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.

I saw the series of reversions you made at President of the United States. Perhaps you should get Twinkle. It would allow you to revert to earlier edit and so you would be able to a group reversion in one shot rather than as multiple edits. SMP0328. (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Does that help one revert an editor's edits, without reverting succeeding edits by another? GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't go that far, but it would allow the reversion of all of a series of edits made by the same editor. SMP0328. (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarify. I designate a term to change & this proposed tool, will change said term throughout an article? GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Never saw TWINKLE do that.That sounds like AWB. It can rollback a series of edits in one click though. It also gives the option of automatically warning the reverted user. It is a powerful anti vandalism tool, but one must be careful. When I first started, I had a txt file I copied and pasted warning templates from. TWINKLE is a great time saver if used correctly. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It might be best if I stay away from Twinkle :) GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It also has a variety of welcome templates, if you are in to that sort of thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll consider it. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ready to volunteer? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Not me, but there's gotta be somebody out there with both the compassion & ability. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(sigh) That's a long row to hoe --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that Snowded would be a good candidate. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

ROFLOL. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah hah, Snowy has taken the challenge. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: we may have a potential problem, as he's now requested that his username be changed. Putting WP:AGF aside for the moment, it's as though he may think changing his name, will avoid getting banned. I hope this isn't a prelude to a sock situation. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As a global renamer, I would decline as it would have the appearance of avoiding scrutiny. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed in the last few years, that editors have been getting into personality clashes with @Snowded: on content. I don't wish to ABF or be cynical, but I do at times suspect that there's somebody with a grudge against him concerning or related to the topic Cynefin framework & perhaps that individual could be a banned editor who's creating socks to try & bring down Snowy. Just a theory of mine. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There have been a couple but not in this case I think. This editor is salvagable and I've offered to help him before and may do again(will sleep on it) but its about time you took omeone on GoodDay rather than asking other people to :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: You agree to mentor, and I'll change to "mentor and monitor". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll sleep on it but if no one else will ... Mind you I think it needs an agreement to 1RR and an absolute committment to no commenting on other editors -----Snowded ^TALK 20:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe you're more suited for the task. Best to have someone who's got a clean record. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm the only one with a clean record thanks for your support GoodDay it's much appreciated. (My username change request is for the reasons explained on my Talkpage btw - that specific identifier is in use elsewhere and I was advised there was a risk it could be compromised. No other motive at all. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cool & be sure to follow your mentor's advice. Don't work against him. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice received. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Joe Biden for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. That's twice now. You know better than to do this. Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course. Your comments violated WP:NOTAFORUM, which you absolutely know. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you & I meet before on opposite sides, at an article about media biased toward Bernie Sanders.? GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't take "sides". I don't even have a vote in US elections. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not American either. Why don't you let the RFC closer decide, if my posts have merit or not. You're not the boss & shouldn't be acting as though you are, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Meh, I think the MSM editorialising could look that way, but only in a certain light. It all comes down to reliable sources, no? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Depends on what the reliable sources are. CNN sources & MSNBC news sources are certainly going to push anti-Trump & pro-Biden stories, as well as anti-progressive Democrat & pro-establishment Democrat stories. Meanwhile, Scjessey should let the RFC closer decide on whether my posts have merit or not, instead unilaterally deleting them, simply because he doesn't like the content. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: GoodDay has a point about removing other people's talk page posts, and I think doing it to an established user is not to be done, no matter how repugnant one might find the posts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No. It's disruptive, clearly inappropriate use of the article talk page, and inflammatory. It's not that they are repugnant as to their content, it's that they are disruptive to collaboration on article improvement. I think that they should be removed especially when they're done by a long-established editor who has no excuse of ignorance or inexperience. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: Like Sjessey, SPECIFICO also is a no vote at said-Rfc. Read into to that, as you will. PS - I'll allow the censures to prevail. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You haven't been censured yet. By the way, I thought your !vote in that RfC was nonsense. It did not address the central point, to wit that there has been only a single allegation of "sexual assault" and the proposed change to the header leads the reader to believe that there were plural allegations of assault. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not let the RFC reviewer decide for him/herself, if my 'survey' vote has merit or not. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The closer if any will not be giving you personal feedback. I note you have no response on the substance. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I realise it's a US presidential election year. But over-reaction on those talkpages isn't necessary. Anyways, I hope the browbeating is done. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Scjessey this was my point as well, especially combined with your original edit summary which wasn't particularly civil. Glen 18:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we are back to removing other people's talk posts being a bad idea. We get that there may be underlying ideological differences clouding judgment or coloring perceptions. So better to leave the other editor's posts alone. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I presume you also think SOAPBOX ranting is a bad idea. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

PS: I was going to go to the Covid-19 question at the Donald Trump article & vote None of the above. Then point out how during a pandemic, both major parties still oppose Medicare for All, as they both have big Pharma among their party donors. But, I suppose that would've just gotten deleted, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a Premier of British Columbia and we need to provide much more content about his political life, views, statements, etc Normally, Premiers of a Province have much more relevant information listed about them. I will cite Premier Doug Ford of Ontario, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Ford

This article contains much more details about his early life, early involvement in politics, political positions, statements made, and controversies. Please also see Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York's Wiki article for reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo

I have added in a "controversies" section to discuss one of the most contentious and politically charged issues in the Province of British Columbia's history, the British Columbia Back to School Plan, one which has been discussed and featured daily all over the news in BC. We also need to add in something to discuss Mr. Horgan's political stances on issues such as the Trans Mountain pipeline, etc. Recently, Mr. Horgan reached out to Ryan Reynolds and asked for his help to convince the province's young to stop partying due to the spread of COVID-19. Topics such as this should be covered in this article as well.

