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

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

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 2 months and 17 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 records

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay
Opened/Closed in 2012.
Amended in 2013, 2014 & 2016

Archives

Aug–Sept 2007 Sept 2007–Feb 2008 Feb–Apr 2008 Apr–Jul 2008 Jul–Oct 2008 Oct–Nov 2008 Nov 2008–Jan 2009 Jan–Feb 2009 Feb–Mar 2009 Mar–May 2009 May–Jun 2009 Jun–Jul 2009 Jul–Sept 2009 Sept–Oct 2009 Oct–Nov 2009 Nov–Dec 2009 Dec 2009–Jan 2010 Jan–Feb 2010 Feb 2010 Feb–Apr 2010 Apr–Jun 2010 Jun–Oct 2010 Oct–Nov 2010 Nov 2010–Jan 2011 Jan–Feb 2011 Feb 2011 Feb–Mar 2011 Mar–Apr 2011 Apr–May 2011 May–Nov 2011 Nov 2011–Feb 2012 Feb–May 2012 May–Aug 2012 Aug 2012–Feb 2013 Feb 2013–May 2014 May 2014–Jun 2015 Jun 2015–Feb 2016 Feb–Jul 2016 Jul 2016–Jan 2017 Jan 2017–Jan 2018 Jan 2018–Feb 2019 Feb 2019–Jul 2020 Jul 2020–Aug 2021 Aug–Dec 2021 Dec 2021–Jul 2022 Jul 2022–Jan 2023 Jan–Dec 2023 Dec 2023–Feb 2024 Feb 2024–present

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

Hey, would you mind terribly marking edits like these as minor?: [1] — HTGS (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: I didn't consider it minor. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I would have thought uncontroversial, small, typographic changes supported by the MOS would be the ideal edit to mark as minor? Do you have a different working definition? — HTGS (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay. Thank you for your work on 44th British Columbia general election. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a very blessed weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: That's cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 January 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Didier Guillaume, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktkvtsh: I try to, though most of my edits are rather obvious. PS - Why have you linked to your post? GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are used so other users can see what you did without having to look at the diff.

Simply typing "changed to vacant" would have worked here.

What post did it link to? I used twinkle to leave that message. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktkvtsh: It initially linked back to your first post, here. Now it doesn't work at all. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay Ah ok. Apologies. Not sure why it did that. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ErrorCorrection1 and upcoming Canadian election. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay,

I’d like to encourage you to take a moment to review my argument regarding the "F" proposal. For years, the current structure has been thoughtfully considered and has served readers well. My concern isn’t about preference but about preserving a phrasing that provides clarity and fulfills its purpose effectively. So far, I haven’t seen a strong explanation for why this change is necessary, and I think it’s worth reflecting on whether it truly adds value.

If you haven’t already, I’d also recommend checking out what User:Gluonz has added in the comments about previous discussions under Joe Biden’s page regarding this same topic. I think their input provides valuable context that’s worth considering.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on my argument. I’m confident we all share the goal of serving readers in the best way possible, and I hope my perspective helps inform the discussion. TimeToFixThis (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently used the following wording in articles: ..."Division I (or II, III) were two tournaments"... It's incorrect. The word "Division" is in the singular, so "Division was two tournaments" would be correct. See this talk. Personally, I wanted to avoid any doubt, so I started using the following wording in my articles: "Division consisted of two tournaments". So you should fix it; either the first or the second way. Thanks, Maiō T. (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well @Maiō T.:, I didn't know there was a difference. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]