This is an archive of past discussions with User:GoodDay. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Firstly. I hope you a very Happy New Year. Thank you for the warning The problem of current Guvernor-general of Saint Lucia it is quite complicated. The only source that indicates Emsco Remy as acting governor general is www.worldstatesmen.org, a vey reliable source. But I did not find another source. Emsco Remy is the last deputy general governor about who I found information, so logically speking, he is the acting general governor after resignation of Dame Pearlette Louisy. But I found some disscution about a „constitutionaly crisis”in Saint Lucia, because in accordance with Constitution, the deputy governor can not become an interim governor in the absence of a general governor in title. Maybe this is the reason for which it is considered that the mandate of the the new guvernor general Neville Cenac formally starts in 1 January 2018, althought he will be sworn in only on 12 January. However, in the present Neville Cenac is not actually Governor. In my opinion, a chronological list that reflects the real situation taking into account both the constitutional provisions and the ’’de facto’’ situation would be the next - 1 January – 4 January – vacant - 4 January -12 January - Emsco Remy as Acting General-Governor for Neville Cenac who is not yet sworn in - from 12 January Neville Cenac. How about the user Mewulwe, I gave up fighting me with such individuals who believe that they are the only owners of absolute truth. However, from 12 January situation will be absolutely clear. Probably after that date the chronology can be corrected, because Mewulwe will be busy with other problems. Bogdan Uleia (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, good luck with those articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

On 4 January Tahc redirected List of state leaders in 2016 and List of state leaders in 2017 to List of state leaders in the 21st century without any reason. Neither I, nor you, nor other contributors of these articles expressed the accord to these action which I consider abusive. Please sustain me in the action for annulment of this action,express your protest to TAHC and ask the reversion of redirections. Thank you Bogdan Uleia (talk)

Hi,

I have undone your reversion to the changes I made to this page as there has been no objection to the proposals on the talk page after five days. I would be more than happy to discuss any objections you might have there but the lack of any objection or contribution from anyone else does not constitute a reason to revert.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Hutchinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As a participant in the temporarily closed RfC on the Greek royal family, you might be interested to also participate in the debate about a generalised rule in the relevant talk page. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Beat ya to it. I've already commented there :) GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benjamin Marra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Our mutual "friend" is causing a stir at List of British Columbia provincial highways. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh geez. He/she is always in battle mode. GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm staying out of that one. I hope you're doing well otherwise. Flibirigit (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I'm gonna let the community handle it. Ps - I'm doing great actually. Found out that a woman (who used me big time, a few years ago), has gotten to a point in her increasingly mixed up life, where she (55) is now in a relationship with a junkie (40). It's nice to know, that I didn't have to do anything to get revenge on her. She's doing the deed for me, by destroying herself :) GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are ya informing me about this? GoodDay (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I had the same question - see my talk page. I also asked Coffee on his talk page but he deleted the thread. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh well. We live in the era of Trump. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

[1] It already says he's designate underneath his name... which means he's designated to be the 47th Governor of Kansas. It makes no sense to leave the number off... Corky 21:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Howdy @Corkythehornetfan:. Not every incoming Kansas Governor was designated. Most were elected to the office. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of how they assume the position, he will still become the 47th governor of Kansas. What harm does it cause to place it in the infobox? Corky 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

He's not the 47th designated Governor, however. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Then let's remove the "Designate" part? Corky 21:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Designate under the title Governor of Kansas, minus the numbering is alright. We've been doing it this way for years. Same with when we put Elect under the titles. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Based on your recent comments on Talk:Elizabeth I of England, I thought that you might be interested in this discussion. I'll be glad if you share your opinions. Keivan.f^Talk 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I just saw your user page. I just want to show my support of your idea. ^_^ 2001:8003:8612:EA00:79E0:56E2:C488:842A (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool :) GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Why should the article about Letizia Ortiz be in line with half a dozen articles about current queens consort and not in line with two dozen articles about Spanish queens consort? It seems to more natural to me to have the article about the Queen of Spain in line with articles about other queens of Spain rather than in line with the article about the Queen of the Netherlands. Surtsicna (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Queen Letizia is alive, that's why. GoodDay (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Alive and queen of Spain, not of the Netherlands. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll disagree with you, until all consort (alive/diseased) bio articles are consistent, be it as Queen Name of country or Birth name. GoodDay (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand. I just wished to emphasize that the article is bound to be inconsistent with one of the two groups. It can either be consistent with 26 articles about Spanish queens or with 8 articles about current consorts. I thought that someone who values consistency would prefer an article to be consistent with a much larger group. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