I have tried to seek consensus however no one is posting in the talk section. They are simply reverting changes when I am trying to expand on an article about a political figure, presiding over a Province in Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than reverting changes, people should be contributing additional information and context. No one has provided any valid reason as to why these changes were undone and if anything, they should be expanding on this article, not taking away. Again, I am open to discussing on here and seeing how we can work together to expand on this important article. In fact, I would welcome as much help in this regard as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVisionary (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD get a consensus for what you want on that article's talkpage. You can't be forcing your changes onto articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay:
a wrangling argument or verbal dispute

Also called: argle-bargle

• https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/argy-bargy

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The DNC is actually getting JFK's grandson involved?? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

you can pronounce it that way if you want. @Secretname101 has been doing thousands of edits in that article in the past couple of days and you didn't complain about THEM. you know damn well that this is in the middle of the event and things are changing so fast that it makes one's head spin. Why pick on me? The charts are awful. I'm just trying to make sure the darn thing makes sense. There's a narrative and it needs to be told in a coherent way...sorry about the accidental delete. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what you're trying to do to that article, but it's a headache. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Look, I didn't create the charts. They were a lousy idea. @Secretname101 did, and there wasn't a consensus about THAT. What we need is a simple narrative. These are episodes of a TV Show. I called out for consensus on what to do, and nobody seemed to care so I went with it. We need to tare the thing to shreds and start over.Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has to be done. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The Japanese constitution names the Emperor of Japan as the Symbol of the State and of the unity of the people, and the wording that makes the emperor the head of state is the symbol of the state. Just because it doesn’t have the wording head of state written in the constitution doesn’t mean he’s not the head of state. DavisAndrew416 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@DavisAndrew416: nothing wrong with the current images. Anyways, getting tired of this back & forth. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

So, what exactly was the point in sending me to this talk page ? DavisAndrew416 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Use the Head of state article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GoodDay (or good evening, as the case may be).

In our work together on the 2020 DNC page I've noticed that you have repeatedly changed certain of my formatting fixes. For example, here you have changed "vice-presidential nominee" to "vice presidential nominee". Since the term is an adjective (and also per MOS:JOBTITLES), the word "vice-presidential" should be hyphenated and lower case. Only when we are talking about "Vice President Mike Pence", without any modification (like "former" or "American") do we use uppercase letters (and for the noun, we leave out the hyphen).

I hope you'll let my changes stand the next time I (or somebody else) may make them. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: Do wish that you'd leave out the hyphen, if anything else. But, I don't own the topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, WP:JOBTITLES has morphed into a sledge hammer, forcing de-capitalisation all over the project. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

August

Sunflowers in Walsdorf

Seeing your name on my watchlist, and last with "frustrating" in the edit summary, makes me come over to wish you a good day. What do you think about my New Year's resolutions, top of my talk? - I should perhaps add: avoid frustrating topics. I love the talk of Fylbecatulous, a refuge I sometimes seek. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The pro-establishment Democratic tilt to the Trump & Biden articles, is disgusting. CNN & MSNBC news are being treated as the 'only' reliable sources, while Fox news & independent news gets brushed aside. One only needs to go over the CNN/MSNBC analyst coverage of the first night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention to see the bias. CNN/MSNBC have treated M. Obama as though she were a goddess. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you look at my - rather general - suggestions? ... and the talk for refuge? ... have some flowers also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, it's the same in the UK. Sky News have spent the whole day blowing smoke up Michelle Obama's backside, whilst simultaneously ripping the piss out of Trump for not being able to hold his wife's hand down the steps of Airforce 1. The bias is real and very much exists in a supposedly neutral media. Cassianto^Talk 19:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it's so frustrating seeing mainstream news media attempting to manufacture consent & Wikipedians going along with it. Thus my frustration with the Biden & Trump articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Good day today, a first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Another good day: Rhythm Is It! for DYK. - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, GoodDay.

Whilst I find the boxes useful personally and I agree that there should be some level of consistency, I recognise not everyone feels the same way. I still have a lot to learn about how things are done here but not wanting to rock the boat too much at this stage. Hope you have a good weekend, all the best ScottishNardualElf (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@ScottishNardualElf:, you should make your Village Pump discussion into an RFC, you still can do that. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If I'm replying to myself it's because I am using WP:REPLYLINK and that's how it enters the edit summary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It's quite confusing, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Ever have one of those days, when you just want to put your fist through a wall? With each passing year, this project gets more difficult to maintain. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello there. I noticed you made this edit to the 2020 in Canada page. I appreciate that you added the 2020 New Brunswick general election however, whenever adding any event to any Year in Country page, please make a new individual month subsection for that event instead of making a subsection for multiple months such as"May and September" or "May to September." I separated it out but please in the future, if you add a event that happened in a month without a existing section, just make a new section for that month. Thanks. Dan the Animator 21:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator:, you may separate them into months if you wish. They're usually grouped together, due to there being very few events. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That is not the proper formatting though. Look at the 2020 in Germany page or other 2020 in Country pages. They also have few events but are separated into months. Dan the Animator 21:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Very well. BTW, ya don't have to ping me, on my own talkpage :) GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's the problem GoodDay, Blake Comeau isn't the alternate captain, it's Alexander Radulov!!!!! If you want to add Blake Comeau as the fourth alternate captain, go ahead but as of now, the alternate captains for the Dallas Stars are John Klingberg, Alexander Radulov & Tyler Seguin!!!!!

