Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:45, 21 August 2021

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

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

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 2 months and 5 days.

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

Awards

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

Edit count & Pie chart

Edit records

My Arbcom Case

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay

Archives

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

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

Nomination of Christine Fang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Fang is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang 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.

RfC

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

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

Bloc Quebecois Wiki Article

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)

Second Lady

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)

Consistency making opportunity

A discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Lead_sentences has resulted in the consensus that redundant lead sentences should be removed from international relations articles. There are hundreds (possibly thousands) of these. There is also a list here. It will take me months to edit all of them, meaning months of... inconsistency. Any help would be much appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:, I'll do what I can. In the meantime, I'll let you handle the US presidential primaries articles, as I'm not overly good at re-writing intros. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. The relations intros do not need overwriting, only simple deleting, but the sheer number of them means that perseverance is needed, and I am not good at that. Surtsicna (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll take me awhile, particularly with the better known countries. Fortunately, I've been running into mostly 'red-links' :) GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

PS - To keep my sanity. I'll do a country block, per day. Tomorrow, will be the Armenia relations articles, the next day Australia relations, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I have been doing it. Unfortunately, I think I lost my sanity half-way through the A's. Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GoodDay, glad my list is also of service to you as well. Please be aware no U.S. relations articles are listed as stated at the top of the page, but the issue of the sentence redundancy still exists on U.S. foreign relations as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :) GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: It seems when I goof up (see below), I tend to get a figurative anvil dropped on me. So, I'm abandoning the articles-in-question & letting others implement the WP:AVOIDBOLD & WP:REDUNDANCY there. See The Welsh Year articles, as another example. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have rewritten the intros of the Canadian federal elections from the Canada Act 1982 to the most recent. I'm thinking of letting it simmer for a while to see if there is any opposition and then complete the set. Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, we should keep the Year Canadian federal election in the intro of those articles. However, if nobody else is objecting to the removals or reverting? I shall let it be. I'm guessing you'd find stronger resistance on the US presidential election articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:, I've done the same at the intro of 44th Canadian federal election, which is being heavily watched, as it's about to be called (and thus moved to 2021 Canadian federal election). If the intro change isn't reverted there? you'll likely be safe with all the others. After that, you next step would be all the provincial & territorial election intros. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could pull your head in a trifle?

Re constitutional matters. I'm looking for substantive discussion rather than inconsequential chatter. If you don't have anything to say that isn't sourced, perhaps you could not say it at all?

On the other hand, if you have some authorities at your command that can comment on points raised, that would be helpful.

Not to upset you or disparage your contributions, but these are serious points, and I'm not really in the mood for banter right now. --Pete (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: as long as you don't start advocating for the governor-general as Australia's head of state, again? We'll have no problems. Just don't want to see you going down that lost highway. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, so now it's the governors of Australian states, you're attempting to push head of state on. IF that fails, what's next? The Australian mayors? GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

So, now you childishly revert messages from your talkpage, which you don't like. Quite entertaining, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Over 15 year later & sadly @El C: & @Jtdirl:, he's still clinging to the Elizabeth II isn't Australia's head of state bit. Now it's happening at the Australian state level, thus requiring this RFC -- GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

MoS Ping

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)

Question

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

C'mon, revert these edits on this page!

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)

Tim Houston - multiple reversions

Hi GoodDay. By repeatedly reverting the Tim Houston article, with edit summaries like "it's over, lad", you're not following WP:CIVIL. Also, as the edit you're reverting is controversial, please provide a citation for the "premier-designate" term that seems to be in question. Cheers, have a good night SECProto (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@SECProto: CBC news has been using the term. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Great! Please provide a citation in-line, as you're the one who wants to include the term in the article. SECProto (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You didn't watch the election on CBC news? GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe "editor stated he saw it on TV" is a valid citation. Reviewing a topline CBC article , it doesn't refer to him as the premier-designate. I've reverted the edit until an appropriate citation for the term can be found. SECProto (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Whatever, he's the premier-designate & he's going to become premier of Nova Scotia, sometime in late August/early September. So if you want to be argumentative over something that's going to happen? that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Disappointed

This is extremely disappointing. We were starting to cooperate and doing very well, or so I thought, and then you decide to revert all the edits without any prior warning, despite the agreement to wait to see if there are any objections, and despite there having been no deadline. How can I ever trust you again? Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There was a rejection, at 2021 Canadian federal election & I'm not overly in favour of unbolding. You had enough days to complete the task, so I figured you merely abandoned the idea entirely. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: If you're not still angry at me. You may want to chime in at Mass images/sections removal discussion. There's a growing number of editors, objecting to the section removal idea. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Australia

"Prime Minister of Australia" is the title of the role. Used in the first sentence at that point it is entirely appropriate to capitalise it. Please stop editing Australian articles that you don't know anything about. I should note we have already had this discussion ad nauseum earlier in the year. Deus et lex (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerning Australian articles, I don't appreciate your tone at this moment. They are not limited to being edited by Australians. PS: Would you please clarify your position at the RFC I mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deus et lex: Go over to WP:JOBTITLES & introduce your argument on how the Australian government officials should be exempt from lower-casing, in the intros. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Greetings!

Greetings GoodDay! As you are an experienced editor and have been cooperative with me since few days, I want to bring your attention to the article Monarchy of Pakistan, where DrKay has been edit warring with an absurd and non-sense logic that monarchy was not the "system of government". I then gave a source which said that "constitutional monarchy is a system of government", and even asked them to not revert and discuss the matter, but they continued with their edit warring. If I were edit warring like him, I would've been blocked. Even a child knows that monarchy is a system of government and also, majority of the Commonwealth realm articles have the phrase "is a system of government" in the lead. Other arguments can be seen in the edit history. Please look into this matter. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 12:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)