In these situations, when all can't be consistent, I go for group consistency, which in this case would be living consorts. Anyways, I aborted the Rfc idea for that article. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I wanted you to know I reverted your removal of comments on the ANI board. The IP doesn't appear to be evading, it's likely a static IP of 2600:1702:1690:E10:A00E:3B7E:B836:C31A which really was having problems on the Billy Graham page. In addition, Favionian also reverted your removal of his comments as well. If you think the IP is evading you're welcome to open an SPI on them, however  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  21:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll let you guys handle the problem. But, my 12+ years experience, tells me the individual behind the IP is going to be trouble. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I notice that you were involved with an anon, 2600:1702:1690:e10:9c42:5c93:af68:63b1, who is apparently a long-term offender. Seeing as IPV6 IPs are cycled fairly quickly, the editor will be able to evade the 31-hour block fairly easily. I'm fairly certain that I will encounter the anon again, so if you could please point me to the SPI page, that would help me to do my part in future investigations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You'd need the SPI page of the editor who've evading his ban. I'm not certain who the individual is. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! We are working on this type of fix and we have a lot to do. I've seen you have fixed this type of error before. Would you help us? Thanks! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing for years :) GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Me too!! I have a big batch of articles with that error. I've already enlisted User:Patapsco913's help. The batch contains some thousand articles created by him. It is here. If you don't have any particular task in front of you, it would be great if you could help us with it. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I randomly do gnome editing. Therefore, I'll gradually over time, come across these articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I do the same... but it's quicker if you have the articles identified and do it systematically. So... you won't? Sad to hear it... --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm a zig zagger, not a straight liner. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, keep up the good work! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Merci. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your question: edit wars or debates? Recently: none, no edit war, no heated debate. In history: the debates were more of a problem, time-consuming and repetitious. I stopped participating, except minor comments, in 2016. Examples: Pierre Boulez and Cary Grant. For Boulez, I suggested a short infobox after the model Beethoven. Grant: the article had an infobox for 10 years, when those expanding it agreed it would look better without. I analyzed most ups and downs (over 2 years) in the workshop talk, in case of interest. (There was more yesterday, but I was told that the workshop was closed. I don't believe the talk closes.) New users will come, again and again, and think something is missing, and add it, and will be reverted saying there's a consensus on the talk not to have it. Try to find that consensus ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom's ruling (which is in progress) won't be too severe, then. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please label reference number 11 of this page [2]. TIA! (45.116.232.1 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC))

Don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't confirmed from the article I read. So unless it's widespread news, I suggest you wait. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Watch CBC news. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, CBC is saying there will be no decision tonight.[3] Nixon Now (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not what I've been watching. Anyways, I'm not interested in arguing about this further. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

CBC's Mike Crawley is now saying the PCs will announce no leader tonight. Your info had been superseded.[4]Nixon Now (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(And the original report was not an official announcement) Nixon Now (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not bothering arguing anymore. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Chief Electoral Officer Hartley Lefton has just announced there is a review of some of the ballots cast and there will be no final results announced tonight. Nixon Now (talk)

Ford likely won & party establishment is gonna rob him of it. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not our concern. The point is there is no new winner or leader yet so Fedeli is still interim leader.

"@CBCPolitics: Members were just asked to go home, and a press release was promised when the results are available. Hartley Lefton didn't give a timeline for when the announcement can be expected."[5] Nixon Now (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Direct quote from WP:FORMATTING: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes" Carlbergman (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Do what ever you want. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Same reason marraige template automatically produces normal font (right) - Carlbergman (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you made your point. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, can you please try to be more civil when people disagree with you or point out that you've made a mistake? Nixon Now (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Your responses to people who point out you've made a mistake tend to be passive aggressive. Nixon Now (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What are your sources that he only wears "A" when other alternate captains are injured? Roster reports from the NHL clearly list him as an alternate captain. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Howdy @Sabbatino: He's not listed as an A, on the Boston Bruins official website. Therefore, he must've been wearing the letter, when one of the others was injured/out of the lineup. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see the bottom of my talkpage. I seem to have less space than others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvgard (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you please engage in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty#Reign dates and provide sources to back up your assertions rather than edit-warring and violating WP:3RR. Jhood1 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in an edit war & so have opened an Rfc at List of English monarchs article. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Because [6]Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The entire article should be put in Draft status, until the Mueller report is complete & findings announced. But yes, Schiff is a modern day McCarthy. Anyways, I've lost interest in the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. You seriously might want to cut it out with the BLP vios though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at. The article-in-question, isn't a bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here.  :-) – Lionel^(talk) 07:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"Relitigating consensus for or against any article's infobox is banned for a period of twelve months after the previous discussion closed." Optionally: "Only extended-confirmed editors may open such relitagations." That should keep the trolls and socks at bay. At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and advertise it via a sitewide notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Does this mean, I'm allowed to open an Rfc on the matter? I think I'm an extended-confirmed editor. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You may want to cast your eye over Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Discussion intervals, which was at the most recent RfC and was rejected. The RfC is now moribund and awaiting formal closure. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, nooooo... GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