I've replaced Comeau, with Radulov. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, like I said if you want to add Blake Comeau as another alternate captain I have no problem with that, just don't take out Radulov or any of the alternate captains because he is an alternate captain as well. Also I don't want to edit too much on this page but I checked the Boston Bruins (2019-20 season) and apparently it says that Brad Marchand is an alternate captain. If you want to add him as well go ahead. I just don't want to jump into conclusion with that yet.

I suspect that Comeau was an injury replacement. As for the Bruins, Marchand 'only' wears the A, when either Chara, Bergeron or Krejci are out of the lineup. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay I just found an article talking about the alternate captains for the Dallas Stars this season here's the link:https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/stars/2020/02/02/dallas-stars-begin-the-road-trip-with-comeback-overtime-win-against-the-new-jersey-devils/Take a look and see.

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

//www.dallasnews.com/sports/stars/2020/02/02/dallas-stars-begin-the-road-trip-with-comeback-overtime-win-against-the-new-jersey-devils/

My bad made a typo on the link but anyway it talked about how the Stars added Esa Lindell and Blake Comeau as alternates. So if I'm not mistaken, the alternates would be Comeau, Klingberg, Lindell, Radulov & Seguin

Lindell & Comeau were likely temporary injury replacements. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Lindell and Comeau were added as permanent alternate captains while Radulov has not worn an A since last year when Jason Spezza was around.

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/stars/2020/02/02/dallas-stars-begin-the-road-trip-with-comeback-overtime-win-against-the-new-jersey-devils/#:~:text=Adding%20alternates%3A%20The%20Stars%20will,the%20letter%20on%20the%20road.

>Adding alternates: The Stars will have two additional alternate captains the rest of the season, with Blake Comeau and Esa Lindell joining Tyler Seguin and John Klingberg as alternates to captain Jamie Benn. >As they did Saturday night in New Jersey, Comeau and Klingberg will wear the letter on the road. Seguin and Lindell will wear it at home.

>The Stars began last year with a rotation of players as alternate captains, with Seguin and John Klingberg wearing letters at home and Jason Spezza and Alexander Radulov wearing them on the road. In February, former coach Jim Montgomery made Seguin and Klingberg the full-time alternate captains, removing letters from Spezza and Radulov.

Radulov has not been an alternate captain since February 2019. Comeau and Lindell are the new alternates in place of Radulov and Spezza.

The Stars official website shows nobody as alternate captains, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok I trust that it's right. Also could you check if Marchand is an alternate captain. The Boston Bruins 2019-2020 wiki page says he is. Plus I watched some Bruins games during the playoffs and he's been wearing an "A" ever since even with Chara, Bergeron & Krejci in the lineup.

Don't know, about the Bruins. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, technically, wouldn't Jakub Vorechek start being an alternate captain in the 2019-20 season? Because it says it's the 2018-19 season but I don't think he was that season (unless it was announced during the 2019 playoffs or the off-season).

Don't know, but I wish you would sign your posts & indent properly. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd read (somewhere??) that changing font sizes (aka "small") wasn't allowed (or maybe just not advised) in Infoboxes. Is that true? —GoldRingChip 12:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: Most of the # US Congress articles have small font for the dates of the President of Senate, President pro tempore of the Senate & Speaker of the House & so I applied it to the rest, per consistency via applying WP:IAR. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: The policy you are looking for is WP:SMALLFONT. Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections. The reason is to avoid creating problems for people with visual impairments. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. I'm sure you've noticed that Cassianto and SchroCat have quit the project. I fully understand their reasons for doing so, but it still hurts to lose good people who I considered to be at least friendly with, if not wikifriends. I hope to see them again someday. I found your page by fumbling about in some of the older discussions, so I hope you don't mind me stopping by. Best regards, and I hope you're well. Keep up the good work here. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope they return, even if under 'new' names. I fear what I've predicted will come to pass. Infoboxes will eventually be made mandatory on all bio articles. Even worst, as the project moves towards that stance, anyone who dares oppose it will be 'removed' from the premises. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope they return to there established good names. This vanishing, which makes us loose the connection to former contributions, is something I'll never understand. - I came with this question for you, GoodDay. For explanation (I don't won't to add too much to the other discussion): I come from opera, and there - as for plays - the first thing said in a plot is when and where it is set. That is no "shallow information" (as was referred to in said discussion) but a starting point. The key questions of journalism also come to mind "who? - when? - where? - what? - why?". Why not answer a few of those at a glance in any bio? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Wanna run that by me again? Symbolism isn't easy for me to decode. GoodDay (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand "symbolism". I may not mention which discussion, or will be scolded for canvassing. You will figure it out, I trust. What's wrong with mentioning where and when someone was born, died and what s/he did at a glance for any person? Why would the interest in these things be restricted to politicians and such? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Stats, time in office, dates of reigns is all that requires infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Who says so? For me, DOB, POB, DOD, POD and list of works is what I want to see at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I say so. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

My needs are different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Tapestries Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the recent edits at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Besides the fact the refs aren't in templates it seems to be just magazine junk.--Moxy 🍁 01:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Donald Trump and Talk:Donald Trump) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.  ~Awilley (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

