about this in the Trent University archives. There's this post which references a book I don't have and can't access online. There's this other trivia book which you can read online but not sure how much stock to put in either of these sources. I guess I'm looking for guidance / input here for 2 reasons:
• because suicide is a sensitive subject, I don't want to indicate that aspect without being damn sure and
• for something that would be a huge thing in hockey circles, I'm surprised there's not more about the Gretzky/Orr angle out there. Let me know what you think, and if you have any resources that could shed some light on this. I started the article expansion yesterday, so there's still a couple of days to be eligible for a DYK nom.Echoedmyron (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is quite beyond my gnoming duties & knowledge. WP:HOCKEY would be your best place for help. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Have posted at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Article_Improvement#Bill_Heindl.2C_Jr. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Estoniania

Seems the canvassing brought in another WP:Estonia editor, one who had a topic ban on all European articles fairly recently...I hope this doesn't get uglier...good grief--Львівське (говорити) 08:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

My 7+ years (on this project) tells me it's gonna get uglier. GoodDay (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DIGWUREN meets WP:HOCKEY. My worlds are colliding. I hate hockey now.--Львівське (говорити) 15:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Lvivske, your are wrong nobody has been canvassed, but you are right that this could turn ugly. Given your own block log and GoodDay being on ArbCom's radar, if this continues then site bans for all could be a real possibility. You state that your project has your own quirks (regarding flag use, or how you use abbreviations for US/CAN players birthplaces but long form for European, etc.) [3], so why can't you accept that WP:ESTONIA has also established its way and come to a comprise with regard to Baltic bios? It's not about winning but working together. --Nug (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple 24-72hr timeouts from 2 years ago < topic and interaction bans...just saying...--Львівське (говорити) 19:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Very difficult to work with editors, who try to re-write history. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, people did come try to come to a compromise. See the current City, Estonia, USSR compromise compared to City, Estonia SSR, USSR as was originally desired. Or the City, USSR (now Estonia) variants that were offered. It seems to me that one side has no desire to compromise or work together and will only accept City, Estonia. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Exacty, like Djsasso points out. Your Narva, Estonia and nothing else-stance, doesn't appear like "working together" to us. You (Nug) are the one with his heels dug in. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not true at all. I made this edit[4] in support of Alaney2k's edit[5], but the lot was undone by GoodDay [6]. Shrug, the record shows I tried. --Nug (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Narva, Soviet Union (now Estonia) was offered by me & was turned down by you. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Narva, Soviet Union could refer to Narva, Primorsky Krai or Narva, Krasnoyarsk Krai, We don't want to confuse readers into thinking that a part of the Russian Far East is now Estonia. --Nug (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The (now Estonia) part, solves that potential problem. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Your recent editing history at Papal resignation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I overdid it, even though it was to maintain accuracy. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I would have escalated this to the Administrators' Noticeboard so thanks for the reply. Also, please understand WP:SHOUT/WP:CAPSLOCK for next time! In the meantime, the actual wording of the article could be discussed further on Talk:Papal_resignation. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Noted. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Premiers

Please note that while you're correct that we need to wait until Kathleen Wynne is officially sworn in, (a) that's happening in less than half an hour now, so people jumping the gun is more forgivable than it was two weeks ago, and (b) the correct procedure, once a handover in power is known to be occurring, is that both the outgoing and incoming premiers get listed in the infobox until the changeover happens — thus, it is not correct to simply remove Wynne from the infobox entirely; rather, they are both to be listed, McGuinty as the incumbent and Wynne as the designate, until such time as Wynne is officially premier. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it's one premier at a time. The infobox is for the office-holder only. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's precedent is quite clear that in the days following an election or other change of leadership, an infobox is permitted to list both the outgoing incumbent and the incoming designate until such time as the designate becomes the incumbent. Whether you personally agree with that or not is irrelevant; the practice is established by consensus, not by you personally. And, for the record, she's now being sworn in less than five minutes, meaning that there's absolutely no valid reason besides pure tendentiousness to take this any further. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Having both in the infobox simultaneously, is incorrect. However, with less then 5 minutes to go, I'm not gonna fight over it. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Official correctness or incorrectness aside, as you know the problem is that the transition period invariably gives rise to a constant Wikipedia edit war over which name actually gets listed in the infobox during those two weeks. Our practices are not determined by officialism for the sake of officialism; if a problem arises on here that we can solve by allowing incumbents and designates to both be listed during a transition period, then we do that regardless of the officialities. What's correct or incorrect in the official sense does not matter; Wikipedia's actual practice and precedent says it's permissible in our articles in order to avoid unproductive editwarring, and Wikipedia policy takes precedence over your personal preferences. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I happen to disagree. During those transiton periods, the article-in-question should be protected or semi-protected until new official takes office. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, by all means you're entitled to propose that for a broad discussion around adopting it as the new policy if you wish. But until a consensus of Wikipedians has actually agreed to take that approach instead of the existing one, then the existing procedure stands whether you agree with it or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does one place such a proposal? GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the outgoing first minister resign before the incoming takes the oath? So to be technically correct the infobox would be blank for five minutes. 117Avenue (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's true. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)