'Fraid so... And ArbCom seem unwilling to deal with the poor behaviour in the ongoing pushing. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Five participants in the sub-discussion and infoboxes are clearly something special if the fights over them repeatedly reach Arbcom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It may be worth floating a specific RfC just on the timeframes involved, but I would prepare yourself for those same responses to be repeated in larger numbers. Still, it's better than sitting on our hands. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best I wait a while. Maybe somebody else, will try a new Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As someone who explicitly abstained from the first part of the RfC, and didn't even notice the multiple proposals added later, I agree that it's worth waiting. Discretionary sanctions on Kubrick and a few other pages should give at least 3 months to let everyone be less exhausted from discussing the topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. —GoldRingChip 12:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I know. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Have a good day! --Annexxation (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You too. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey. I would like to know what you meant by "PS - We also have a Baltics compromise in place, concerning hockey personnel born between 1940 & 1991 in Soviet era Estonia, Lativa & Lithuania" in this discussion? What is the compromise and were can I find that discussion? Thanks in advance. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You can bring it up at WP:HOCKEY. But AFAIK, there's an understanding between hockey folks & Baltic folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

PS- I think it was the result from the dispute over Leo Komarov's birthplace. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming the reason that you reverted my edit, which clarified that the section at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_II&oldid=842632233#As_heir_presumptive was about Queen Elizabeth II becoming the heir presumptive and not about her own heir presumptive is that currently there isn't an heir presumptive.

I'm not sure if you'd then argue that if someone were to become her heir presumptive it would *then* be appropriate to add the word "as?"

I added that for clarification because to me a section called "Heir presumptive" looks like it's going to cover the subject's own heir presumptive, not themselves as when they were heir presumptive, and I'm not sure what the downside is of not putting "As" of the front... could you clarify please Shiggity (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth II doesn't have an heir-presumptive to the throne. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I recently overhauled the Bob Nicholson (ice hockey) article. I'm wondering if you would be able to provide some constructive criticism for the article. If you could, please post at Talk:Bob Nicholson (ice hockey). Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove the term lengths from the infoboxes? It is useful. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Because they're not used in the infoboxes of other political office holders. GoodDay (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hail from an old south-of-the-border friend. Can Justin run here in 2020? 174.28.112.143 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No. He's not a natural born American citizen. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Never knew you to take a joke seriously. Moreover, re Ted Cruz, please define natural born. If not...please take him back. Glad to hear from you. 174.28.112.143 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

At least one of Cruz's parents was an American-born citizen, thus the reason he could run 2016, just like McCain in 2000 & 2008. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Pssst I am perfectly aware of the vagaries of US constitution. On the other hand, no monarchy...yet! Lol. Have a good day GoodDay. 174.28.112.143 (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

See ya. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Chronological order of polls. —GoldRingChip 12:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whig Party (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

you have three reverts there , for what, you are an edit warrior, why bother, well i'll warn you anyways. Links to your revert war edits [one] - [two] - [three] Govindaharihari (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

First revert, is different from the following two. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you consider commenting on this RfC in addition to reverting? (To be clear, I didn't mean that you had to revert your own edits.) Mélencron (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No prob. After the gubernatorial elections, we merely remove the candidates who finish under 5%. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Inaugurations are obviously held during New Years day but that's beside the point. The term of office of the former president ends at midnight. As was the case in America too, prior to the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution. One president finished his term on March 3, the other took office on March 4. The 20th Amendment changed it to January 20th at noon. In Brazil, the term of one president ends on 31 December, as recorded in all official documents, and the successor's term begins on January 1st, when he takes the oath before Congress, and then receives the presidential sash from the former president at Planalto Palace. But the former president's term, and ability to sign any documents as president, has ceased since midnight. That's why the instrument of investiture says "until 31 December". You cannot ignore the evidence contained in the official investiture document. Antonio Basto (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Very well if that's the case for Brazil, but it was never the case for the USA. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Next Progressive Conservative Party of Prince Edward Island leadership election requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Howdy @Zackmann08:Someone else will re-create the article later, so not worried about it. PEI PC leader James Aylward has announced his pending resignation, so it's inevitable the article will be re-created. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A little bit of good grace - deleting and using a summary like "My mistake sorry" or similar would have got you a public thanks. But your actual edit summary followed up by doing the sock's work for him was graceless. I appreciate your making the change but please lets keep the 2012 GoodDay locked away :-)

I think I'm under some stress from the Rfc at Monarchy of Australia article. GoodDay (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

OK - now you are tempting me to take a look :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 07:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The 'pedia can be a very frustrating place, sometimes ;) GoodDay (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just odd 2 editors can mess things up so bad. Even after being shown its a far-right non issue they still cite non scholarly junk websites. Perhaps time to get more involved...last thing we need is WP:Advocacy on some non issue.--Moxy (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If Skyring/Pete gets his own way, the Australian monarchy article is going to end up as a carbon copy of the Australian head of state dispute article — btw, I still believe he created that article, merely as a vehicle to help push his monarch isn't head of state agenda onto the rest of Wikipedia. He won't stop at the Australian monarchy article. If he gets his way, he'll push his agenda onto related articles. He's been attempting for years, to muddle the head of state issue concerning Australia. Wish the rest of the community would open their eyes & take notice. Skyring/Pete isn't going to stop, unless the community steps in & stops him :( GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy:, as an editor who was banned for a full year (2013-14), I don't like to bring up another editors' past behavior problems. But in this situation, I should point out that Skyring/Peter was banned for a year in 2005, over this very same topic Who's Australia's head of state. So he does have a long history around it. Perhaps too long a history. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You are experiencing precisely what some of us see every year or so when that user decides to push his view that soccer should be called football in Australian articles. He takes it to several forums at once, with quite biased introductions. If you can suggest a way of reining him in, I would be delighted to hear of it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I've noticed his behavior at the Australian soccer articles, too. There's certainly a pattern. I think the time is approaching where he might have to be topic banned from anything to do with Australian head of state. He's been pushing his agenda in that area for nearly his entire time on Wikipedia, since 2005. I'm not very good at compiling diffs for any kinda report at WP:ANI. So it would best for another editor to do that, if they so choose. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: When I joined Wikipedia in November 2005, Skyring/Pete was banned from Wikipedia for about a year, due to his behavior over the very same topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