But @Mandruss: isn't blocked. Very well. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It was not 3 hours ago that I said, "If I see that [edit warring] going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it." User:Mandruss was reverting toward the status quo, toward the emerging consensus, and was using good edit summaries. And they're one of the few people attempting to maintain some degree of decorum. ~Awilley (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You're the administrator & it is your choice to block whom you see fit. I've nothing more to say on the matter. We'll sit back & see what consensus emerges at that Trump & Pence articles, hopefully all related articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden should be mentioned in Trump's infobox. But my sanity demands I not actually enter any discussion or debate there. Sorry. Especially not over something that will be pointless in mere weeks. --Golbez (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Very wise of you :) GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you accidentally make the revert that resulted in this? It just seemed quite incongruous with the rest of your actions on that page.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: It was a mistake on my part. So many IPs & drive by editors, sometimes confuses the reverts. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us! Sdrqaz (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If it initially looked like a mistake to you because you didn't understand the rationale behind it, fine. No foul with the first changes. But I then reverted you with an explanation which should have cleared up your misunderstanding. How you could have still insisted it was an "edit mistake" completely baffles me! And, as I said there, you broke a number of existing incoming section links. After your many years of service, do you seriously not understand why that's a significant problem? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You do it your way. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

When I have such clear justification for my way, you better believe I do it my way. Good day, GoodDay. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You do it your way. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I am so jealous your drinking age is 19. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't be. I've never drank alcohol. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay cookie monster (2020) 755 22:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm certain that you don't realize that you've commented twice at the RM at Talk:2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia. - Station1 (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Howdy @Station1: I just noticed now, the declared result of that RM, (which I accidently undid). Wikipedia is getting more stupid by the hour, since the 2020 US elections. Folks there are getting mixed up with the pre-1913 US Senate elections. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it could go to WP:Move review but I don't think it's worth the effort. I doubt it would be overturned. Station1 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, after a few months into 2021, commonsense will prevail & another RM there, will result in moving the pages back to their correct titles. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I recommend that you read the policy and not edit war over this? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Will you please recognise that I'm trying to keep all those US Congress articles consistent. Why must you keep messing with that one article??? Just go on to something else. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, they should be consistently correct. If the older ones are wrong, we don't make the new ones wrong too. We fix the old ones. I can add it to my to do list. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, if I were to respond to this RfC would I answer in the "Survey" or "Discussion" section? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: For what 'fontsize' you think should be used? place under Survey. For elaborations, go under Discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess @Muboshgu: wants conditions for him to be favourable at the 117th United States Congress RFC. Thus his reason for now suddenly making multiple changes across several # US Congress articles. No doubt, he'll get his way with everything. SO FRUSTRATING. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Now he's going after all the inauguration articles. So begins another MOS crusade. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:PICSIZE: "specifying in px is not recommended in order to respect the users' preferences, which may be important for accessibility. Exceptions can, of course, be made, but do try to use upright or the default if possible." Peter coxhead (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No prob. Been under a little wiki-stress lately. I've been dealing with idiots over at the 117th United States Congress, 2024 United States presidential election & Donald Trump articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, dealing with idiots, both vandals and POV pushers, takes up a high fraction of my editing time too. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(Not to be read as applying to you!) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Haha, yup. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Just a quick heads up. I've archived my talk page as I usually do nowadays. If you had taken the trouble to read my user page you would have had the answer to your question already - and a lot more, but here's some background: This (May 28, 2016) and this, and there's even more on my retirement here - don't forget to vote. Oh, and in case you missed it, I'm not an admin any more - don't let those who still are get you down, some really are on a power trip 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. PS - @Kudpung:, I was considering making a bid for either administrator or arbitrator. But, there's too many hoops to go through to nominate myself. I had considered doing it, since I've been around here for 15 years. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Read this. I wrote it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm ruined. I've a temper, which got me a 2013-14 vacation from Wikipedia. No patients for diving into reliable sources. Not capable of long text reading ;). Best to find out now, then later. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't replace "date of death unknown" with a "?" per MOS:APPROXDATE - "Do not use a question mark (1291?), because it fails to communicate the nature of the uncertainty." Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

APPROXDATE needs changes. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bhikkhu Cintita is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhikkhu Cintita until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Pare Mo (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this revert I made to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections where I reverted six edits made by you, I would like to apologise for mistakenly reverting your restoration of the "undecided races" section.

The edits I reverted were (from oldest to most recent):

• Restoration of "undecided races" section
• Changes of seats won by the Republicans
• Making Miller-Meeks winner
• Updating Iowa's 2nd results
• Formatting
• Self-reverting Iowa results

I think I had begun my revert before you had self-reverted your Iowa results edits. In the future, these issues can be avoided by always providing an edit summary; it would also be helpful to possibly not use edit summaries to make snide comments.

Sdrqaz (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: No snide remark was made towards you, particularly. It was was for the general public. I put in the Seats undecided section, as that was used at 2018 United States House of Representatives elections article, 2 years ago. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I see, understood. Well, it's always better practice to put an edit summary in major edits (and minor edits if possible). I understand your frustration, but try not to let them seep into edit summaries. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2020 (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 shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

I don't see this DS notice in your history, so let me know if you have any questions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm now aware of this. Don't agree with it, but am now aware of it. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts, I have maintained the consistency of both pages by editing them identically. We had previously agreed that an AP race call or a concession would suffice to list a winner in each district. Obviously Iowa's 2nd is a special circumstance. But New York's 1st simply is not. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It actually not only makes sense, but is grammatically required. I added sources; you reverted without an edit summary. The hyphen applies to president (one word). The en dash applies to vice president (two words). Did you not read the cited sources?

