Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).
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
My Arbcom CaseEdit
United States Attorney GeneralEdit
Hi GoodDay I wote something on this talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Attorney_General#Sarry_Everyone 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.188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 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)
- 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)
@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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
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)