PPS: His last post on my talkpage, had the following 'edit summary' "Fair enough. No point talking if you aren't listening". Try not to laugh, when you read that. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I had a busy weekend. It's obvious you're being unfairly attacked, and the real purpose has been disclosed to you. You are an expert on this debate, because only a handful of people were involved in it, mostly on Wikipedia. My suggestion is to use the structure "You raised this point in 20##, and XXX and YYY discovered it was wrong because "direct quote". Avoid put yourself on the front line, as he lost the RfC was lost a decade ago. Above all stay cool. If the real purpose is what he said it was, make him hard work for it. Good luck! Travelmite (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, he is (in a backhanded way) suggesting that he's an expert on the topic & that I'm clueless, should leave the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: His last post to my talkpage used the following 'edit summary' "Fair enough. No point talking if you aren't listening". Try not to laugh, when reading that. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Listening to the US political opinion, reactionary candidates get bumps in support for being anti-intellectual. An agenda for change begins with research. For example, cancer research discovered smoking was unhealthy, which lead to rational policy proposals, and then a campaign to enact laws. Lobbyists (they can be politically left or right) are finding it easier to attack the start of the process - the researchers and facts. Wikipedia became popular by creating a free and efficient system to create informal tertiary sources, but also opportunity for all types of exploitation. I've seen some unimaginable corruption over students where I am. A motivating reward in a developed country could be something like seeking a pat-on-the-back from a person of high social status^[who?], but it could be a model for professional exploitation where genuine volunteers are driven away. Maintaining/protecting Wikipedia articles is labour-intensive, so that's the key point, keep the volunteers positive and value their time. If someone admits they enjoy making others feel uncomfortable or embroil them in time-wasting debate, that needs to be at the front of the discussion, not a side issue. Travelmite (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm cool :) GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering if you know what happened to our mutual friend Mies. He seems to have dropped off Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

He was much like you, in his agenda pushing ways. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You have a lot in common. Being Canadians, for example. He at least knew his subject, and bringing knowledge and expertise to a project like this is always a good thing. It's not a battleground. It's a place to inform readers, and it works very well that way. --Pete (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You're starting to bore me. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

On behalf of the thousands of readers, thank you GoodDay! We are so grateful for your wisdom and everything you do here. Travelmite (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Election is over with 100% reporting. Enough with your baseless accusations. I have not reverted anyone after 50% reporting. — Lbtocth^talk 17:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Baseless accusations? I don't follow you there. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, I have not reverted anyone after 50% reporting. Go check the history of the article. — Lbtocth^talk 20:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I never said you did or would. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of German presidents#Requested move 6 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ban is not a good idea in any case like this involving long-term editor. Two things will result... a new account will be created thus some sockpuppetry that will result in hours and hours of investigations to keep the editor blocked. Or they becoming a roaming IP causing shit all over. Very hard to get people who are Wikiholic's to stop editing. I always think it's best for them to keep their account so we can monitor them intervene here and there when need be. I can think of at least five sock puppets I've been following for a decade...... and four editors that I've been mentoring with their accounts for the same time period. And it's much much easier to follow an account then multiple puppets. I think we're starting to run into a problem with younger/newer administrators that don't realise guiding people versus chasing them down all the time is easier. Every Community has people hard to deal with and it's how we deal with them that separates us from other wiki communities...... or should I say did.--Moxy (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never been one to go along with indef banning editors, unless they're committing blatant vandalism. As HiLo48 isn't a vandalizer, he shouldn't be banned :) GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What's HiLo supposed to have done? Drmies (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Going by what I've read, some are complaining that he gets frustrated in editing disputes, that he's got a temper. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, GoodDay. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, why did you delete the portion of United States House of Representatives elections, 2018#Seats to be called detailing the status of CA-21 as a district that still may flip despite the AP's call? I think, seeing as the latest numbers have pushed it down to half a point, that that's something that warrants mention. Westroopnerd (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have. If the seat flips, we then flip it at the article & make the appropriate changes. Otherwise, we don't flip anything. FWIW, I'm trying my best to keep the United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 & 116th United States Congress articles as coordinated as possible. Many IPs & newbies are popping in at these articles & throwing numbers out of wack. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I would contend otherwise. It's clearly a major sticking point among election experts, with many arguing that calling the race was certainly a premature move. AP hasn't been infallible this cycle. Describing the race as a done deal, like the article currently does, is incredibly misleading. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