See the Wikipedia Manual of Style on this use of an en dash (MOS:PREFIXDASH/MOS:SUFFIXDASH):

Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that includes a space or a dash

• ex–Prime Minister Thatcher (consider recasting: former Prime Minister Thatcher)
• pre–World War II aircraft (consider recasting: aircraft from before World War II)
• post–September 11 anti-war movement
• Trans–New Guinea languages
• post–Hartree–Fock
• Turks and Caicos–based company;
• a Rogers and Hammerstein–esque musical number

Also see this from The Chicago Manual of Style:

But, had we capitalized the term as a formal title, the en dash would have prevailed (though "elect," which isn't part of the title, would remain lowercase): "Vice President–elect Kamala Harris."[1]

While I appreciate your reaching out to me, it would have been better to look at the sources and, if you have an issue with them, discuss them in talk. Reverting for no stated reason and no cited source is unhelpful. Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Precision123: But why are you doing that only at the Harris page? GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I request your help with Christine Fang. Not only are you a fair person, you seem to know something about the policies of WP:BLP.

Years ago, Christine Fang was followed by the FBI for fundraising with the Chinese community and fraternizing with politicians. The FBI didn't make a case, and when rumors circulated in 2015 she left the country. Scandalous details were leaked a few days ago to Axios, with a sensational conclusion spies are aggressively attacking the US. It became newsworthy for the embarrassment to politicians "linked" to her (Eric Swalwell). This biography page is just a readout of the Axios article. None of the usual biographical details are known, but the top line factually says she was an "intelligence operative for the Chinese Ministry of State Security". Other editors have dismissed my calls to follow WP:BLP and seem determined to emphasize all the circumstantial evidence to persuade readers she really was a spy. Thanks for your assistance once more. Travelmite (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Travelmite:, that bio article should be deleted, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. Not only were balanced policies asserted, a editor seeking undue influence over content was removed. Merry Christmas to you! Travelmite (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No prob & a Merry Christmas to you, as well. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Medicare For All. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Medicare For All until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, GoodDay! It's 2021 in UTC±00:00 cookie monster (2020) 755 00:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: same to you. HAPPY New Year. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy new year! May this year be brighter than the last! And, since I apparently mangled the talk-back feature (ten years on, and I still suck at wiki mark-up, etc.): I just wanted to let you know that I replied to your question at Talk:Luke Letlow. Have a good one! — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Javert2113: Happy 2021 to you, as well. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@RWB2020: & @Angry candy:, this is my solution for the intro to United Kingdom. Use "country" for the UK & use "constituent countries" for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@AussieWikiDan: See my suggestion 'above'. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me how to bold and fix my talk page edit.108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I reverted your edits regarding the new senate majority leader. Because the Senate is now effectively 50/50 split, the party in control is reliant on the Vice President to break ties. The new Biden administration does not take office until January 20, so until that time, Republicans still have control of the Senate (because Mike Pence would have tie breaking power). Thus, no change in partisan control has happened as a result of the 2020 senate elections. The change will happen as a result of the presidential election, which is procedurally quite separate from the senate election. I hope this explanation helps. Brycecordry (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently @Brycecordry: you didn't read my edit-summary. Please look over 2014 United States Senate elections, 2006 United States Senate elections, 1994 United States Senate elections etc, where there was a change in majority leaders. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @GoodDay:. I did read the edit summary, and that is a good point. However, this 2020 senate election is unique, with an effective 50/50 split. The three elections you cited above are not 50/50 splits, even though there were changes in partisan control. This 50/50 split has not happened as the result of an election since the 2000 United States Senate elections. Thus, the general precedent used on the 2000 page should be followed. In 2000, Republicans were in control before the election, but due to the 50/50 split Democrats won control for a few weeks because Al Gore had tie-breaking power. This change in control (albeit temporary) was still reflected in the article. After the Bush administration was sworn in, control reverted back to the Republicans as Dick Cheney had the tie-breaking power thereafter. This year is different from 2000, in that Republicans have technically retained control of the senate (albeit only temporarily) as a result of the senate elections because of the Republican administration still being in office and able to break ties. Democrats will take control of the senate only after Kamala Harris becomes vice-president (and thus gains tie-breaking power). That would be an event related to the presidential election, not the senate election. As a result of this complicated procedural logic, McConnell actually remains majority leader after the senate election as the change in partisan control will technically happen in the middle of the term. If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to reply again. Brycecordry (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Very well @Brycecordry:. Though you should put a note next to McConnell's name. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @GoodDay:. I will see that an HTML comment is placed in the source to remind future editors. I will also see about placing a footnote to describe this procedural technicality. Thanx. Brycecordry (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)]]

