Open main menu

Wikignome crop.gifThis editor is a WikiGnome.
WikiProject Ice Hockey logo.svgThis user is a member of
WikiProject Ice Hockey.
Navy binoculars.jpgBeware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

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

Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 13 years, 5 months and 4 days.

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



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

Edit count & Pie chartEdit

Edit records

My Arbcom CaseEdit



Hello, GoodDay. You have new messages at YborCityJohn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

United States Attorney GeneralEdit

Hi GoodDay I wote something on this talk page And Please Wait till William Barr is sworn in later this afternoon I hate it when Users jump to Conclusion. Thanks and I look forward to your responce on the United States Attorney General talk page. or on yours or mine. (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal, a few hours. Related articles have been updated, already. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GoodDay (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

I fully acknowledge losing my temper with the evading editor on the 2018-19 NHL team articles & most certainly handled the situation wrongly. Edit-warring only creates heat & not calm. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Procedural accept, block has expired. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, I've been trying to revert vandalism on those articles, as the other fellow is facing an ANI report. Please see the report in question. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also @NinjaRobotPirate:, note the other editor has also been reverting signed out, as -- GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Howdy @Freshacconci:, I can't help out at those team hockey articles for awhile. Good luck, dealing with the vandal. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO is about "obvious vandalism", such as replacing an article with the phrase "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS". As far as I can tell, this is a dispute over when and how to update sports scores. That's not vandalism. If there's something obvious that I've missed, you can always appeal the block. I saw the IP edits, but the autoblock should take care of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
You'll need to read up on the problem at WP:ANI, concerning NHL 2018-19 Canadian hockey team stats. PS: I do acknowledge loosing my temper with the other editor, who was also reverting while signed out. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate:, though it wasn't you intent to do so. By blocking me & not the other editor's IP account (he has other accounts), you're only encouraging the other editor to be more defiant. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi:, I'm going to have to let you & the others deal with the problem editor & his socks. Tried to stop his disruption on the articles, but I obviously went about it the wrong way :( GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso:, the problem is the guy's IP isn't blocked, nor either any of his socks. Likely best, that the 30 NHL 2018-19 team articles be semi-protected. Getting into an edit spat with him, isn't the best way, as my earned 24-hr vacation has proven. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: The fellow is determined to do it his way, on those stats. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I sympathize with your situation and agree he needed to be blocked for disruptive editing and would have done so had he not already been blocked. But I just want to remind you that while you are blocked your talk page is only for requesting to be unblocked. You will only get yourself in more trouble if you keep pinging people. Someone will review your block. But worst case its only 24 hours. Go do something else for a day. Get away from the wiki and relax. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed :) GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for bringing you into this messy situation. This was not the result that I expected. Yowashi (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
You're now unblocked anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


I know nothing about holding an RFC, so would like to ask some for advice Re your post on the talkpage of The Australian. Not sure how much of the epic talkpage you have gone through, but there's more than than the centre right/right etc issue. First it was centre/centre right/right, then political alignment in infobox, yay or nay, then political alignment in lead, yay or nay, now its back to centre right/right. I'm thinking each issue needs some sort of resolution, or its just going to be moving the problem around. Would it be necessary to hold 3 separate RFC's? Would you combine the 3 issues in one RFC, or run them concurrently, or would that be too confusing or something you just dont do? Not altogether sure I'm up for organising one, but not sure what else can be done. Curdle (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Howdy @Curdle:. I can easily set up 3 separate Rfc, but would require one of you to supply the 'questions' to each. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, thankyou! I think the first two questions are fairly straightforward.
"should any political alignment be placed in the infobox"
"should the political alignment be mentioned in the lead"
Having several thoughts about the third one though. Something along the lines of "Should the political alignment be designated as Centre right, or Centre right to Right?" Should "Conservative" as a political ideology be used?
One of the difficulties is that there are all sorts of other permutations suggested, although these ones appear to be the main points of contention. Some editors have suggested that more content be added until it becomes somehow obvious, but... noone is able to add content while all the edit warring is going on.
A couple more queries- Do those questions seem ok/NPOV etc to you? Is it usual to "workshop" RFC questions? I thought that might be a good idea, in case anyone thinks the questions are inappropriate in some way, but as even the suggestion we have an RFC keeps getting tossed around without any action, I'm not sure how far discussing the questions is going to go. I haven't brought it up on the Talkpage yet, as I wasnt sure how to go about organising anything. I figured hold it on the talkpage, ping everyone involved in previous discussions, and post at the Australian wikiproject noticeboard, and perhaps the media wikiproject noticeboard. Does that sound reasonable? Sorry for all the questions, and dumping them all at you, but you seem a pretty uninvolved observer so far, and have been around here much longer than me, and I keep arguing myself round in circles. I would be grateful for any advice. Curdle (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It all sounds reasonable. Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

PEI 2019 InfoboxEdit

Stop re-adding a blank 'independent' candidate to the PEI 2019 General Election Infobox please. The infobox is for parties only. No Canadian general election above the municipal level features independent candidates in the infobox, whether running for re-election or not. If you would like examples, here you go:

- Canadian federal election, 2011 - notable Independent MP Andre Arthur runs for re-election, loses, not in infobox.

- Canadian federal election, 2008 - two notable Independent MPs, Arthur, running for a second time as an Independent, and Bill Casey, running for re-election after leaving the Conservative caucus, win - not inside infobox.

- Canadian federal election, 2004 - A whole host of incumbent MPs, including only winner Chuck Cadman who would go on to play a critical role during the life of the next Parliament, run - none are in the Infobox.

- 1996 Newfoundland general election - Yvonne Jones runs and wins as an Independent candidate, left out of Infobox.

- 2018 New Brunswick general election - Former Speaker Chris Collins runs as an independent, loses, left out of Infobox.

I can go on for literal pages with examples of this. Independents are left out of the Infobox. I think the only example otherwise was in the 1944 Alberta general election, when Legislature independents formed an actual Opposition caucus to the governing SoCreds that then ran on a unified slate in the general. That isn't at all what Mr. Dumville is doing.

Whats more, you didn't even put Dumville's name in the Infobox, just left it blank and said "Independent"! That's not how that works at all.

I appreciate the idea that you want people to see that Mr. Dumville is running, and you're more than welcome to make it clear in the summary along the lines of, "Libs, Cons, Greens, NDP, and one Independent MLA running are for re-election" or something, I don't care - but leave it out of the infobox.

Jebussez (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

PEI 2019 electionEdit

I reverted a couple (I'm sure you saw) so I might as well ask. Why are you removing the "will be held" text from PEI district articles? You're leaving a sentence fragment, and have not left an edit summary as far as I've seen. What's up? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

We already know when the 2019 PEI general election is going to be held. Dates aren't used when box is created, unless it's a by-election. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "GoodDay".