And who made you the King of the Midterms? You're actively misleading the general public. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Bring your concerns to the article's talkpage. That way, you'll get more input. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As you can see @Westroopnerd:, the CA-21 race can be placed next to the NY-27 race, quite neatly, without a huge write up. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll eventually get around to it :) GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. It was actually a separate nested template, {{Canadian politics/leadership election/Progressive Conservative Party of Prince Edward Island}}, that gets called by the infobox rather than being coded in the infobox per se, but I found it and added the links. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The table syntax has gotten complex; I'm 100% fine with adding if requested and justified. But right now, it's not justified. There's no source that says Scott is resigning; for us to then label Lopez-Cantera as governor-designate is original research. Will Scott resign? Almost certainly. But *almost*. It's happened before where people didn't resign governor to enter the senate right away. Fundamentally, without any sources, we can't say it. --Golbez (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to remove the original research from the Carlos Lopez-Cantera, Rick Scott & Ron DeSantis articles, too. All three have CLC as being the next Florida governor. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I can tell the people who do work on those articles that they've put up original research. I'm not interested in working on the articles or composing copy for them, it's not necessarily my job to clean up after peoples' original research if I can point it out to them and they can do their due diligence to correct it. --Golbez (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

My main concern is consistency across such related articles. I'll start a discussion at Carlos Lopez-Cantera (as that's the key article in this topic). I won't mind which way it goes, as long as there's a settlement :) GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, btw, for my tone. It was a lot more confrontational and angry than I'd intended. --Golbez (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem. PS: I've been around the 'pedia for over 13 years & still can't figure out the mechanics of color, rows etc of those List articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

On the US House #s? I think I fixed what I broke everywhere I broke it... Levivich (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

All I'm certain of, is that the article will be settled by January 3, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes but that is six weeks away, during which time I think it hurts wikipedia’s reputation if it can’t get something as well documented as how many seats are still up for grabs right. No? Levivich (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Another editor or ip, will come along & change the numbers again & again & again. I've given up on stability for that article, until January 2019. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Took 12 hours for you to be proven right, but it was a gloriously stable 12 hours, eh? Levivich (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha, it'll be unstable until at least January 2019. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, me again. I was trying to go by the other House articles on the seat change:

2016: seats change = seats won - last election (not seats before)

2014: seats change = seats won - last election, seats before isn't even listed

Then:

2012: seats change = seats won - I think seats before, but seats before isn't listed (it's not last election, though, not per the math)

2010: seats change = seats - seats before

2008: seats change = seats - seats before

...and that's as far back as I went.

I inferred this meant in 2012–2014 the consensus was to use "last election" and not "seats before." Apologies if that was mistaken.

In any event, I think "seats before" makes more sense, in which case the number ought to be 39–40 pending CA-21. But, more importantly, it ought to be the same across these articles.

Thoughts? Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

All the House elections are done as seat change going into the election. Thus in the case of 2018? It would be Republicans decreasing from 235 'not' 241 & Democrats increasing from 193 'not' 194. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

2004, 2002, and 2000, 98, 94, 92, 90 also all use "last election," not "seats before" (which isn't listed in many/most of them), from what I can tell. 96 seem to use "seats before" but doesn't list it.

The template documentation says "seat change" calculates from "Last election" not "Seats before." Seat change: "The change in the number of seats won at the election compared to the previous election. template:infobox election

Are you sure you're right about this? I only ask because the majority of the elections over the last 30 years go the other way, as does the template documentation. Mind you, I think "seats before" makes more sense, and I don't see a problem with ignoring the template documentation. (I see you've already updated some; thanks.)

But if calculating "seat change" from "seats before" is the standard, in variation from the template documentation, we ought to document that somewhere. Where would such a thing be documented? Or is it documented somewhere I missed?

I don't mean to argue with you, I just don't understand how things work here and why something this basic (like the definition of an infobox line for major elections) remains apparently unresolved/inconsistent and undocumented or improperly documented. I followed the documentation and what I saw in the previous two cycles, and that was apparently incorrect. We should clarify this for the next newcomer that comes along. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind which way they're done. As long as it's consistent across the board, for the House (and Senate) elections. Perhaps a discussion concerning all House & Senate races should be had. Since usually the numbers are different, due to special elections during the 2 year cycles. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel the same way, as long as it's consistent, I don't care which. Taking this discussion to the talk page section you started. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I overwrote one of your "not the info boxes" capitalization of title before I noticed what was going on. Please explain the point there; what makes one want to go against MOS:CAPS in this context? Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

They stay capitalized in the infobox headings. If you were to make such changes to the US President & Vice Presidents? many editors would revert you. PS: You were doing great in the content. But, the infoboxes stay capitalized. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