Never mind, you beat me to it! Brycecordry (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Best to get somebody else. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You may wish to look in on the new IB discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: beat ya to it :) GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You said that for VPs, they should not be added. Just to ask, when is a milestone considered "notable" to be added? The VP itself is actually. If there's a good reason not to add, please state here. I don't think rigid rules should apply here. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: it's been the practice on the Year articles & Year in the USA articles, to add only the US president, for the inaugural entry. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Thanks for the prompt clarification, I must have overlooked the previous edits in my zest for info. I'll say the same practice will apply too if there was a milestone for the US President (the first female in future). TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You might be able to get a consensus for adding Harris in the inauguration entry at 2021 in the United States. But, less likely so at 2021 article, which is international base. If you wish, opening a discussion at either or both article's talkpages, would be your best move. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for that. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, GoodDay. This is regarding your edits in the articles on Rutherford B. Hayes and Grover Cleveland. Firstly, I fully support your removal of such trivial nonsense. However for future reference, make sure that you don't accidentally delete {{s-end}} as well. This is necessary to close a list of succession boxes. Removing it messes up all subsequent footer templates. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jay D. Easy: Gotcha. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi mate, I saw this edit and wanted to ask you about it instead of undoing: Angela Rayner is deputy leader/Shadow First Secretary of State, isn't she? Or is there some breaking news I've missed? — Czello 14:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The place in the infobox, is reserved for the deputy Opposition leader. If there's none? then it remains blank. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Is she not deputy opposition leader by virtue of being deputy leader of Labour? — Czello 14:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No, she's not. Same goes with those who aren't deputy prime minister, but only first secretary in cabinet. She's not deputy leader of the Opposition in the shadow cabinet, because there's nobody with that title. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean, cheers. — Czello 14:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: while you're here. Why are the prime ministers listed in the infobox of opposition leaders? The latter doesn't work for the former. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it's entirely a "context" thing -- as in, understanding at a glance who they were opposing. That said it' just guesswork on my part: could be worth asking at WP:POLITICS. — Czello 14:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I reverted some of your edits regarding the changes in seats for the major parties. The articles on past House elections do not include "Seats before" and the change of seats is based on the result of the last election. I have not changed the tables in the main article as they are still unfinished, and in addition think it would be better to remove the Libertarian tab since that information is better documented in the 116th Congress article. Aqtocx (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aqtocx: I've started an RFC on that topic over at WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

G'day GoodDay! (I'm Aussie, so I think I can get away with that.)

Re this comment of yours, I don't think it's had the desired affect. See my edit to a journos BLP here, they're still using lots of unnecessary, repeated links (and bad grammar, over-capitalisation, etc, etc ...) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• Created on 3 March too, well after your suggestion. This sort of thing, ... aggravates me, starting to think I should self-ban myself from Pakistan related pages.
• Congrats too, I hope, on making 15 years on WP. 220 of ^ßorg 14:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI--Oblio4 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I just found this page and I couldn’t help but think of you, and all your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8F37:A00:D5A0:4FDC:DC76:2E37 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you happen to know if injury replacements are supposed to be listed in the infobox of the team season articles? If not, you might want to have a look at the Vegas page. Yowashi (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we don't bother listing injury replacements. Otherwise, the list in the box (let alone the letters in the team rosters) could get crowded. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

[2] SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@SportsGuy789: That's quite awhile ago. Change it or revert it, whatever you wish. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd already reverted that. Just quite confused as to why you'd blatantly disregard the legend at the base of the navbox, and not even put an edit summary as to why you removed the coding. SportsGuy789 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

STOP REVERTING MY EDITS ON NHL TEAM SEASONS!!!!!!! 1978 Los Angeles Ravagers (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are full of personal commentary (not to mention your edit-summaries). GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up on a reversion you made with this edit. You reverted my removal of external links in it. I don't believe it was intention, just letting you know. Canterbury Tail talk 16:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Oops, sorry about that. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 1920, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Aren't you being a tad pig-headed? Read over the bios of the monarchs in question. Also note, in the 1920 article, not every thing in the events section is sourced. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, please let me understand you edit summary, "allowed to link to birth cities". Ingrid Haubold. My understanding is that we don't link to current countries and their capitals, period. Here Berlin. That is a familiar place, so even if it is "allowed" - by IAR or what else? - is it useful to know about today's big city? ... in an article that had 2 sentences at the time, and many links more relevant to her life were missing? Just trying to learn. I will expand within the next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

As long as I've been on Wikipedia (over 15 years), we've always linked to the birthplace (and death place) of bio intros. GoodDay (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Newcomer me, and usually not a MoS person, goes by MOS:OVERLINK where Berlin is even given as an example, and no exception for POB and POD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, about it. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we setup an RfC or central discussion regarding these rather than en masse remove them? Personally neutral on them by they will inevitably go back and forth. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle:, as you are a 'neutral' party, I wouldn't object to your setting up such an RFC. At the moment I've completed the deletions. Those 'series boxes' appear to be peppered over several bio articles, political & non-political. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle & GoodDay - I had opened a discussion on Talk:Ronald Reagan Re:Recent deletion of navboxes - let's discuss but I've no objection to a centralized RfC covering the 33+ US Presidential/VP articles that have had 'series boxes' recently removed from those articles. It seems like Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government might be one place to post about this but in my opinion that venue doesn't have a high-enough visibility for such a wide-ranging change, so one of the Village Pumps would probably be a better fit, perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? Shearonink (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Any of those locations would be better, then on an individual (Reagan) bio talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree re: the single article. I nominate Spy-cicle to set up the RfC. Spy-cicle, I'll place notices on all the affected articles' talkpages + the related WikiProjects... if you'll set-up the RfC. (Heh, I'd like to point out that those 30+ articles might be considered more than "several"?...) I think the present state of the series boxes (which I called navboxes earlier...oops) being removed should all be reverted to their previous state once the RfC is started and while it is ongoing. Shearonink (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, those disputed boxes should be transferred to the presidency of... articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I can set one up if you give me a day, but yes notifying all affected talk pages would be a big help. But yes for the moment until a consensus has been reached we should restore them to the status quo on pages that had them. Possibly options for said RfC could be:

Option A: Add/Keep all US president and vice-presidental series boxes on their main biographical article

Option B: Remove all US president and vice-presidental series boxes from their main biographical article

Option C: Shift all US president and vice-presidental series boxes from their biographical article to their dedicated 'presidency' article (suggested by GoodDay)

Option D: Do nothing/Decide on an article-by-article basis;

Option E: Something else.