But why? The template, too. Headings are always in sentence case. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's how it is, with the American political articles. Captialization is always the case for infobox titles. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

No. The Wikipedia Manual of style is very clear about this. The style of capitalization for infobox titles (actually their headers) is sentence case not title case. Please refer to the MOS:HEADCAPS section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. There are no exceptions because the whole purpose and concept of "infobox by template" is to maintain consistency. And by its very definition, it makes no sense to place an artificial restriction on consistency (geographically or otherwise). ChrisJBenson (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In practice, it's always been capitalized. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Invalid argument; see WP:CONTENTAGE. When WP:P&G material gets clarified, the clarifications are applied to all articles (over time); there is no magical exemption for content to remain non-compliant simply because it pre-existed the clarification.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You're free to decapitalize the infoboxes. But you're likely to face opposition from others. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of [7] ? Adding details to the governor, so 1) they aren't always tied to the election [but those are still useful to quickly illustrate transitions], 2) people who can't easily use tables (screenreaders, etc) can still get the full context; 3) it allows detail on when terms began even for re-elected people; 4) it allows to say why a governor left office, if they lost or didn't run, or whatever; 5) every entry gets one, unlike elections, where if a footnote exists you know it's important. What do you think? --Golbez (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Golbez: go for it. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ooh ooh I had a better idea: User:Golbez/sandbox Put in why they left office in the date column, and stop treating the 'election' column as a way to describe distinct terms because, well, sometimes it doesn't work out that way. (I realized this when working on Alabama and getting to the 1860s. Whoops.) Benefits: cutting down on footnotes, putting footnotes where they're contextually relevant, simplifying table layout (much less need for complex rowspans), less need to jump between table and footnote to get the full picture. Thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Golbez: go for it :) GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not know there was a consensus. Tigerdude9 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember where the discussion is/was, though. To be fair, you can open a discussion at the article-in-question, to get clarification. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message but I was never away, just concentrating on other things and doing very little editing. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything saying that it only takes effect in January, when he becomes Attorney General. But if you find a source, by all means re-add him. Deputy DNC Chair is a position they basically made up for him to appease his supporters after the bitter battle with Perez. He is the first person to hold the position, and I don't think there will be anyone replacing him in that role. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have source. But, yeah it was a way for the corporate Democrats to silence the progressive Democrats. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

In re: "Attorney General" — he was elected Attorney General of Minnesota in November. Every single source on Ellison's resignation uses past or present tense (i.e., "has resigned" or "resigns") as opposed to future tense ("will be resigning" or "will resign"), which leads me to believe that Ellison has already stepped down from his position as Deputy Chair. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Will need more clarification, seeing as this hasn't been edited into Ellison's article, nor the Deputy Chair article. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Found one: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/keith-ellison-resigns-from-dnc-post MAINEiac4434 (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, could you please explain why you reverted my edit Special:Diff/873232109/873235518 at Head of state, with the edit summary "Rvt sock"? My edit reverts three edits by ScienceLad123, a sock puppet of long-term abusive blocked editor Shingling334, to the last version of the article by you. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What I'm seeing, is a sock reverting a sock. All quite confusing. I assume you 'were' the IP 188.174.20.254 GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I'm not a sock and I have no connection to the IP 188.174.20.254. I've reverted the edits of ScienceLad123 on the basis of WP:BLOCKEVASION and WP:BMB. Sorry if it was confusing for you. --IamNotU (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, in the future, if you have a concern with someone, please consider asking them about it on their talk page before proceeeding with an complaint to WP:ANI, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Red colored editors, usually make me suspicious. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't judge a book by it's cover - or lack thereof! Anyway, it's not a problem, and again I'm sorry that it wasn't clear to you from my edit summary what I was doing... --IamNotU (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Have received your (weirdly bumptious) message vis-a-vis seat totals. As I've pointed out every time I've made the change, the '235 or 236' figure is without any logical basis -- there is no result in NC-09 and *zero* prospect of a Dem pickup in the absence of a special election -- so while you can just about sustain a silly case for 235 Dem seats and 200 GOP seats, it's clearly far more sensible to leave at 235-199. This is not difficult. Nothing on the talk page cuts against it and none of your edits have had the grace to even hint at alternative thinking. Bob-in-1945 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bob-in-1945:, you're not even consistent when you were removing it. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you have done some work on Deaf Side Story. Just to let you know, I have proposed it for deletion.CircleGirl (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been wondering about Arkansas. Other states might make it clear that a successor is 'acting', but Arkansas might really mean it. But, if it applies to them, what about Parnell, Huckabee, and Tucker before their elections, were they still Lt Gov? And if that's the case, then how was Rockefeller elected to fill a seat that Huckabee still technically held? Like, did Huckabee explicitly resign from Lieutenant Governor at some point? --Golbez (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Golbez: Parnell, Tucker & Huckabee succeeded to the governorship upon their predecessors death an resignations. For some reason, Rielly & Purcell didn't succeed upon their predecessors resignations. I've been trying for years, to figure out why. My best theory? up until the 1980s, Arkansas didn't allow a succession with certain amount of days left in a term. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You have to be 'more careful' when changing dates in those lists. Such date changes would need to also be made at corresponding bio article. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll clean up the articles at some point, don't worry. But as for those not succeeding - do we have a source on that? --Golbez (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

If Riley & Purcell had succeeded? Hutchinson would be the 48th governor, instead of the 46th. In Purcell's case, he continued as lieutenant governor under the 'new' governor Bill Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try emailing the state. --Golbez (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I will at some point. Or you can. :) --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you removed the designate link on Patrick M. Shanahan? Colonestarrice (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

No need to link to the word Designate. For example: Acting isn't linked, in Whitaker's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, Designate isn't linked, in all the incoming House committee chairman bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

In its common placements (either beneath the office or as a prefix to the office), acting is never linked in an Infobox because 1) it would lead to confusion 2) the term is frequently used in general and does not really require further explanation. Designate however, is a much more uncommon term and it being linked would also ensure consistency with incumbent, which is linked as well. If it isn't linked in all the incoming House committee chairman bios then you're welcome to link it there. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

We've a bigger problems at Kevin McCarthy, on the infoboxes of House minority leaders. We shouldn't be listing speakers, as their leaders. It's confusing for readers. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "IP problem"? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Check the page over. It keeps updating the governors too early. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like January 3 might have been an optimistic estimate :-) Who would have guessed? Never underestimate America, I suppose! Cheers–and Happy New Year! Levivich (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy 2019 @Levivich:. What's the story on the North Carolina 9th district race? Tomorrow, it's gonna be mayhem, fighting the less informed, as they'll be trying to edit in the new House & Senate members before Noon EST. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I was going to write it here and then I thought, I'm just going to put the RSes in the relevant articles and you can read it there. I believe tomorrow we will have 434, not 435, members of Congress. One possibility is an NC state court could intervene and certify the results or take some other action, although I think the next hearing is weeks away. Maybe the Governor could make an interim appointment. Levivich (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You mean of course 434 members of the House, as senators are also members of Congress ;) GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh right, I suppose NPOV requires we include them as well... ;) I expanded the 9th NC article a bit and left a note on the 2018 US House page. Levivich (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If you see articles like Nick Clegg, articles indicate when the predecessor left the office when the position was vacant in the end of the year. Please check articles like these and revise Jair Bolsonaro, Michel Temer, etc.

It's not used across all the Brazil vice presidents bios. Consistency is the key, here. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If you go back a few years in those articles, you find "Federal Government" overcapitalized, too. Consistency is hard to get to, but it's easier if you generally go in the direction that guidelines point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Go back to 2001 in the United States and it was all correct. That's as far as I've gone so far. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a good source for the Jan 1, 2019 retirement date? It would help. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've heard on the news, he retired after midnight, New Year's Day. But, can't find any sources. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I live here in Texas & Inaugurations for Texas Governors take place on the 3rd Tuesday every 4 years.

Governor Abbott's Inauguration begins on January 15, 2019.

Apparently @725edwards:, CNN really is fake news. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

At 6:58 on Jan 6, you reverted my edit putting Brad Little as Governor of Idaho, with a snarky "not until Noon PST", but according to this article he was sworn in already on Friday the 4th: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article223936850.html. I will thank you not to revert one of my changes ever again without first checking, you know, if it had taken place or not. A simple google search would have proven me right and you wrong. How anyone ever gave you a wikiaward is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilhuus (talk • contribs) 06:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The event on Friday was strictly ceremonial. The actual taking of office was on Sunday, January 6. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Great catch, thanks. Unfortunately, even though we know the precedent was set in 1955, it's contingent on the oath of office, so we can't say without sourcing that other governors automatically left office at midnight. It's not like Alabama, where the court appeared to rule that all governors take office at midnight, regardless of oath. But I've made an attempt to update the Florida list accordingly. --Golbez (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It's all quite murky. Some states like trying to trick us, like Idaho for example. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted you before messaging you first, sorry. The referenced link states, "The reason for the middle-of-night transfer of power is that DeSantis filed his official oath of office well before Inauguration Day. It was received by the Secretary of State's Office at 2:10 p.m. on Dec. 13 and will take effect after midnight Monday, state records show." So they didn't take the oath at midnight - they took the oath weeks ago, it simply took effect at midnight. --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Then the took their oaths (publicly) at noon January 8, 2019 :) GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

the unwarranted removal of this comment, thanks 2607:FEA8:BE60:28E:A050:5133:9208:B8F7 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Which block evading editor, are you? GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi We couldn't write without source that Guaido is acting president. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do as yas wish. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What's this about? Dicklyon (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon:, I couldn't think of any other way to fix it. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it better, via cut/paste/copy :) GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave a thorough reworking today, too. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read the above. Adding "current" or "currently" is bad, and using other pages that are doing it wrong does not justify doing it wrong on more pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to implement that to all the current US governors & lieutenant governors bio intros. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, look through my edit history and you'll see that I'm trying to. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#‎Federal election charts in State articles.--Moxy (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Please note the preposition needed! Thanks Ericoides (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ericoides:, please clarify. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You're not killed "in" a mountain, but "on" it. It's basic English usage. And it's "the Matterhorn", not "Matterhorn". Ericoides (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Because you insist on inserting prepositions into birth/death info in an articles's lede. Indeed it seems that you're on something of a campaign to do so (misguidedly, in my opinion, as the info as it stands without the preposition is perfectly comprehensible). If you are going to do it, the preposition has got to be the correct one. Ericoides (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