Also FWIW, I am not commiting to staying neutral throughout the whole duration of the RfC, I'll wait to see the arguments on both side (on the one hand I can see the arguments that they clutter up the lead section, however they can provide a lot of helpful links for readers) @Shearonink:. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that, in the absence of a consensus, the articles affected so far should be restored to the status quo, having both series boxes and navboxes. I would earnestly request editors who want to modify the status quo should not initiate edit wars when the status quo is restored, as was done at Ulysses S. Grant among others. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

My deletions were bold indeed & necessarily so. Sometimes ya gotta kick hard, to get attention to a topic that has been unevenly applied throughout a series of related articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Bold yes, necessary no. You could have started a discussion on the topic beforehand about the series boxes, but anyway could you self-revert the deletions now that a RfC is being setup.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Somebody else has reverted some or all of my deletions, already. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

About "We go by age of realm, not by alphabetical order. Take note of the entire list." with your revert: My summary says "All things being equal, aphabetical order"; not just alphabetically regardless. Which is why I did not alter the rest of the list, precisely because chronogically some take precedence. At any rate, how is Canada older, when both say "1952–present"? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia:, Canada (founding 1867), while Australia (founding 1901). GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay. Appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the more advanced ones have had them removed. I haven't really worked on any past Florida, I intend to get back on this project. --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read and follow the instructions, and don't remove prior discussion links when you add new ones to the consensus list, as you did here. The prior giant discussion covered a lot more than just the wikilinking, and it's part of the record. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I don't understand you. The RFC was closed in favour of Option A. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If I have to spell it out for you, you shouldn't be editing the current consensus list ("edit with extreme caution" is there for a reason). The instructions state that Since items will not be inserted or removed, the use of # for automatic numbering is not needed. For clarity in the record, each number should refer to one and only one consensus, forever. When adding a new consensus point to this section please include the link to its relevant discussion(s) so that other editors can independently verify that the given point is a consensus based point. The prior discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 134#Lead sentence proposal is still relevant because it establishes everything about the first sentence apart from the wikilinking. Therefore, don't remove it; add the more recent one in addition and note that it modifies the prior discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You could've done that. No big worry, I shall do it. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb:, and so it's been done. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If I understood how to add Henry III and Alexandra to the family tree conventionally, I would have done that. Unless the nudge is there what will get someone who DOES know how to do it? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@96.250.80.27: if you don't know how to add Henry Ford III to the family tree? I suggest you wait & less someone else do it. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The wait might be interminable if there is no way to spread the word that somebody needs to do it.96.250.80.27 (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Surtsicna knows how to accomplish what you're attempting. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

And would love too, but that topic first needs a good quality source. Surtsicna (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The freep.com link I provided is not a good enough source? (The company press releases also exist but the Freep was the one that dated HF III's 41st birthday as after the board election and before the article). 96.250.80.27 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I see that we are both part of a very non-exclusive group of people who KidAd has been bullying. Oh, the joys of Wikipedia. Matza Pizza (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Haha. Yeah, he can be a tad stubborn, at times. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, I would like to invite you to a RfC started by me on RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States. Please leave your suggestions if you're inclined to. (You are receiving this message because CX Zoom spotted you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and thinks that you'll be interested to participate in the RfC.) Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 16:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:talk article talk pages are for discussing improvements to That (and only That) article. They are not for general discussion about the topic or Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'm pointing out why, there are a lot of disputes over the content at Donald Trump & now at Joe Biden. In today's US news media, there are no unbiased reporting. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Which is violating talk page policy, it is not for discussing why it happens. It is only for discussing improvements (see also wp:soap). If you have an issue with Neutrality take it WP:NPOVN, if you have an issue with reliability take it to wp:rsn. It is not (however) what the article talk page is for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Why would I waste time in any of those areas. The majority of editors, who have American politics as an interest, tend to be pro-Democrat. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Because that is what policy says, you do not use article talk pages as a wp:forum to air your grievances (I also suggest you read wp:npa). This is now a warning, not advice. If you continue to use article talk pages as a forum I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've haven't commented at the discussion at the Biden article, since your complaint. If you want to 'hat' or 'censure' or whatever that discussion, go ahead. PS - Your growing aggressive approach towards me, is quite uncomfortable. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a little hasty. The news reports say that Giordano will be selected. My bad. --Kevin W. - Talk 16:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Not a big prob @Kevin W.:. He'll likely be chosen, anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining the rationale for dropping that from the lede section? A link to the RFC mentioned would be helpful as well. Earl of Arundel (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Howdy @Earl of Arundel:, look up Archive 41, the entire RFC is there, to read. Take some meds, before you read it all. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, well in the meantime you may want to follow your own medical advice there! Seriously, as far as I am concerned the question of whether or not to include this in the lede is very much still very much up for debate. I would however like to hear what others have to say about it before pressing the issue any further. So for the time being at least I'll just leave it at that... Earl of Arundel (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Earl of Arundel: you may want to open up a discussion, concerning all the British monarchs after George V, not to mention Elizabeth II's descendants & cousins. There's inconsistency in the intros & infoboxes, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Will ya? Champion1997 (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure wish it would. But most Canadians aren't even aware that their country is a constitutional monarchy or that Elizabeth II is the monarch/head of state. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop over and tell you I appreciate your good sense. I don't think we are going to change consensus on the capitalisation thing. However, if they start to change capitalisations of infobox headings and article titles themselves, I think they would be against consensus. I assume that won't happen, but if it does then let me know and we will need to start an RFC. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It's going to eventually happen, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If/when it does let me know. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Okie doke. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, appreciate it. GiantSnowman 09:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: no prob. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey!