―Mandruss ☎ 19:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in reverting Bidhan Singh Vandalism. I just noticed you do not have WP:ROLLBACK rights, Perhaps you can read about it and see if it can help you. IMHO i believe using it will help you to revert This vandalism in a click. also check WP:TWINKLE which is another useful tool to revert vandalism like this. thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll pass on Rollback, as it's something new to me. I'm loath to trust new techno stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

All right, I can't force you to use something you are not familiar with, but just know that these 2 tools simply add a link to REVERT the edit on the diff page, and clicking the REVERT link makes revert considerably faster and reduces time and efforts as compared to "undo" that you normally do. These were added to empower anti vandal patrollers so that they are a step ahead of vandals. By the time a Vandal can make 1 vandalism, a user can make 10 anti vandal reverts using this permissions. Techno stuff are for the greater good. I dont think I will be able to contribute to Wikipedia if somehow Twinkle stopped working So you can imagine how useful this tool is.

If you are not using these tools then I can imagine the desperation of going through the steps to revert Bidhan Singh Vandal. which is making you angry and frustrated.

You can give it a try, I am available to answer any questions that you may have on these tools. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's quite alright. I'm content that 'more' editors are aware of the continuing vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Since I have been watching these pages after your report. I have already got 1 page protected and requested another after revert by User:LiberatorG. Just curious to know how, Bidhan Singh vandalizer responds if no one reverts his addition of the white space on the talk page ? --DBigXrayᗙ 04:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Bidhan Singh is a cereal vandal, who isn't going to stop. Wikimedia would have to track him down & somehow have his access to Wikipedia, entirely blocked. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Talk:Prime_Minister_of_India is now protected for another week.

• You did not answer my question yet. How does he react if no one reverts his addition of white space ? does he add more white spaces after that or does he move to other page ?
• Wikimedia, cannot track him down. He is using very popular mobile phone network to edit and his IP changes frequently so it is technically not feasible to block his IP address, because he will just re-emerge with another IP. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

With that knowledge, he won't stop & will move onto other articles. The guy's doing it for cheap thrills. I no longer bother requesting page protection, because administrators won't either protect the pages for long or keep the IP accounts blocked. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: If his edits are ignored he will add more edits to the same articles the next day; a new blank line one day, a space another day, deleting a blank line or space another day. On a handful of pages he'll make more substantial changes, with slight variations each day. If pages are protected he will switch to other related pages. If his IP is blocked he will switch to a new IP. For example some of his favorite pages were protected and his IP 2405:204:C105:ECEB::/64 was just blocked, so he just edited other pages with a new IP 2405:205:A169:AADB::/64. -LiberatorG (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:LiberatorG, thanks a lot for the detailed reply. I see. So I guess, temporarily protecting his favourite pages looks like a good idea to frustrate him for a while, in hopes that he drops this and finds a better hobby like blogging or something. But protecting the pages we are watching, will also lead to him moving on to other pages that we aren't watching, so those pages will be at the mercy of page watchers there (if any).--DBigXrayᗙ 05:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If Wikimedia or who ever's in charge of these things, aren't willing or able to block the asshole? Then he's just going to continue being an asshole. GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay I am not sure if you are aware of this but please understand that he is using a mobile network that has 250 million users. You should be able to comprehend the problem about blocking him with this number. The vandalism he indulges is almost harmless low quality , easy to spot and 1 click revert away (if you have any one of these WP:ROLLBACK or WP:TWINKLE), on the other hand blocking all the IPs will impact 250 million users and a very big impact in the form of collateral damage, that you don't seem to appreciate. Please think of other ways to solve this. Blocking isn't a very reasonable option here. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia isn't capable of handling this type of vandal? then that's their problem. I don't waste my time anymore, requesting page protections. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

300,000 is a mighty big number! Just wanted to drop a note to say thank you for your many contributions to the encyclopedia. Levivich 19:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Leviv, which is why I had appreciated GoodDay's work with a barnstar last week. What is even more flabbergasting is to see that he achieved this without using WP:TWINKLE. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've transferred your medal present to my Awards page :) GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Why are you undoing my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100f:b125:1224:d075:21d1:eb81:e6ad (talk)

Didn't you get the memo? After IPExit, Theresa May has signed a deal between the Devil and the DUP meaning that after 29 March 2019, IPs will have no rights at all and be deported to Bongo Bongo Land. So we're just getting into practice in censoring people views by people who've got no respect to give us a roasting over it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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.96.36.68.29 (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)