I would like to let you know that I reverted your edit that states that the # of seats the BQ has is 32/338. Since the BQ only operates in Quebec and runs ridings only in Quebec, it is better to put a denominator as 78 instead of 338. Sort of like the Scottish National Party. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: I wish you'd stop reverting & leave the status quo. This isn't the UK. In Canada the BQ is treated like a Federal party, even though it chooses not to run candidates outside the province. The party is still registered with Elections Canada. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, the BQ doesn't run candidates for the Quebec National Assembly, the way the SNP run candidates for the Scottish Parliament. The SNP would be like the BQ & PQ combined as one party. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: My apologies, as I just saw that two other people also agreed with your idea on the Talk: Canadian Wikipedians noticeboard. Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that in your edit of 2020 Summer Olympics closing ceremony that you removed the term "Second Lady" with the accompanying edit summary of "French president's wife, is first lady". How are those two related? Could you explain? I see no problem with the inclusion of the term "Second Lady" as the Prime Minister position is considered the second highest office in France so naturally the term "Second Lady" would be used. Thanks. -boldblazer (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boldblazer: "Second Lady" would fit, if there was a Vice President of France. GoodDay (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position. -boldblazer (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You were pinged to the section below here, the ping must take into account the section listed in the edit summary, which was incorrect. Best, CMD (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Why have you removed the Prince and Princess of Wales from Year in Wales articles? Was there a discussion about this? I can't see it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales. Deb (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: Because the prince of Wales doesn't reign over Wales & thus princess of Wales isn't his consort. The prince of Wales isn't a monarch, but merely a title. The British monarch reigns over Wales. For examples, see the Year in Scotland articles, post-1707 & the Year in Northern Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't want the monarch of the UK listed; that's inappropriate. The Prince of Wales is the ceremonial guardian of Crown possessions in Wales and the representative of the Queen in Wales. There may be some people who think it's appropriate to remove the Princes and Princesses of Wales from these pages, but even they wouldn't approve of replacing them with the monarch of the UK. Please could you undo the changes and discuss on an appropriate Talk page? Deb (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That place in those article's are for the Monarch. The prince of Wales isn't the monarch of Wales & hasn't been since the late 1200's. Again, look at the Year of Scotland articles & the Year of Northern Ireland articles which list the British monarch. Like them, Wales is a part of the United Kingdom (before-1707, Wales was a part of England). GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

How can it be inappropriate with Wales, yet appropriate with England, Northern Ireland & Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're approaching this topic as though Wales were a sovereign state (i.e independent country), which it's not. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Scotland, Northern Ireland and England don't have an equivalent of the Prince of Wales. Just as the "Events" section is limited to events that directly affect Wales only and the Births and Deaths sections are for people with a strong connection in Wales, so the "Incumbents" section is for people with a direct link to Wales. Deb (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, the Year in Wales pages existed long before the others and their format is well-established. Deb (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me, but again you're trying to distinguish Wales as being different from Scotland, Northern Ireland & England. The E/S & NI Year articles, also devout their 'events' sections to events within each respective constituent country's Year article. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

TBH, I'm quite surprised (indeed bewildered) by your reaction to my correcting edits. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

These are not corrections and I'm baffled by your thinking that they are appropriate. It's on a par with the Archbishop of York suggesting that Welsh sports teams should sing "God Save the Queen". I've explained all this above. There is no rule that says Year in Topic articles all have to be in the same format, and if you look at them you'll see that they are all different. "Incumbent" does not mean "ruler" or "head of state". It just means the person currently holding a position. We could add "Captain of the Welsh Rugby Union team" if we wanted to. Deb (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, the British monarch & prince (princess) of Wales shouldn't be in any of the Year in... articles of Wales & the British monarch shouldn't be in any of the Year in... articles of Scotland (post-1707), England (post-1707), Northern Ireland. But that's not the case. We should have an RFC covering Year in... articles, on this matter. PS - Usually the head of state is only listed in the Year in... articles of sovereign states, btw. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point - and it supports my argument. Deb (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If an RFC in the proper place were held. Would you agree with me that, only the first minister, legislature & other political offices pertaining to that particular constituent country, should be listed under 'incumbents'? In other words, leave the monarch & royal titles to the Year in sovereign state articles. Example: In the Year in Wales articles, we don't list the British monarch and/or the prince (princess) of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Then, what about the Prince of Scotland? Peter Ormond 💬 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: Or Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall etc etc. Recommend you give your input at the RFC at WP:YEARS. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to prove the reasons I want these edits reverted! You have to revert them right now! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You ain't that Nate Speed fellow, who's had his IPs blocked, concerning that article? GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, I'm not that guy. I'm just trying to prove that Warner Bros. supported that movie and that the reason it also had a UK release was due to the international sales company, which is why these changes need to be reverted. 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Nah, you haven't convinced me, Nate. Best ya get somebody else, to do proxy editing for you. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not Nate! And I AM trying to convince you! Believe me! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested. Get somebody else. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But the page is locked until November because it was FloorMadeOuttaFloor's fault! You have to revert them! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes! You have to! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything & you can't force me. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Just do it already, I swear to God! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't believe me? Then ask for changes to that WP:FILMDIST policy to include multiple distributors outside a movie's local country! 197.49.219.111 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Besides, you've just been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)